User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 32

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

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

How should I deal with this user?

This user acts like he is in a battleground. His behaviors, edit summaries, and comments are problematic. Recent example (anti-ethnicity comment). How should I deal with him? He is blocked before and his talk page is full of warning messages. An admin should watches his activities. --Zyma (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just look at his talk page. I'm really tired to continue watching his edits. --Zyma (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Got to go out now Zyma and just stopped to look at this. DO you want to go to WP:ANI now? I'll be back in a couple of hours. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No Dougweller. I tried WP:ANI several times and I didn't get good results for my reports, so I think I should report to admins directly. Specially admins like you who are familiar with those issues, article topic/subject, and behvaiors, and able to solve issues and conflicts between such users and other editors. --Zyma (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of those users with this type of behavior have poor command of English language (they usually use Google Translator) and see Wikipedia as a pro-Political OR pro-Ethnicity website, so I can't do anything. Just warn them for 3-4 times, then report them, and then they return with their new/alternative accounts! Zyma (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

94.180.X.X

Now he's active with this IP-range: 94.180.X.X. It seems that he is on a non-stop quest on Wikipedia. Meaningless edits plus very bad edit summaries (poor English skill, not even basic level). Targeted Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey-related articles. Zyma (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know which articles, ok? Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles: Kara Koyunlu, Caspian race, Chovgan, Armenians, Armenoid race, Khurshidbanu Natavan, Tat people (Iran), Tat people (Caucasus), Qashqai people, Mazanderani people, Gilaki people, and others (Is it possible to track all 94.180.X.X's activities?). That user just inserts his POVs, biased edits, removal of content, source falsification and other similar behaviors. All of his edits based on his Anti-Armenian, Anti-Persian, and Anti-Kurdish stuff and his nationalistic POV. --Zyma (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, one question: Which noticeboard is suitable to report activities like 94.180.X.X's ones? --Zyma (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

He's active on many articles. For example, another nationalistic slur in edit summaries, pure incivility: [1] (another article that I didn't mention in the above list). --Zyma (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How should I deal with this user?

This user acts like he is in a battleground. His behaviors, edit summaries, and comments are problematic. Recent example (anti-ethnicity comment). How should I deal with him? He is blocked before and his talk page is full of warning messages. An admin should watches his activities. --Zyma (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just look at his talk page. I'm really tired to continue watching his edits. --Zyma (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Got to go out now Zyma and just stopped to look at this. DO you want to go to WP:ANI now? I'll be back in a couple of hours. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No Dougweller. I tried WP:ANI several times and I didn't get good results for my reports, so I think I should report to admins directly. Specially admins like you who are familiar with those issues, article topic/subject, and behvaiors, and able to solve issues and conflicts between such users and other editors. --Zyma (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of those users with this type of behavior have poor command of English language (they usually use Google Translator) and see Wikipedia as a pro-Political OR pro-Ethnicity website, so I can't do anything. Just warn them for 3-4 times, then report them, and then they return with their new/alternative accounts! Zyma (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

94.180.X.X

Now he's active with this IP-range: 94.180.X.X. It seems that he is on a non-stop quest on Wikipedia. Meaningless edits plus very bad edit summaries (poor English skill, not even basic level). Targeted Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey-related articles. Zyma (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know which articles, ok? Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles: Kara Koyunlu, Caspian race, Chovgan, Armenians, Armenoid race, Khurshidbanu Natavan, Tat people (Iran), Tat people (Caucasus), Qashqai people, Mazanderani people, Gilaki people, and others (Is it possible to track all 94.180.X.X's activities?). That user just inserts his POVs, biased edits, removal of content, source falsification and other similar behaviors. All of his edits based on his Anti-Armenian, Anti-Persian, and Anti-Kurdish stuff and his nationalistic POV. --Zyma (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, one question: Which noticeboard is suitable to report activities like 94.180.X.X's ones? --Zyma (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

He's active on many articles. For example, another nationalistic slur in edit summaries, pure incivility: [2] (another article that I didn't mention in the above list). --Zyma (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jazari

IP 169.234.217.94, (user:Cobanas?[3]), is restoring the unreliable sources stating Al-Jazari is Kurdish.[4] I have told the IP this has been discussed on the talk page, which the IP simply reverted me.[5] Would you be interested in protecting said article to force this IP to the talk page? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 169.234.217.94 has now posted aggressive accusations on my talk page;
"Are you the owner of wikipedia?"
"...you put his name in Arabic and Turkish language ":Clearly I have not wrote anyone's name in Arabic or Turkish, since I can not write in Arabic or Turkish
"Just try to be fair", which finishes the IPs strawman fallacy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure the IP is user:Cobanas[6]. Their style of English is extremely similar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
More....
"The date of your editing shows you are from middle east and with the high probability you are Arab or Turk....Why you are doing that KansasBear?"[7]
Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week. It seems obvious to me that it's User:Cobanas.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks from me. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jazari

IP 169.234.217.94, (user:Cobanas?[8]), is restoring the unreliable sources stating Al-Jazari is Kurdish.[9] I have told the IP this has been discussed on the talk page, which the IP simply reverted me.[10] Would you be interested in protecting said article to force this IP to the talk page? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 169.234.217.94 has now posted aggressive accusations on my talk page;
"Are you the owner of wikipedia?"
"...you put his name in Arabic and Turkish language ":Clearly I have not wrote anyone's name in Arabic or Turkish, since I can not write in Arabic or Turkish
"Just try to be fair", which finishes the IPs strawman fallacy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure the IP is user:Cobanas[11]. Their style of English is extremely similar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
More....
"The date of your editing shows you are from middle east and with the high probability you are Arab or Turk....Why you are doing that KansasBear?"[12]
Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week. It seems obvious to me that it's User:Cobanas.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks from me. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marking edits as minor

How can one set edits as "minor" as the default? I have to do this by hand so often, that I can do it by mistake by habit? Tabletop (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marking edits as minor

How can one set edits as "minor" as the default? I have to do this by hand so often, that I can do it by mistake by habit? Tabletop (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the same

No doubt, no one else it could be, good catch. Like this: created the article Margravate of Mantua which is a fork of Duchy of Mantua .. the same material copied verbatim including the image caption. Another one: Grand Duke of Vladimir a fork of Vladimir-Suzdal. And another: Caliph of Córdoba a fork of Caliphate of Córdoba. Unclear if any of these forks are needed. We could revert them, or open an AfD and see what others think; AfD might be less "despotic" and help the editor deal with Wikipedia norms.

Some other stuff:

Adding "despotism" across multiple articles.[13][14] along with article name changed to despotism (which you caught and reverted).
Changing dates in possibly unreliable ways.[15][16][17]

Not sure if any of this is blockable, it looks like incompetence. Are there mentors, volunteers willing to adopt troubled editors, to help them along and keep an eye on things? Blocking the account it will come back in new name and at least there is no copyvio this time so some improvement. -- GreenC 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Mentorship. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, User:Green Cardamom, IP Euoropa vandalism raised at WP:ANI. Copyvio issues also from the IP range. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the same

No doubt, no one else it could be, good catch. Like this: created the article Margravate of Mantua which is a fork of Duchy of Mantua .. the same material copied verbatim including the image caption. Another one: Grand Duke of Vladimir a fork of Vladimir-Suzdal. And another: Caliph of Córdoba a fork of Caliphate of Córdoba. Unclear if any of these forks are needed. We could revert them, or open an AfD and see what others think; AfD might be less "despotic" and help the editor deal with Wikipedia norms.

Some other stuff:

Adding "despotism" across multiple articles.[18][19] along with article name changed to despotism (which you caught and reverted).
Changing dates in possibly unreliable ways.[20][21][22]

Not sure if any of this is blockable, it looks like incompetence. Are there mentors, volunteers willing to adopt troubled editors, to help them along and keep an eye on things? Blocking the account it will come back in new name and at least there is no copyvio this time so some improvement. -- GreenC 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Mentorship. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, User:Green Cardamom, IP Euoropa vandalism raised at WP:ANI. Copyvio issues also from the IP range. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Visions Party

Hello Dougweller... I am very curious to know why the Twelve Visions Party page got deleted...I simply want to know the reasoning for deleting something so valuable, yet so misunderstood...

Jon Genius

We have fairly strict criteria as to what gets into Wikipedia. The relevant ones are at WP:ORG. The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Visions Party. Virtually all of the supporters ignored our notability criteria. I wonder how many know Mark Hamilton's actual name? Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Visions Party

Hello Dougweller... I am very curious to know why the Twelve Visions Party page got deleted...I simply want to know the reasoning for deleting something so valuable, yet so misunderstood...

Jon Genius

We have fairly strict criteria as to what gets into Wikipedia. The relevant ones are at WP:ORG. The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Visions Party. Virtually all of the supporters ignored our notability criteria. I wonder how many know Mark Hamilton's actual name? Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs

Hello User:Dougweller! I hope this message finds you doing well. I actually created an article by that title a while ago and was not informed that it was made into a redirect. The main article about Pashtun people, which I have also extensively edited in the past, only devotes a couple sentences to this topic (as it should). The “Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs” should have its own article and more information regarding Bellew’s theory can be added therin (similarly the Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites has its own article). I plan to expand that article in the future with more of Bellew’s research. Would you mind reverting yourself? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no time today and need to think about it. Bellew is out of date, basically of historical interest but not sure much more than that. I'll think more on it. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Dougweller, I agree that Bellew is out of date but this would be for historical interest. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs

Hello User:Dougweller! I hope this message finds you doing well. I actually created an article by that title a while ago and was not informed that it was made into a redirect. The main article about Pashtun people, which I have also extensively edited in the past, only devotes a couple sentences to this topic (as it should). The “Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs” should have its own article and more information regarding Bellew’s theory can be added therin (similarly the Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites has its own article). I plan to expand that article in the future with more of Bellew’s research. Would you mind reverting yourself? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no time today and need to think about it. Bellew is out of date, basically of historical interest but not sure much more than that. I'll think more on it. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Dougweller, I agree that Bellew is out of date but this would be for historical interest. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Common Era

My comment had nothing to do with Christian groups taking offense or not, but rather to show a different point about secularism: namely that secularism is not neutral, as is commonly assumed. Therefore my comment highlights a different point entirely from the "Baptist" line above it. Futhermore, my source supported this idea with the following quotes, found near the top of the page:

"The politically sensitive thinkers who developed the new terminology were not so bold as to identify a new, logical, non-Christian basis for dating time such as the beginning of agriculture ten thousand years ago or the beginning of civilization five thousand years ago. Instead, they kept the Christian system but attempted to obscure its historical origin, a curiously anti-historical act."

and

"To remove these concepts and trappings from Western thought is to remove the "heart" from western ideas. Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian thought is Western Civilization and to deny these things is to start the slide back to propaganda as opposed to historical accuracy."

Note how the secularization of the Gregorian calendar into BCE/CE is inherently anti-historical, and propagandistic- according the discussion of these teachers. It specifically aims to negate Christian ideas, while letting other religious or non-religious ideas stand. It doesn't matter if people are offended or not, secularism is its own belief and carries own bias.

Your thought that I repeated an idea is incorrect, as is your thought that my source didn't support what I wrote. Please revert my short comment back. Ri Osraige (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ri Osraige. I said "blog type post - we don't use comments like those as a source" - your source[23] didn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. It's basically a sort of blog and you are quoting anonymous sources (or maybe just one person, as they are anonymous they could be posting under different names). That is just one of the reasons we don't use such sources. If I replaced it I would be violating policy, something I obviously am unwilling to do. You can of course ask at WP:RSN if anyone thinks the source can be used. I admit to some confusion about the idea that Christian theologians who use this convention are trying to negate Christian ideas. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. The nature of the source makes it unsuable. Well, very good then. I am new to this, and will be aware henceforth. Thank you for clearing my confusion. Ri Osraige (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Common Era

My comment had nothing to do with Christian groups taking offense or not, but rather to show a different point about secularism: namely that secularism is not neutral, as is commonly assumed. Therefore my comment highlights a different point entirely from the "Baptist" line above it. Futhermore, my source supported this idea with the following quotes, found near the top of the page:

"The politically sensitive thinkers who developed the new terminology were not so bold as to identify a new, logical, non-Christian basis for dating time such as the beginning of agriculture ten thousand years ago or the beginning of civilization five thousand years ago. Instead, they kept the Christian system but attempted to obscure its historical origin, a curiously anti-historical act."

and

"To remove these concepts and trappings from Western thought is to remove the "heart" from western ideas. Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian thought is Western Civilization and to deny these things is to start the slide back to propaganda as opposed to historical accuracy."

Note how the secularization of the Gregorian calendar into BCE/CE is inherently anti-historical, and propagandistic- according the discussion of these teachers. It specifically aims to negate Christian ideas, while letting other religious or non-religious ideas stand. It doesn't matter if people are offended or not, secularism is its own belief and carries own bias.

Your thought that I repeated an idea is incorrect, as is your thought that my source didn't support what I wrote. Please revert my short comment back. Ri Osraige (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ri Osraige. I said "blog type post - we don't use comments like those as a source" - your source[24] didn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. It's basically a sort of blog and you are quoting anonymous sources (or maybe just one person, as they are anonymous they could be posting under different names). That is just one of the reasons we don't use such sources. If I replaced it I would be violating policy, something I obviously am unwilling to do. You can of course ask at WP:RSN if anyone thinks the source can be used. I admit to some confusion about the idea that Christian theologians who use this convention are trying to negate Christian ideas. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. The nature of the source makes it unsuable. Well, very good then. I am new to this, and will be aware henceforth. Thank you for clearing my confusion. Ri Osraige (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Curious about a possible edit-a-thon.

I know there are lots of groups or individuals that could organize their own edit-a-thons, but didn't know where I should say anything about this: History buffs wanted to update Wikipedia pages. It appears that the History Room of Rowan Public Library is organizing an edit-a-thon, but I didn't know if they would need any help or guidance. I ran across the username Rplhistory (talk · contribs) and left a note about the username on their page. Wanted to make an admin or someone aware if they need any mentoring or something. Doesn't really look like it has been organized by any long-term Wikipedian. Or, at least put a notice on the talk page, possibly. Since I'm newer, I didn't really know where to put this, but saw your name listed in the NC Wikiproject page. Looks like they plan to focus on Rowan County, North Carolina and possibly related pages. Would this have been better to post on the Admin noticeboard? Thank you. Shrikesong (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Curious about a possible edit-a-thon.

I know there are lots of groups or individuals that could organize their own edit-a-thons, but didn't know where I should say anything about this: History buffs wanted to update Wikipedia pages. It appears that the History Room of Rowan Public Library is organizing an edit-a-thon, but I didn't know if they would need any help or guidance. I ran across the username Rplhistory (talk · contribs) and left a note about the username on their page. Wanted to make an admin or someone aware if they need any mentoring or something. Doesn't really look like it has been organized by any long-term Wikipedian. Or, at least put a notice on the talk page, possibly. Since I'm newer, I didn't really know where to put this, but saw your name listed in the NC Wikiproject page. Looks like they plan to focus on Rowan County, North Carolina and possibly related pages. Would this have been better to post on the Admin noticeboard? Thank you. Shrikesong (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Caspian race

Please check the sources. Participant Zyma adds incorrect information. Especially with regards to the Lezgis. This is not present in the source! Thank you with respect. --Гасан Бакинский 11:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Try to read or translate the article in Russian. There is very detailed written about Caspian race. --Гасан Бакинский 12:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think it's time to report this user and his alternative accounts (plus that IP-range) to SPI. It's very interesting you created this account on 2014-03-17 and after the block and protection processes, you activated it on 2014-03-28 and you targeted those article(s) again. Obvious and clear signs of sock puppetry and multiple accounts. -Zyma (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reported you to SPI. --Zyma (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Caspian race

Please check the sources. Participant Zyma adds incorrect information. Especially with regards to the Lezgis. This is not present in the source! Thank you with respect. --Гасан Бакинский 11:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Try to read or translate the article in Russian. There is very detailed written about Caspian race. --Гасан Бакинский 12:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think it's time to report this user and his alternative accounts (plus that IP-range) to SPI. It's very interesting you created this account on 2014-03-17 and after the block and protection processes, you activated it on 2014-03-28 and you targeted those article(s) again. Obvious and clear signs of sock puppetry and multiple accounts. -Zyma (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reported you to SPI. --Zyma (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Kachwaha

Hello Sir ,

With due respect i wanted to tell you that, Kachwaha is a one of the Best Clan of Rajputana in India and in History of Rajput .. (I don't know how much you know about Rajputana..)...

But as here it is telling that, we were Peasants and we just claim that we are a part of Rajput does not seems to be Cool... It is Disturbing for Us..

So plz Refer to it Once..

Thanks and Regard's Rohit Kumar Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitcusatmca (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Kachwaha

Hello Sir ,

With due respect i wanted to tell you that, Kachwaha is a one of the Best Clan of Rajputana in India and in History of Rajput .. (I don't know how much you know about Rajputana..)...

But as here it is telling that, we were Peasants and we just claim that we are a part of Rajput does not seems to be Cool... It is Disturbing for Us..

So plz Refer to it Once..

Thanks and Regard's Rohit Kumar Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitcusatmca (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Comment: A foolish request

Traffic report: Down to a simmer

Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

WikiProject report: From the peak

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Comment: A foolish request

Traffic report: Down to a simmer

Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

WikiProject report: From the peak

reincarnation and Ann Ree Colton

Hi Doug,

Not sure why you removed the info about Ann Ree's teaching on reincarnation. She passed in 1984 and the foundation she started in still functioning.

She wanted to remain anonymous during her life so her work could be completed.

Ann Ree knew more about reincarnation and the Soul, from personal experience, than any person since Jesus. Please look into her work for the accuracy of your article.

Thanks, Kirtg (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This:"While the number of people who practice the techniques she taught and identify themselves as Niscienes is small, her influence is nevertheless significant, and her writings are often quoted. Many students of Alice Bailey or H. P. Blavatsky find the somewhat abstract principles of their founders explained more simply and put in a more practical framework. Others who are interested in a bridge between traditional dogmatic Christianity and so-called New Age teachings find the deeper essence of both presented without the tangled doctrinal contradictions." was unsourced and didn't belong in the lead anyway as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. The rest was a copyright violation. There's still more material there that is unsourced or doesn't belong for other reasons. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed more unsourced material, including a bit that had Wikipedia stating as fact that she had telepathic abilities. That sort of stuff wouldn't be written in any encyclopedia I've ever read. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

reincarnation and Ann Ree Colton

Hi Doug,

Not sure why you removed the info about Ann Ree's teaching on reincarnation. She passed in 1984 and the foundation she started in still functioning.

She wanted to remain anonymous during her life so her work could be completed.

Ann Ree knew more about reincarnation and the Soul, from personal experience, than any person since Jesus. Please look into her work for the accuracy of your article.

Thanks, Kirtg (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This:"While the number of people who practice the techniques she taught and identify themselves as Niscienes is small, her influence is nevertheless significant, and her writings are often quoted. Many students of Alice Bailey or H. P. Blavatsky find the somewhat abstract principles of their founders explained more simply and put in a more practical framework. Others who are interested in a bridge between traditional dogmatic Christianity and so-called New Age teachings find the deeper essence of both presented without the tangled doctrinal contradictions." was unsourced and didn't belong in the lead anyway as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. The rest was a copyright violation. There's still more material there that is unsourced or doesn't belong for other reasons. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed more unsourced material, including a bit that had Wikipedia stating as fact that she had telepathic abilities. That sort of stuff wouldn't be written in any encyclopedia I've ever read. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

New Delhi

An editor removed a section from New Delhi with a long edit summary saying "there is no reason to demean the city," etc., but it looks like that material is sourced. Should it be put back in with an edit summary saying "Removed sourced content"? CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

New Delhi

An editor removed a section from New Delhi with a long edit summary saying "there is no reason to demean the city," etc., but it looks like that material is sourced. Should it be put back in with an edit summary saying "Removed sourced content"? CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Europa Universalis-related disruption

I've just created a filter to deal with the disruption you were describing. If you have the appropriate user rights, you should be able to see the source of the filter here -- The Anome (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Anome Thanks very much - that's a fantastically quick response and much appreciated. Could you add Esdaile and "Peninsular War" as well please? Or just tell me how to do it? And how does it actually work? Where do I see anything that trips the filter? Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, is that going to block those additions? Because for the Esdaile stuff I need to be able to see them as they might be legitimate, and of course in the past all of this related vandalism has been added by sockpuppet accounts. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now also added those words. -- The Anome (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

They get logged on the edit filter page itself: since you're an admin, you should be able to see them: for example, at the moment, it says "Filter hits: 1 hit", and a link to this one. If you can't, I think you can just grant yourself the edit filter manager right, and then you should be able to not only see them, but also edit the filters and create new ones.

It's also just as easy to create another filter which would find any addition of those words by any user, logged in or not, and just log them instead of blocking, which you could then use to track the sockpuppet accounts. -- The Anome (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: the IP that got blocked then IP-hopped, and successfully edited the same article as User:187.14.250.133. I've just reverted their edit, and added 187.14.0.0/16 to the filter rule as well. -- The Anome (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: while I was editing the filter, I accidentally false-positived some edits by User:Chipmunkdavis -- please ignore those hits. -- The Anome (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Frederic William Henry Myers

You might want to look at the latest comment in the section "Jamenta's essay up for deletion" on the Talk page of Frederic William Henry Myers, just to keep an eye on it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Frederic William Henry Myers

You might want to look at the latest comment in the section "Jamenta's essay up for deletion" on the Talk page of Frederic William Henry Myers, just to keep an eye on it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rajus Article

Please analyse what i have said and see the talk page history from the origin of the article.See sitush's behaviour about this article.Rajus will be mentioned as "kshatriyas" in the government of India's caste list and also Ansi as K S Singh & B V Krishna Rao said.If you have interest then please analyse and start original research on Rajus article by the sources of Historians,anthropologers including Britishers then you will come to know the truth,but please don't blindly believe what sitush says because sitush is kamma(Shudra caste) and he don't likes any glory of Kshatriya castes like Rajputs,Rajus etc.This you can observe in his kamma caste page,see in its history he is very much liberal and glorified his caste but it is now challenged by other editors. Finally,i request you & also please ask wiki admins to conduct research on Rajus with experts in history but not persons like sitush,then truth will definitely come to light.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Rajus Article

Please analyse what i have said and see the talk page history from the origin of the article.See sitush's behaviour about this article.Rajus will be mentioned as "kshatriyas" in the government of India's caste list and also Ansi as K S Singh & B V Krishna Rao said.If you have interest then please analyse and start original research on Rajus article by the sources of Historians,anthropologers including Britishers then you will come to know the truth,but please don't blindly believe what sitush says because sitush is kamma(Shudra caste) and he don't likes any glory of Kshatriya castes like Rajputs,Rajus etc.This you can observe in his kamma caste page,see in its history he is very much liberal and glorified his caste but it is now challenged by other editors. Finally,i request you & also please ask wiki admins to conduct research on Rajus with experts in history but not persons like sitush,then truth will definitely come to light.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agnivanshi Article & conduct research for Rajus article

Thank you for your edit on Agnivanshi.As Kshatriyas are of Suryavanshi,Chandravanshi & Agnivanshi(only in Rajputs),they are dvijas and have ruling & warrior history.They also contain gotras named after saptarishis and also other great sages(rishis).Thats why i added the sources from that blog and most of them are accurate.If you feel that is against the policy then i don't feel bad because of your removing it from Agnivanshi page. But, i want you to know about Kshatriyas: The Government listed Kshatriya Castes as stated by K.S.Singh(1935-2006),Director General of Anthropological Survey of India were totally 8 castes.They were as follows: 1.Rajput. 2.Kshatriya or Raju or Kshatriya Raju(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu & Karnataka). 3.Raghuvamsi Kshatriya(Karnataka). 4.Kshatriya(Kerala). 5.Koteyar(Tamil nadu,Karnataka). 6.Dhal Kshatriya(Bihar). 7.Aguri(West Bengal). 8.Kshatriya(Orissa & Assam).In all,total 8 communities were listed as Kshatriya Castes by Government of India by the help of Anthropological Survey of India.It was also mentioned in the book "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V,p.1853.You can see this in the following link as follows : http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raghuvamsi & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=jzU5U-TdLMT7rAeXi4GIDw&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aguri

Here Kulam,jati,caste are synonyms.Kshatriya is their varna.In Ancient India,there are only four varnas or castes.But in present India,there are thousands of castes because many castes originated in shudra varna as they have classified due to their profession.In present India,there are castes of Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas,Upper Shudras,Shudras,Dalits & Tribals/Adivasis.You can find these in many books.In present India,there are different Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya castes that means those are the castes which comes under those three varnas.And the castes of those varnas will classified according to their respective varnas and they are called as Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas.For example,Rajput & Rajus are Kshatriya Castes that means those are different castes but comes under Kshatriya Varna,that means they are called as Kshatriya Castes i.e. Kshatriyas.Also you can notice that gotras of Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas are different from shudras.Also those three varnas are dvijas i.e. possess sacred thread and they also possess gotras named after rishis whether they are saptarishis(7 great sages) or other rishis(sages).Kshatriyas are divided into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.Rajus are also classified into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.But in Rajputs, Agnivanshi Lineage is also present.Many Indian & Foreign Anthropologers made analysis about all these.Minna Säävälä-She is one of the great anthropologers who had written many books and analysed the castes of India.

Rajus are described as Kshatriyas by the Government of India which you can see in the Overseas Development Institute reference in that page.Also Rajus are mentioned as kshatriyas in Governments castes list.Rajus are Kshatriyas accepted by Britishers,Historians,Anthropologers,Brahmins,Government of India & also people who know true history.

Finally,what i mean to say is if you have time & interest,you please study & deeply analyse Rajus caste by referring to sources & books written by Indian & Foreign Anthropologers.I believe,then you will know the truth about Rajus.

I have faith in you & i know you can develop the Rajus article.Rajus are noble Kshatriyas who were aristocrats and also higher caste of Kings,Rulers and warriors.Anthropologers mentions them as Kshatriyas who were Kings & warriors.Rajus are Kings & Rulers in the past and people of Rajus caste who are close associates of Kings of Rajus caste or relatives to Kings of Rajus caste acted as warriors in order to protect or defend the King from enemies.Rajus caste consists both "rulers and warriors".Here,warrior doesn't mean a soldier or servant.Here,warriors include close associates or relatives of King who are also Royal Rajus but not Kings.Thats why,Minna Säävälä stated Rajus caste as "higher caste of traditional rulers & warriors;Kshatriya".But,please don't wrongly think about Rajus.I am telling all these because you are a westerner and also you may not have proper idea about castes of India & also Kshatriya Castes in India.Even,Britishers are also westerners,you can verify what they said about Rajus.They,even said what Minna Säävälä said about Rajus.These all can be found out when you analyse & study different sources of anthropologers about Rajus caste.I have given you some idea about Rajus caste who are Kshatriyas.You could get some idea about Rajus.I hope you can understand.Also i request you to please conduct research with experts on Rajus article,then you will come to know the truth.Finally,If any article in wikipedia is wrong,people doesn't believe that article.It doesn't cause any harm.But,Wikipedia's reputation will be decreased.I wish you to modify and also justify the Rajus article and further develop the Rajus article on your analysis.Please reply me if you can.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agnivanshi Article & conduct research for Rajus article

Thank you for your edit on Agnivanshi.As Kshatriyas are of Suryavanshi,Chandravanshi & Agnivanshi(only in Rajputs),they are dvijas and have ruling & warrior history.They also contain gotras named after saptarishis and also other great sages(rishis).Thats why i added the sources from that blog and most of them are accurate.If you feel that is against the policy then i don't feel bad because of your removing it from Agnivanshi page. But, i want you to know about Kshatriyas: The Government listed Kshatriya Castes as stated by K.S.Singh(1935-2006),Director General of Anthropological Survey of India were totally 8 castes.They were as follows: 1.Rajput. 2.Kshatriya or Raju or Kshatriya Raju(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu & Karnataka). 3.Raghuvamsi Kshatriya(Karnataka). 4.Kshatriya(Kerala). 5.Koteyar(Tamil nadu,Karnataka). 6.Dhal Kshatriya(Bihar). 7.Aguri(West Bengal). 8.Kshatriya(Orissa & Assam).In all,total 8 communities were listed as Kshatriya Castes by Government of India by the help of Anthropological Survey of India.It was also mentioned in the book "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V,p.1853.You can see this in the following link as follows : http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raghuvamsi & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=jzU5U-TdLMT7rAeXi4GIDw&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aguri

Here Kulam,jati,caste are synonyms.Kshatriya is their varna.In Ancient India,there are only four varnas or castes.But in present India,there are thousands of castes because many castes originated in shudra varna as they have classified due to their profession.In present India,there are castes of Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas,Upper Shudras,Shudras,Dalits & Tribals/Adivasis.You can find these in many books.In present India,there are different Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya castes that means those are the castes which comes under those three varnas.And the castes of those varnas will classified according to their respective varnas and they are called as Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas.For example,Rajput & Rajus are Kshatriya Castes that means those are different castes but comes under Kshatriya Varna,that means they are called as Kshatriya Castes i.e. Kshatriyas.Also you can notice that gotras of Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas are different from shudras.Also those three varnas are dvijas i.e. possess sacred thread and they also possess gotras named after rishis whether they are saptarishis(7 great sages) or other rishis(sages).Kshatriyas are divided into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.Rajus are also classified into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.But in Rajputs, Agnivanshi Lineage is also present.Many Indian & Foreign Anthropologers made analysis about all these.Minna Säävälä-She is one of the great anthropologers who had written many books and analysed the castes of India.

Rajus are described as Kshatriyas by the Government of India which you can see in the Overseas Development Institute reference in that page.Also Rajus are mentioned as kshatriyas in Governments castes list.Rajus are Kshatriyas accepted by Britishers,Historians,Anthropologers,Brahmins,Government of India & also people who know true history.

Finally,what i mean to say is if you have time & interest,you please study & deeply analyse Rajus caste by referring to sources & books written by Indian & Foreign Anthropologers.I believe,then you will know the truth about Rajus.

I have faith in you & i know you can develop the Rajus article.Rajus are noble Kshatriyas who were aristocrats and also higher caste of Kings,Rulers and warriors.Anthropologers mentions them as Kshatriyas who were Kings & warriors.Rajus are Kings & Rulers in the past and people of Rajus caste who are close associates of Kings of Rajus caste or relatives to Kings of Rajus caste acted as warriors in order to protect or defend the King from enemies.Rajus caste consists both "rulers and warriors".Here,warrior doesn't mean a soldier or servant.Here,warriors include close associates or relatives of King who are also Royal Rajus but not Kings.Thats why,Minna Säävälä stated Rajus caste as "higher caste of traditional rulers & warriors;Kshatriya".But,please don't wrongly think about Rajus.I am telling all these because you are a westerner and also you may not have proper idea about castes of India & also Kshatriya Castes in India.Even,Britishers are also westerners,you can verify what they said about Rajus.They,even said what Minna Säävälä said about Rajus.These all can be found out when you analyse & study different sources of anthropologers about Rajus caste.I have given you some idea about Rajus caste who are Kshatriyas.You could get some idea about Rajus.I hope you can understand.Also i request you to please conduct research with experts on Rajus article,then you will come to know the truth.Finally,If any article in wikipedia is wrong,people doesn't believe that article.It doesn't cause any harm.But,Wikipedia's reputation will be decreased.I wish you to modify and also justify the Rajus article and further develop the Rajus article on your analysis.Please reply me if you can.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You were mistaken

Mr.Dougweller,you were mistaken Rajus material was not copied from that yuva kshatriyas blog.These gotras and other things are explained in books written by k.S.Singh i.e "India's communities" & "People of India".See links: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=8jg5U4uiJ4PyrQfgpYG4Dg&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=people+of+india+tamil+nadu&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=pasupati & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=KDk5U9-uOoS_rgeu_oCYAg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raju

I have written from those.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have written Agnivanshi material from blog but not Rajus.I hope you understand.Thank YOU -Shvrs (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed fake contents from the following different pages yesterday,but why you are reverting again those fake statements which are unreliable ?? -Shvrs (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You were mistaken

Mr.Dougweller,you were mistaken Rajus material was not copied from that yuva kshatriyas blog.These gotras and other things are explained in books written by k.S.Singh i.e "India's communities" & "People of India".See links: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=8jg5U4uiJ4PyrQfgpYG4Dg&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=people+of+india+tamil+nadu&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=pasupati & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=KDk5U9-uOoS_rgeu_oCYAg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raju

I have written from those.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have written Agnivanshi material from blog but not Rajus.I hope you understand.Thank YOU -Shvrs (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed fake contents from the following different pages yesterday,but why you are reverting again those fake statements which are unreliable ?? -Shvrs (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

COI question

Hello Dougweller, I'm an independent scholar. I'm not backed by a university or academics working in the field. There's a good reason for this independence. It took me about 30 years to do the research: collecting names, symbols and words embedding male bias and having to go all over the planet to do so. No university wanted to support such long-term and such expensive research. I committed to doing it and paid my own way. This does not mean my work is not valid. It means that any validation I got from academics did not become or was not made public.

I have been published in numerous publications. One is the Women in Higher Education, Dec. 1996 and March, 1997. Chapter 18, The Patriarchal Code Works Against the Common Good of All Individuals by Louise Goueffic, is published in Hearing Many Voices 2000, Hampton Press, Inc, Cresskill New Jersey.

The LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts) Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, wrote an abstract on my book Breaking the Patriarchal Code. The book was nominated for the annual book prize, the announcement sent to the publisher by Patrice M. Buzzanell in the Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University.

And by the way, my book Breaking the Patriarchal Code was published by Knowledge Ideas and Trends, 1995, Manchester CT. It was not self-published. It was mostly distributed in the US. In 2011 Sapien Books reprinted the book with a few revisions to distribute in Canada. This does not constitute "self-publishing."

How would you propose I go about legitimizing myself, or showing that my work has been validated?

I feel I should be on the WIKI sites 'Patriarchy' and 'Gender and Language': patriarchy's bases stem from the first division of people by sex expanded in language, my work is on these two inter-related aspects in knowledge.

I am confused by the COI statement. Would you please enlighten me and let me know how to proceed from here.

Louise Goueffic 24.235.245.178 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

" It was registered again in December 2009 to diffuse literature about Louise Gouëffic’s second book, An Inconvenient Lie." makes it appear that it is self-published. Who paid for the publication?

Louise Goueffic There are two issues here. One is whether you should be adding your own material to the article. Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? I raised the issue at WP:COIN but it's been quiet there recently.

The second issue is whether your work meets the criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I don't think it does, but you can ask at WP:RSN.

COI question

Hello Dougweller, I'm an independent scholar. I'm not backed by a university or academics working in the field. There's a good reason for this independence. It took me about 30 years to do the research: collecting names, symbols and words embedding male bias and having to go all over the planet to do so. No university wanted to support such long-term and such expensive research. I committed to doing it and paid my own way. This does not mean my work is not valid. It means that any validation I got from academics did not become or was not made public.

I have been published in numerous publications. One is the Women in Higher Education, Dec. 1996 and March, 1997. Chapter 18, The Patriarchal Code Works Against the Common Good of All Individuals by Louise Goueffic, is published in Hearing Many Voices 2000, Hampton Press, Inc, Cresskill New Jersey.

The LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts) Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, wrote an abstract on my book Breaking the Patriarchal Code. The book was nominated for the annual book prize, the announcement sent to the publisher by Patrice M. Buzzanell in the Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University.

And by the way, my book Breaking the Patriarchal Code was published by Knowledge Ideas and Trends, 1995, Manchester CT. It was not self-published. It was mostly distributed in the US. In 2011 Sapien Books reprinted the book with a few revisions to distribute in Canada. This does not constitute "self-publishing."

How would you propose I go about legitimizing myself, or showing that my work has been validated?

I feel I should be on the WIKI sites 'Patriarchy' and 'Gender and Language': patriarchy's bases stem from the first division of people by sex expanded in language, my work is on these two inter-related aspects in knowledge.

I am confused by the COI statement. Would you please enlighten me and let me know how to proceed from here.

Louise Goueffic 24.235.245.178 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

" It was registered again in December 2009 to diffuse literature about Louise Gouëffic’s second book, An Inconvenient Lie." makes it appear that it is self-published. Who paid for the publication?

Louise Goueffic There are two issues here. One is whether you should be adding your own material to the article. Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? I raised the issue at WP:COIN but it's been quiet there recently.

The second issue is whether your work meets the criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I don't think it does, but you can ask at WP:RSN.

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew McIntosh (professor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*McIntosh, AC; Beheshti, N 60/720,716 (UOL Ref: UOL 05012/US/P1 Vapour Explosion Device. 2005.
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/dec/27/post845 an article by Richard Dawkins]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mahabharata may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iron Age India may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

at around 1000 BCE. Archaeologist Rakesh Tewari stated that studies of the site at [[Karnataka]]) implied "that they had already been experimenting for centuries" as by that time they were able to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew McIntosh (professor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*McIntosh, AC; Beheshti, N 60/720,716 (UOL Ref: UOL 05012/US/P1 Vapour Explosion Device. 2005.
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/dec/27/post845 an article by Richard Dawkins]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mahabharata may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iron Age India may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

at around 1000 BCE. Archaeologist Rakesh Tewari stated that studies of the site at [[Karnataka]]) implied "that they had already been experimenting for centuries" as by that time they were able to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Preservation of Evidence

Would you mind copying the contents of [|this] page to your talk page? You can delete it immediately afterwards. I just need a diff preserving an accurate record of the evidence. Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if it will help, but sure. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

		Wikipedia, We Have a Problem 		exposed tactics of activist editors in a wiki war- a case study 		 				 	 	 	 	 		 			 				 	 		Next steps: The Capn

The following statement is addressed to Wikipedia in general but is inspired in large part by the issues highlighted in the Sheldrake case.

Written by Ryan Castle, aka ‘The Capn’.

I’ve been a contributing editor for many years on Wikipedia, and anyone looking through my edits, on article or talk pages, will see that I strive to be a reasonable, diplomatic editor. That said, what has been happening on WP, as typified by the Rupert Sheldrake page and the witch-hunt against Rome Viharo aka The Tumbleman has been complete and utter BS.

I am a true believer in WP and still find myself inspired by the concept of a global database for all of mankind’s knowledge, but I am increasingly aware of, alarmed at and infuriated by the growth of bullying tactics on Wikipedia.

Whether promoted by skeptics (of which I am one) or by radical conservatives (of which I am not), personal biases and agendas have no place on WP, which is supposed to be a safe, neutral territory for all perspectives to be weighed, measured and considered. Not all perspectives have equal weight, but it is unethical and against the principles of Wikipedia to exclude any approach simply because one disagrees with it.

That is what has been happening on the Rupert Sheldrake page and with those who have supported the minority opinion, especially Tumbleman A group of skeptical editors apparently decided that any sources that supported Sheldrake’s research were by definition unacceptable and persecuted any editors who promoted them (like Tumbleman at first, then anyone who supported a similar idea). This behavior can only occur when those editors assume the following:

Their understanding of the subject is the only correct one. They understand WP policy better than any competing editor. Dissenting interpretations of data are malicious and dangerous. Thus, any dissent is invalid and must be silenced.

These assumptions are arrogant at best and a threat to the very principles of an open source database like Wikipedia at worst. I try to assume the best of every editor, but the persistent, antagonistic harassment of dissenting editors has gone beyond the benefit of my doubt. At the point where I read editors saying in policy proceedings that anyone who does not share their contempt of Rupert Sheldrake needs to be banned from Wikipedia, I know that this is not simply a matter of communication, but rather bullying.

I cannot abide bullies or the quashing of perspective. I’ll be the first to admit that Wikipedia is not an subjective forum, but by expelling people like Tumbleman for disagreeing with their own opinions these skeptical editors are making WP into just that. This great enterprise into a collective site of all human knowledge cannot survive if those attempting to represent little known concepts are punished to attempting to help.

Nearly a dozen editors who have disagreed with the skeptical majority’s opinion on the Sheldrake page have been threatened with banning. Those who persisted, and especially those who presented valid references, sources and citations that could not be easily dismissed were accused of vague infractions and/or of sharing the viewpoints of others that had been previously banned, such as Tumbleman. Despite failing to illustrate a single case of actual, intentional or disruptive violations, these cases against the dissenting editors were rapidly filled by shrill cries to have them banned forever, “for the good of WP.” An administrator usually gives the case a brief review, sees an entire page full of denunciations of the dissenting editor and makes the quick & easy choice to click “BAN.” In all fairness, these admins have hundreds of cases to get through and can’t spend much time reviewing the details. That brings me to my next point…

The problem is that there is no function to weed out these bullies. All of the current institutions are based on addressing the problem of vandals who crudely violate pages by inserting things like “The theory of the expansion of an infinitely dense singularity is known as the Big Bang, and was first theorized by YOUR MOM!” More subtle abuses like falsely accusing editors of minor violations in order to get them banned are not accounted for, as an appeal and oversight system is virtually nonexistent for overworked admins. If WP is going to survive as a respected academic source, then these institutions need to be implemented or it will devolve into the rule of the loudest/most stubborn.

This atmosphere makes it easy to harass people one disagrees with, and the easiest charge of all is accusing someone of sockpuppetry. Technically this is the practice of using several accounts to pretend to be several different people, forming the illusion of consensus. In practice, it has been used against numerous editors as an accusation that they aren’t really who they say they are, but rather some other, discredited editor. This puts these editors in the impossible position of proving a negative (ie. “Prove that your anonymous profile is really you…”). When they can’t disprove the charge (obviously) they are banned. If the editor wants to continue contributing to WP, a worthy desire, they have to create another profile, which in itself IS NOT PROHIBITED, but if detected they are accused of being serial sockpuppets and their IP is banned.

Again, to break this down, if you are accused of sockpuppetry:

If you deny that you have several accounts you are called an unrepentant troll and banned. If you acknowledge that you have several (even legitimate) accounts, you are called an admitted sockpuppet and banned.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating against these skeptical editors or for Rome Viharo. I am advocating for ensuring Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia it can be, and that all the countless hours of labor the world has put into it is not wasted by it becoming known for being a hostile environment unwilling to accept diverse viewpoints. I am myself a skeptic and am not demanding that Rupert Sheldrake’s research be presented as incontrovertible fact, I am demanding that the editors on every WP page be given the respect and fair treatment that we all deserve. That includes myself, every skeptical editor and every dissenting editor. And it certainly includes The Tumbleman.

Ryan Castle

Askahrc aka The Cap’n

In keeping with my tradition of breaking it down for my Brethren of the Coast, here is a Piratical translation of the above:

Avast thar, me hearties! Ye all know who I be, and damn yer eyes iffin’ ye call me a blaggard. I’ve sailed these seas o’ Wikipedia since afore any o’ ye were weaned, and by damnation I know how to keep to the Code.

But thar be scoundrels and knaves what don’t abide by the rule of Equal Share of Contributions, an they be tryin’ to play Jack Ketch to thems that disagree wit’ em, with nary a thought fer the spirit o’ the Code. They be sellin’ out their mates and maroonin’ em whenever they don’ like what they’re sayin’.

Blast it all, this be an act o’ mutiny ‘gainst Wikipedia itself! We Brethren o’ the Coast live by rules o’ equality, fair representation an’ democracy, values we ain’t fond of losin’. To hell wit’ bullies, drunken and in alleys or actin’ like pisspoor bastards on a policy page. Every bucko be our matey, whether they be skeptic, pirate or Tumbleman himself. An’ I’ll drink damnation afore I let me mateys be treated unfair-like.

Test me resolve, ye scurvy dogs. I dare ye.

~The Cap’n~

Thanks Doug. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Fornovo

I reverted your contribution, reinstating the whole paragraph. You gave the following reason for erasing the paragraph: "(Google translation of Guicciardini doesn't seem to say that, so please explain on talk page, quoting Benedetti would be fine but I don't seem him as an RS for a statement of act like this)".

I'm a professional translator, my native language is Italian, and while my English prose is not necessarily flawless, I was accurate in translating Guicciardini's text (cited in the Talk in Italian). Guicciardini does say that the consensus is for a French victory. Machine translation is not a reliable source, as one may infer from the following Bing translation of the copy:

"Nevertheless, the universal consent won the palma to ' French cannot: for the number of dead much different, and why scacciorono gl ' hostile across the River, and because it was their free over first, which was the restraint for which proceeded had to fight."

I can't make head or tail of that translation, but I see it doesn't translate the Italian word "palma", meaning "palm tree" or "branch from a palm tree". "Dare la palma", in Italian, means "to adjudicate victory"; it's a well-known idiom.

On the other hand Barzini Jr (also cited in the paragraph as a source) says contemporary conventions would have assigned victory to the Italians (the Holy League) because the French left the battlefield and lost their provisions. Beneditti's being a RS or not is not very important and I shall not discuss it here; for the other two sources abundantly confirm the imbalance. In fact, no source denies the Italians suffered much heavier casualties than the French. Pan Brerus (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"On the other hand Barzini Jr (also cited in the paragraph as a source) says contemporary conventions would have assigned victory to the Italians (the Holy League) because the French left the battlefield and lost their provisions." On which page does Barzini, a journalist, say this?

"Fornovo was clearly a French victory in the sense that Charles achieved his aim of breaking through into Lombardy" -- The Military Organisation of a Renaissance State: Venice C. 1400 To 1617, M. E. Mallett, J. R. Hale, page 56.

"Moved by the news of the virtual French victory at Fornovo..." -- The Empire under Maximilian I, R.G.D. Laffin, The New Cambridge Modern History, ed. Richard Bruce Wernham, page 201.

It is quite clear Barzini is in no way qualified to speak for "contemporary conventions" or the battle of Fornovo.

Instead of taking a preconceived opinion as to the results of the battle, we should, instead, use reliable secondary sources to tell us the results of the battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, Pan Brerus - we use secondary sources for the results of the battle. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)