This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
I just noticed the bottom paragraph added to Piankh. Modern descendants of an ancient Egyptian priest? It looks like pure and simple nonsense to me. Does one hit that with WP:Verify, a request for citation, or a quick hit with the delete button? I am rather swamped with work, so I cannot get into it myself. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I added the 'citation needed' tags to the section on his death - it's unreferenced (aside from the one I managed to find) and is still the subject of much debate amongst egyptologists. Whilst you may feel that the deletion by 69.114.58.71 was done too soon, I wonder why you removed the tags?
I got distracted, I was going to go to the talk page. There were too many tags - use a section tag and take it to the talk page. I didn't see all the tags as appropriate either. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
problem
The 2011 Tucson shootings seems to have some troublemakers, particularly Knowledgekid87 and AndyTheGrump. Andy is grumpy. That kid87 may be trying to make people mad on purpose. He is suggesting to split the reactions section but I just looked and before he was trying to delete it. I think he is just trying to stir up trouble.
I did not bring this to ANI because I do not cause trouble. I think Wikipedia survives ok in spit of bad editors like the two. I'm not asking you to block them, just grumbling. Madrid 2020 (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
87 is doing it again. First, opposed to changing the title, now wanting it. Some people, not necessarily 87, do these things to create drama and fighting. I can say that if an editor keeps changing to opposite positions, the effect is disruptive and not helpful to the encyclopedia. What is the usual action against those who are disruptive? Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Various things, depending on the level of disruption. Actual vandalism - see WP:Vandalism can be blocked, but other types of disruption usually should be met with discussion at talk pages or if that doesn't work see WP:DR. I looked at the talk page and noticed that consensus seems to be misunderstood. It's not a matter of majority vote, see WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. I'll say something there. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Re:MS
Hello, thanks for the message. Sorry I couldn't quite work out how to send an email, and in the meantime Isobel Montgomery Campbell, the lady on the talk page, has made some good suggestions for improvements, so I thought it would perhaps be best to discuss it there. It seems she's a representative of the Shaw Trust, so might hopefully be able to provide some useful information. Rob (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
GUILLAUMIN Andrè was degree in Biology no in natural science, please give right information
The problem is that you wrote not correct information and for an Encyclopaedia this is not correct.
GUILLAUMIN Andrè was degree in Biology not in natural sciences, so if you take the side for natural science faculty and contrast biological sciences faculty, this is your problem, but at Museum of natural history in France ( Bordaux ) there are degrees' certificates of GUILLAUMIN Andrè and he was degree in biology
DrSc John Goddard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.5.238.156 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the source for this? I'm happy to correct if if there is a source. You were making rapid changes with no explanation and no sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
WQA
Not familiar with the logistic of this nonsense. You know well it was a spelling error. I left a response. What now? Would I get some exposure? What is the recommendation? Thanks. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Just ignore it right now, you might have been better off just saying it was a typo, I'm not sure. Don't respond unless other editors get involved. Try to keep it short. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This is in response to your remarks about my editing of this entry. I am the subject of this entry and I was trying to fill it out and make some useful revisions. Because it is my own career I think that I can safefully vouch for the material that I include. I did try to use at least a little of the original entry. I do not think that the 3 book reviews are particularly helpful. The two by Eckart Otto are simply attacks on my book because he is one of those whom I most strongly criticize. I do not see any good purpose in flooding the site with more favorable ones.
I obviously have not used the right format for the list of honours. Most of them are listed in Who's Who. Any suggestions would be helpful. I was urged by others to fill out my profile, but it looks like it is more difficlt that I imagined.
Warning for what??? He's been sabotaging persian articles and reverting any edit that he doesnt like. He's ruined many articles and I could give many examples ... the man is an obsessed character & Wikipedia would be a better place with out the likes him. By the way i'm not surprised he made a complaint instead of dealing with the situation himself, very weak Sasani2 (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Btw ... I should add the reason for my multiple reversions was that I accidentally hit the "save" button instead of the "preview" button, and could not seem to get an error out of the text by simply editing it!
Thanks, but if you look at his contributions, he's got an interest in Hart, he's edited Hart's article and one about his book. --Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem, but are you saying you see a problem with the editor? I've warned him for not using edit summaries, but I have wondered if this editor needs more attention. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi sorry for the late reply to your messages, I didn't actually know Michael H. Hart is a racist until you pointed that out, however the list in The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is a compelling read and also think that him being a 'racist' doesn't make the list any less credible because the last person a racist would put on their list would be the Prophet Muhammad due to him preaching against discrimination and racism which was pravelant in pre-Islamic Arabia, and encouraged equality particually in his last sermon, therefore I don't see any bias in the list and don't see any reason why his book shouldn't be on the article to keep with neautrality.
Hey Doughweller. I got a message on my page from MacRusgail, (an admin?) who is warning me about making disruptive edits to a certain page (which I found out is the page for Arabian Gulf Rugby Union). Arabian Gulf Rugby Union is the official name of that page and so should not be changed. Also a group of editors keep vandalizing it. Either going to call everything "Persian" or censoring the name of body of water which is commonly recognized as "Persian Gulf." Take a look at the page and tell me if I did anything wrong or not. He is threatening me with a ban, but I dont believe he understand my point. Dr. Persi (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on. He isn't an Admin (and Admin's can't check IP addresses for named accounts, only the CU clerks (who are Admins) can do that, eg I can't). I was going to ask on his page but I see you already have. The article is now protected against IP edits (although indefinitely is odd and very unusual), so some of that will stop. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Doughweller, can you please take a look at my discussion page. I can not help but feel betrayed. I mean I try to the best of my abilities to follow wikipedia rules and regulations, I read extensively on what I type and always strive to achieve a middle ground and what I get for it is often paranoia and judgment. I am a bit offended by what McGail has put on my page, specially considering it is untrue and slanderous. I wont wana bitch about it, but is there a way to like, normalize that s*!$% on my page? I mean anybody reading my page now would think I am some 14 year old kid screwing with pages online and that hurts my pride as ridiculous as it sounds :\. Dr. Persi (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Except for a few things like unblock templates, you can remove anything from your talk page. Removal is assumed to show you read it. Archiving is preferred however in most cases, but you can just delete it. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Doug, we have Orissa in the process of changing name to Odisha, but with that comes a lot of problems on wiki with everyone trying to change the references on wiki to the new name with no heed to WP:COMMONNAME or anachronism. However, what's worse is the language is also being renamed by the government from Oriya to Odia and this is finding it's way on to en.wiki. It's getting to be a little tiresome and I seem to be only one of a couple of people reverting this (and am not intent on taking adminly actions in these cases where I revert) can you suggest any other alternatives? We've had this discussion at WT:INB during the height of the change legislation, but it wasn't ever helpful as no one came by to clean up the mess. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff13:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Difficult. I see it was move-protected, which is obviously a good idea, but the problem seems to be changing the name within the article, right? Are you saying the name change will be ok after it becomes official, or that it still shouldn't take place because of WP:COMMONNAME? --Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't clear; but the change is happening outside the article on pretty much everything that links to it. e.g. We use Madras/Bombay to refer to times when the city was named as such, not Chennai/Mumbai and so on. However, the bigger problem is the language - I'm really not sure how a governmental change of name would trump what the language is commonly known as? Also, from what I've seen the (and I could be wrong, so I'm not basing my judgment on this), the bill is still pending approval from the Rajya Sabha, which is reflected in the fact that the state still calls itself Orissa. As far as changing within the article (not title), I think sourcing the changes should be fine as long as one doesn't go ahead and change without consideration to the time etc in reference. However, changing externally in other articles etc should reflect the common name, right? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff14:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. However, I find there are groups of articles where it seems impossible to maintain our guidelines and polices. School articles come to mind, clan articles are another. It looks as though there may be so many articles related to this name change that there's no way to do anything about it. Monitoring them would be hard enough, and trying to stave off changes made by many editors, a large proportion probably IPs? It seems a mammoth task. Do you have an 'adminly' solution I could consider? Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I've pretty much given up on the caste/clan business as long as they don't spread their tentacles to mainstream articles. Dab and I've had a few discussions on what to do, but basically they need something that's outside of mainstream Wikipedia view. See one example at WT:INB currently. Back to the matter at hand, I'm really not sure what to do, I was hoping you might have some ideas, an edit filter to prevent non-autoconfirmed changes on this and flag autoconfirmed changes maybe? We had something similar happen when there was the proposal to split Andhra Pradesh and lots of places were being renamed as being in Telengana and so on. State splits, name changes etc happen too often and are a big headache. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff17:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think enough about edit filters, yes, that would probably be a good idea, but I'm not the one to ask - maybe Nawlinwiki? He knows about edit filters. I've been putting quite a few articles onto pending changes. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Should there be some bureaucratic discussion before an edit filter is requested? I'll check with Nawlinwiki on the feasibility of one for this, it will come in handy for the numerous name and territory changes that we're prone to get on India related articles. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff07:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I read your post on worlds oldest companies page.. I agree there is a "torch of truth" there. Nahome wasn't linked, but proven to be using an account, pretending to be a woman, and was IP proven to work from a tobacco company by slim virgin.. Neither myself nor any of the other parties involved have been linked in any way to work for one whatsoever. Nahome removing the company from the list was a tongue and cheek way to slander a business/company/brand, do you not agree?--ArnaudMS (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
All the names there have Wikipedia articles, he does not. By the way, you seem to have spelled his name wrong. I think it is Bhadresh Swami, not Badresh. I don't think we can even have an article on him, I can't find any sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS that would indicate he meets our criteria of notability (which I hope you know as you say he is). --Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is not Doctor of Literature but Doctor of Letters by the way, and besides the fact he would at least need an article I can't find any reliable sources saying this degree was awarded or any sources saying who awarded it. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Semyon Ioffe
Thanks for all of your help in fixing the articles I posted. I'm still very new at this so I need all the help I can get. I started my first wiki project about these 2 research scientists and the technologies they discovered. There is a tremendous amount of information available about both men however it is all in Russian so I have been doing my best to translate pieces from all over to create all of these articles. Any help you provide here is really appreciated. Much of the information available on the technologies themselves are not published as they are still in testing phases with homeland security. I'm just trying to make as much of the information public. I see that the page I made for Semyon Ioffe sounds like a resume, I will change it today however I believe I did a very good job with the Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement page. Can you please let me know specifically why it has been nominated for deletion so I can improve it? Finally the redirect you made from Psychoecology to Ecopsychology is actually incorrect. The 2 things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Psychoecology is the field of science that ensures the healthy ecology of the mind through use of varied psychotechnologies and their associative methods. I would like your help in re-establishing this article. Psychoecology was a field of science that Dr. Igor Smirnov created, it and Ecopsychology are not the same. Thank you for your time, its hard to learn the system by oneself. --Newyork48 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The term psychoechology can be found in the literature before Smirnov used it, have you done a search? And I can't find it in Google Books or Google scholar when I combine it with Smirnov. The redirect it to the normal use of the term. The fact that Smirnov uses it differently doesn't change this so far as I can tell. I can find nothing mentioning "Semantic stimuli response measurement" in the literature. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Omniverse Theory
I am an amateur scientist who has been working on an original theory of the universe for the past 10 years using the internet as my primary research tool. My attempts to publish on Wickipedia have been inappropriate through lack of understanding of the system, and I sincerely apologize. The two objections raised about my insertions have been the link to the Omniverse Theory website, being not a valid citation and a possible conflict of interest. The link is a valid citation because it is the only authorized source of the theory and we cannot publish the propositions on Wickipedia and keep copyright to the propositions. In our view there is no conflict of interest either, as we are simply releasing a new theory to the public domain.
Below is the entry I would like to submit. I look forward to your comments of how this might be published at Wikipedia. Dubadeca (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
PREMISE OF THE OMNIVERSE THEORY
The physical universe is composed of electrons and positrons which are two and three dimensional energy quanta periodically cycling through singularity inducing opposite monopole charges which are attracted to opposite charge and repelled by like charge induced in the same instant
The universe is embedded in a three dimensional field of positive charge trapped by two dimensional membranes which store and project dynamic holograms into trapped field charge guiding natural processes and the development, behavior and evolution of embedded life forms
Antimatter universes with mirrored properties embedded in negative field charge are connected to our universe by membrane wormholes appearing as embedded super massive black holes from each polarity universe
The omniverse theory was published Dec 22, 2010 and the first ten propositions of the theory are available for PDF download at http://omniversetheory.com
Thank you very much for this message. The problem is that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for new ideas. Have you read WP:NOR? All our articles must follow that policy and the policy at WP:VERIFY (see also WP:RS. There is simply no way we can accept an article on this. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for information on this topic. New ideas can be submitted to Wikipedia by credible third part sources, according to Wikipedia criterion:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
2.it does not involve claims about third parties;
3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5.the article is not based primarily on such sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubadeca (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem! I thought it might be a formatting issue :-) Actually I have much more trouble with whoever decided that the Massey Twins' article couldn't be included on the Phaistos Disc main page because they didn't publish on paper. Do you know if that is still a rule? Thx Jpaulm (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug,I am somewhat confused with the recent deletion of my link for Firinn Albannach, and would like the point clarified. As someone who has the support of the the Siol Nan Gaidheal committee, I can't understand why the link has been removed. Yoy carry the line "Siol nan Gaidheal produced a detailed magazine at the time called Firinn Albannach which is described as having a rhetoric which was "anti-communist, neo-fascist and sometimes violent in tone" I personally disagree with that contribution/insertion with whatever source it may or may not be quoted from. As someone who actually owns a few of these magazines, and helped in it's production thirty years ago, I think, that it is only right, that people should be allowed to make up their own minds, unless WIKIPEDIA has an agenda to discredit certain organisations ! You may well put it too myself that I should maybe create a stub for Firinn Albannach, but I won't, as I have my reasons. As for the Note 1.^ Peter Barberis, John McHugh, Mike Tyldesley,Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations: Parties, Groups (2003),p. 408. There is alot within that book itself which needs to be corrected. I await your response. Donald — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|(Tartanpaint (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC))] comment added by Tartanpaint (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, must catch up with my talk page. As for Siol nan Gaidheal, probably most of the material there should be removed until it can be sourced using sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS. I'm afraid that the only source for that article, the one you object to, does meet our criteria, whether it is right or wrong. See WP:VERIFY. As for external links, in the past there was a big attempt to add such links to clearly promote the organisation. See WP:ELNO. You can ask if an external link is acceptable at WP:ELN. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Turns out it was almost all copyright violation anyway. It needs to be rewritten using what reliable third party sources say about the group. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Dudimose
I had redirected the page Dudimose to Dedumose II. This was reverted. The page about Dudimose only shows up on pages related to dating the exodus to the 2nd intermediate period. It is written without any good references (only a reference to Rohl). From reading this king is equated with Dedumose II. I mentioned to the other editor that I understand concerns, but upon looking at it more closely I think the redirect is the right thong to do. The name Dudimose is not used by scholars. Ryholt, Bennett etc call him Dedumose. And I have included the information about Manetho's Tutimaios in the Dedumose II article. Should I just redirect again? --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you think of this? [1]? I'm not sure what the situation is, maybe someone at the AE wikiproject talk page might know? Take it there? Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Question on form of citation
Hi Doug, I have a question on the form of citation for books. An editor continues to add to many of the slavery articles a link in either footnotes or further reading to a volume on the subject. That's no problem, but the said editor insists on adding in each instance a notation that the book has won an award, and then adds links to the award(s) the book has won. I think that's highly unnecessary, as well as complicating things. Wondered if you might have an opinion on it? This page, for instance, has the said cite at the bottom under further reading.List_of_opponents_of_slavery I reverted a couple of times on a different slavery piece, but don't want to have to go to each and every piece where this editor is inserting it. Thanks. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to check later on. The same book apparently has been added to various slavery and abolitionism articles that are on my watchlist. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I droped a barnstart in your main page. Did not know if you already have a place for it or if u r ok with it. Change it as you wish. Thanks for the help. Dr. Persi (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been trying to find out how to put the "centralized discussion" box on your userpage onto my userpage (thanks for the rest btw lol) but cannot identify the template/code used.
Lol - I did, spent about 40 mins trying to work it out and now I see I was stupidly making assumptions - I should know not to do that !
I assumed that the code including TOCleft was all just formatting for the TOC box - and that {{cent}} was to centre it, just realised that its on the left DOH! thx for that :¬)
Doug, can you take a look at Winston786 (talk·contribs)? I got involved based on some cross posting from Sikh History on mine and Dab's talk pages. See particularly History of India, he's been reverted by me and another user for adding OR; subsequently he adds the same content back with a source, and I check the source -- has nothing to do with the content, then he adds it back with a fact tag! Also, he loves tagging "good" Hindus as Hindu on any page he goes through and "bad" Muslims as Muslim, so it's a clear POV warrior. I think it's still early stages for an ANI, but talk/user talk page discussions don't help, neither do warnings -- he's been blocked for 3RR once, warned on this article and still gone over 3RR, I'm not taking it to the boards now because it's a good 12 hours since it happened. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff08:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, being the only WP:India admin patrolling a majority of these pages often I move over from adminning to editing these articles and tie up my hands. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff10:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
again (if you need translation, ask). It seems that warning him is quite useless. The interesting thing is that I don't remember having edit conflict with user:Sasani2. This should be a sock-puppet of another user. Alefbe (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
"You are such a coward that you remove my comments. Isn't it you Afghan? LOL why are you running from the truth? You were never a Persian and you will never be. Don't struggle too much, you may hurt yourself"
Whats your opinion of this page? I did a google search, but could only find mirror sites on the first several pages. Is it a real site? Could this be a hoax article? The article creater was indef blocked for legal threats about 6 months ago, so asking them for sources would probably not work, lol. Heiro03:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Look at this search [2] "3) Aqueduct of the Plavno Polje, Burnum This as of yet uninvestigated and unpublished aqueduct is significant because here, for the first time in Yugoslavia, the classic castellum aquae has been identified. It has an inner dimension of ." and another book snippet " There are ruins of an Amphitheatre and an Aqueduct, that conducted the water from a distance of 20 km. In the neighbourhood of Burnum " and I think more. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I don't understand reverting the edit I made to the Mohenjo Daro page, after clearly citing my source. The author is clearly noting alternative names, not spelling. Mohan is a very common alternative name to Krishna and many authors have linked the two suggesting Mohenjo Daro was not a "Mound of the Dead" but "Mound of Krishna". I believe this additional opinion to the article is essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam8477 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I see: "There are several different spellings of the site name and in this article we have chosen to use the most common form, Mohenjo-daro (the Mound of Mohen or Mohan), though other spellings are equally valid: Mohanjo-daro (Mound of Mohan =Krishna), Moenjo-daro (Mound of the Dead), Mohenjo-daro, Mohenjodaro or even Mohen-jo-daro." I don't think we can put in alternative names without explaining that they are spelled differently. And we certainly can't say 'debated' and source it to someone who doesn't say debated. Let me take it to the talk page of the article and we can discuss how to add it, ok? Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Aaron - explaining edits
Hi Doug, I fully understand your message, which told me to explain my edits. I reverted your reversion and I will explain my edits here to you. I changed the Qur'an quotes to a more modern translation (Yusuf Ali to Ahmed Ali) so more people will understand it and it will be in modern english rather than old english. Secondly, I expanded the Saint box for Aaron, and thought that a larger picture would look far better than the painting in which it is hard to tell which one Aaron is; furthermore, not all religions agree that Aaron made the Golden Calf so I felt a more neutral picture was better. I also added titles to the Saint box which have been attributed to Aaron in the past. If you feel any reversions are neccessary in regard to the quotations, please tell me. I will keep your helpful advice in mind next time I change anything on any page. Thank you for understanding.--Imadjafar (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this thoughtful and considered reply. Now that I've seen your comments this all makes a lot of sense. A lot of edits with no explanation are either vandalism or an attempt to insert a particular point of view. Edit summaries are really useful and help other editors not just understand but sometimes show them things that they can use. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It looked like vandalism. Here is what it looked like.
ain
"Noah's Arc" redirects here. For the TV series, see Noah's Arc (TV series).
It seems like an obvious revert. Why didn't you take a look before replying? That's not a correction of an internal link and certainly doesn't mention Mosul region. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no official chat site, I guess some editors may use their talk pages or user sub-pages as one but it's against guidelines. Why? Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sir: This article is up for deletion and has an overwhelming consensus at the moment to delete it. Both the Original author and the secondary author voted to have it deleted, but the article remains. The article is contentious in nature, as there are many factions of the Southern Cherokee, and all claiming to be the only sovereign nations of Southern Cherokee, while the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma claim that they are all frauds. However, The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky (SCNK) has been recognized twice by Governors, once by Executive Letter that both "welcomed and recognized" the SCNK in the State of Kentucky. The Executive letter was published back in 1893 (before any legislative critreia was propsed to recognize tribes in KY) and is in the state archives. Ernie Fletcher's Proclamtion made reference to the 1893 recognition, and pays tribute to SCNK. The City of Henderson, Ky also recognized SCNK. The Kentucky Justice Court in the publishing of the Tara Metts letter has also recognized them: "While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does recognize two tribes at the state level. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006. This tribe is based in Henderson, Kentucky."(1). This citation, as well as was other citations were part of the article before it was extensively edited by Chuck Hamilton (his name is his WIKI handle) (2)(3). Chuck does not appear to be a neutral editor as he has referred to SCNK as Frauds and Fakes in spite of any evidence to the contrary. The article is now a manafestation of only Chuck's beliefs about the SCNK, and is based on "out of context" info from a couple of newspaper articles. It should also be mention that HB 44, as mentioned in the article is not about the recognition of state tribes, but is proposed legislation for a defintion of what a Native American is in the State of Kentucky (I can provide a resource for this if needed). This article will continue to be a source of contention and debate. I believe it is in everyones best interest to just delete the article, and strangely enough Chuck is also now wanting it deleted for whatever reasons. Thanks for your time and best wishes. Stubbornbull (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I tried to footnote, but for what ever reasons that is not working for me, so please except raw links. This is really difficult for me:
Don't worry about the footnoting, that doesn't work without a reference template. This is going through the WP:AFD process which isn't exactly a vote, and whoever closes it, probably an Administrator, will close it which should have been done after 7 days. I'll see if someone wants to do it, I'm off to bed. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dougweller,
I apologize for not making the proper citation on the book, I don't know how to properly do it yet so I was putting in a citation temporarily. However, I'm making edits in completely good faith. I again apologize for any inconvenience. Thanks Doug.
Uwo222 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look above the edit window, click the drop down menu on cite, then templates. For books you will have to click show extra fields to find the page field. Or look at WP:CITE. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Users
Hi, doug, could you help me keep an eye on User:Imadjafar please? His editing is getting out of hand. I put examples of his problematic edits on his talk page and gave him a final warning notice. Someone65 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Seeker02421 on Yahweh
Hello. I wanted to ask you if you could have an eye on User:Seeker02421 who repeatedly tries to alter the article on Yahweh to include his considerations about the spelling and pronunciation of the deity's name and by this means tries to cast doubt on the identification of Yahweh with the biblical deity and the deity worshiped in ancient times. He had been banned for this in the past and now he is coming back again with his same old stuff. ≡ CUSH ≡16:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Could you unprotect this please? The socks are banned, the issues have been resolved on the talk page. Keeping it fully protected for a whole month will acheive nothing useful. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Xavexgoem has agreed to mediate a MedCab case at which you commented recently. I encourage you to decide whether you would like to add yourself as a party to the mediation. JJB 14:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Editors
Hey, I was wondering if I suspect a few authors to be essentially same persons, is there a way to check that? If so I can probably produce a list :P. Thanks. Dr. Persi (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
this is my first time editing a page for our university and you just deleted all my changes. i am attempting to clean up the pages according to the blocks that were listed. now all my changes are gone. would you please undo this? i am working as fast as i can figure things out such as listing references.
Please read the post Doug left at your talk page here User talk:Bucs-info, as it explains why he reverted your edits. Also, read all of the blue links in his post, as they explain the problems with your edits, problems with our username policy you may have, what WP:COI is, and a few very other pertinent facts for your situation. Also, it is not a good idea to leave your personal email or phone number on a WP page. Heiro18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Doug, for some reason I was blocked from editing that page. If you Look at the talk page I proposed some good ideas to expand on the article and wasn't involved in any edit waring. I was accused of being a sock by user Snowded. There seems to be a small hardcore of editors who are blatantly pushing POV on that page and it's a shame because as a result the article is really poor. I proposed to expand on the Academic analysis section citing a source by Chris Allen who is considered one of the UK's most experienced scholar on Islamophobia but because the hardcore of left wing editors that patrol that page didn't agree with it they said that it was a POV article in favour of the EDL which is a joke as they are happy to cite sources from hope not hate blogs if it suits their POV. The article is controversial but the hardcore of left wing POV pushed seem to be getting away with making substantial changes with no discussion. It's bad form and reflect poorly on Wikipedia and needs to be addressed.--94.197.189.99 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about the personal viewpoint I put into the Obama page. Glad you pointed that out and corrected me. Won't happen again. I'm glad they're starting to have some responsibility here. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbsDei21 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. I was going to trust that edit, just adding that wl improvement and then let more experienced editors, like you decide if it stays or not. I am guessing that the readers understand that topics like conspiracy theories or Missing white woman syndrome are hazy topics by nature and that it's sometimes hard to follow the rules for providing references. As I said it was just for your information, no big production - and I've had a few. SlightSmile17:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Odd chance or something else?
Hey, Doughweller. I had a question. I came across the page for Rumi and saw comments left by well certain old users who were involved in Avicenna article. Oddly enough, as of Feb. 2 there is a new author named "Daiel Grant" whom you can see in the history of the section and as per his contribution is interested in Avicenna and Rumi, both articles that the other user was also invovled in. I am not sure but I was wondering, if you have the capability to see whether any of the users on that page, specially the ones who just come out of no where recently are repeat, multiple accoutns, or puppets? Thanks. Dr. Persi (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
and do you know what happened to the lawsuit?
Of course, Yes. I’ve attended the court to see the reality.
Don’t you know that Hillel Levine can’t read Japanese ?
There are not any Japanese in the bibliography made by Hillel Levine.
The relable resouces is following :
• Chapman J.W.M., “Japan in Poland's Secret Neighbourhood War”in Japan Forum No 2/1995.
• David Kranzler, Japanese, Nazis and Jews, Hoboken, NJ, Ktav Publishing House, 1976.
• Marvin Tokayer & Mary Shwarz, The Fugu Plan, New York, Paddington Press, 1979.
• David G. Goodman & Masanori Miyazawa, Jews in Japanese Mind, New York, The Free Press, 1995.
• Pamela Rotner Sakamoto, Japanese Diplomats and Jewish Refugees, Westport, CT, Praeger Pnblishers, 1998.
• Alison Leslie Gold, A Special Fate. Chiune Sugihara, New York, Scholastic, 2000.
• Seishiro Sugihara & Norman Hu, Chiune Sugihara and Japan's Foreign Ministry : Between Incompetence and Culpability, University Press of America, 2001.
• Dom Lee & Ken Mochizuki, Passage to Freedom. The Sugihara Story, New York, Lee & Low Books, 2003.
• Mordecai Paldiel, Diplomat heros of the Holocaust, KTAV Publishinh House, NJ, 2007.Tizizano (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Then use them. What happened to the lawsuit? If you think a source doesn't meet our WP:RS guidelines you can go to WP:RSN, and the sources above should be added to the article talk page for others to see. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hellow, Mr. Dougweller.
You have written :“Sugihara settled in Fujisawa in Kanagawa prefecture.”and also “As Sugihara stated in a conversation with a visitor to his home near Tokyo Bay that year:”.
Please watch carefully the map of Japan, for example through Google Earth.
Please, please use the talk page. I did not write the above, I don't think I've written any of the article, are you posting on my talk page because you think I wrote it? Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 09:19, 8 February 2011 (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.
As I explain on the TfD I don't think this can be deleted because of attribution requirements. The history of the template is now complicated enough that I don't think it would be possible to properly attribute whatever was merged (and from statements made there already appears to have been attempts at merging). Hence the reason I propose moving it to a talk page of the article and then redirecting or blanking leaving an appropriate note on the article talk page (so a delete in all but name, I'd probably go so far as ask for it to be protected after blanking / redirection as there would never be any reason to edit it). As you !voted delete I was wondering what your take on the attribution situation was. Dpmuk (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Deletion doesn't vanish anything permanently, it's still there for those of us with Admin rights to see. Moving it to userspace wouldn't fix that problem, and redirect seems to be a bad idea. Blanking and full protection might work as it would preserve the history for anyone to see if that really is a problem. I've placed a sanctions notice on Eliko's talk page as the ArbCom case seems relevant to his actions. We'll see if he accepts your suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy for someone with more experience of attribution to take a look at this and "overrule" me as I'm still feeling my way in issues such as this but I definitely think the issue has to be properly considered before we delete. If there hadn't been claims that merge attempts have already been made I'd agree that delete isn't a problem but if we already have (currently unattributed) merged material in the page history of the article (even if it's no longer there) I think we could have issues if we deleted. The complex history of both pages means I don't fancy trying to work out whether merge attempts have actually happened as if they have been done they've been done with any comment in the edit log. I'd like nothing more than to see this template deleted but I think we now may be constrained. Lets hope your ANI thread (which I've only just noticed) produces comments from people more experienced in this area than me. Dpmuk (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep once this has been sorted there are definitely going to have to be some null edits and talk page noties to sort all this out. Personally I'm up for just doing it preemptively as it's better safe than sorry. Dpmuk (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I can only speak as an Administrator and experienced editor, and yes, I advise you to give up. The only reason I didn't delete it was because I wanted to sort out the history issue. As you've seen, the original editor clearly expected to be notified that the merge had been completed and would then have deleted it. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the original editor really expected to be notified that the merge had been completed and would then have deleted it, however, the original editor didn't expect to have the template deleted before it's merged, right? Just let you know: no part of the template was merged into the article - since the original decision was made. On the contrary: There were some attempts to merge, but they were reverted (by violating the 3RR).
Anyways, I was asking for the clerk's help, after the deletion was made by an involved admin (i.e. an admin who has already expressed their desire for deletion, beacuse of a wrong reason that was reverted by this very admin after this admin found out that their reason was wrong), so it's up to the clerk to decide whether to assist me or to advise me to give up.
If you think you can't help me in that matter, e.g. by temporary userification (even for two hours only, just to let me fulfill the original resolution to merge the template), then please respond to User:Nightw's last response, and please deny (ibid.) what this user has ascribed to you, that you apparently "warned" me for anything; As you know, you did not: On the contrary: you clearly stated here, that your message on my talk page "does not necessarily mean that" my "current editing has been deemed a problem", so it's not a warning at all. Thanks in advance.
Thank you for your rapid assistance. As a clerk, can you also change the involved admin's decision - from "the result of the discussion was delete" - into the clerk's current decision, i.e.: "the result of the discussion was: deletion along with a temporary userification for a merge", or something like that? Eliko (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you ask "what clerk"? The clerk who agreed to assist me by userifying the template that was deleted by the involved admin - who closed the discussion with the result of "delete" without userification (although the suggestion of userification was not rejected by anybody).
Anyways, thank you for assisting me and for complying with my first request, and thank you too for your last response, in which you expressed your "seeing no need" to comply with my second request (though I do see a clear need - otherwise I wouldn't request).
I've merged the article from the userfied template, but I still need the talk page (it contains important information). Could you add it? Additionally, I'll need this diff (between the article and the userfied template) - for documentation: I suspect that somebody who has already reverted some weeks ago (by violaing the 3RR) a previous attempt of merge - may claim now that the new change I've just made in the article is not taken from the deleted template which was intended (per this original decision) to be merged into the article, whereas the only way to refute such a claim is by showing the userfied template, or by showing the diff mentioned above (between the article and the userfied template); However, unfortunately, once the userfied template is deleted, that necessary documentation for the merge will get lost ! Do you have any solution for this problem? I'm looking forward to your help. Eliko (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Stalked by disruptive editor
Can you help with this editor[5], that is stalking my edits and removing references and referenced information? Judging from the reverts, it would appear this anon IP is a sockpuppet of this editor[6]. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The page Avicenna is a permanent magnet for vandalism, and WP:SYN type statements. There is so much I can physically do in terms of checking the sources making sure ppl do not gradually change or corrupt the sources. The problem is some of the sources are not online so it is really difficult to keep up with what is actually a true excerpt text from the source and what is a gradual corrpution and not to mention difficulty to find out who did what, specially since now IPs can edit as well as unestablished users. It is clear to me that somebody is making multiple accounts, and specifically focusing on this article of many. I need your help. Maybe you can put a lock on the page so at least we do not have to deal with IPs and new accounts. And if not I require your guidance and experience instead! I appreciate the help. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry if I was too serious regarding that BLP issue. It's simply because I always want to follow facts. Now the fact tells me to leave it. As I have already said, if you take the issue to AfD now, I probably won't even participate. I'm not interested anymore. Let's just forget it. Regards, *** in fact ***( contact )03:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your post. One of the problems with that article was 'in fact', facts, with various people including claims that were no where near facts (eg that he was a professor, etc). Basically a political/nationalist issue. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy
Thank you for illustrating Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy. That was most helpful to the class.
Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy
Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed.
Dear Dougweller,
With due respect I did not found that article is under that role. Particularly, it is a case of living individual. My intention is to create and to add my contribution to the article about dr Darko Trifunovic and simply, it is open for all of wiki users to contribute.DusanTR (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Convince others on the article talk page first, if you continue just to remove the redirect you will probably end up blocked. Not every individual can have an article. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Avicenna
Hi Dougweller. There are multiple IPs who state the same thing as they are in my view and reasonably so the same person. Either this same person or these IPs make changes to the content of rthe article that is not supported by the text. He/they recently (please see edit history of the page) also have taken the position of attacking me saying I have an agenda, etc. You mentinoed we can not protect the page from IP edits because at that time it was not meeting criteria for protection. I need help with this. This is constant vandalism and whoever is doing it seems to not be coginizant of the fact that he is using multiple different IPs and he continues to argue as if everybody knows he is the same person. Even if it is not the smae person, these IPs have certain vandlistic type of behavior (you can actually see that in their own Talk pages, including one recent user "Daiel Grant"). It is a complete violation of wikipedia, possible sock puppetry, and I hate to be subject to undeserved lible from him/them. Ironically, this same individual (or few individuals) also attack similar articles mainly those involving the reason Khorasan and the time of Samanids and also articles regarding Afghanestan and any article where they can find the word Persian or Iran in it. If you take a look at the last say 20 edits on the Avicenna history page, you start to see a pattern of attack on certain concepts and certain WP:SYN type behavior (Persian > Iranian, etc.). Again, I have no problem with changes to the article as long as they refelct a source or do not have an agenda, but these ppl do none of that. I believe these IPs have an agenda and I hate to have to be the one who goes after them correcting their agendas which are becoming quite frequent. I really need help or I need to know what we are to do? thanks. Dr. Persi (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I also left a symposium of some 14 reliable sources in the pages' Talk Page, so these IPs can see. I reverted his edit and asked him to read the Talk Page. I guarantee you he will yet again revert it attack me in some other fashion. Dr. Persi (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually cooler heads prevailed. I spoke with another editor. I do not seem to require any help or mediation at the moment. We found definitive sources. I will however like to take a raincheck in case in future I need your help again since I know you are one of the few who goes by the book and that is rare. So hope you enjoyed your day and no worry the issue at least for the moment is resolved and requires no further follow up. Cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it seems he keeps changing it. Can you read the "Talk Avicenna" see the sources I cited. I found clear sources about both his origin and his ethnicity as Persian, but there is this one IP that keeps changing it back to Iranian for some WP:SYN agenda of his own. This needs an admin. Look at the history, and also the Avicenna discussion sectino. Cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Miracle Mineral Supplement
In compliance with Wiki policy, this is to kindly inform you that, barring a reversal of your recent action of blocking the MMS subject, I will be requesting comment for administrator conduct.
It is not my highest desire but you leave me with little choice. According to Wiki policy, an administrator must "never use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved". A review of the revision history reveals you are not entirely a stranger to this topic which may suggest your action is not entirely without conflict of interest.
I do not know your position on the subject, nor does it matter, but given arbitrary action to side with AndyTheGrump, in spite of the facts set before you, it is clear a hasty decision has been made without due diligence of the actual conflict; and one that hampers the natural evolution of the topic.
Wiki policy states, "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged [must] be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate." AND "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Wikipedia:CHALLENGE and WP:BOP).
This conflict arises from AndyTheGrump and his insistence upon the use of the word "fraudulent" to describe MMS in the introductory sentence of the article. This is challenged. The word "fraudulent" has a very specific legal connotation which implies "deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". This word has been inserted into the definition of a topic without a "clearly and precisely" cited "reliable published source". It is hence opinion and a simple view of the talk page will illustrate it is heavily disputed and not just by me.
AndyTheGrump makes clear in his thankful comments to your block that he does not think this article should be neutral, a clear violation of Wiki policy. Your reverting and blocking may show an apparent sympathy for his position.
AndyTheGrump would like to say, because I am disputing the use of this word without a citation, that I am suggesting MMS cures AIDS. This is preposterous and illustrates an attempt by Andy to redirect the actual matter at hand. As an administrator I hope you will agree that my opinion of MMS, good or bad, has no place in this article. I am merely requesting another editor refrain from publishing his emotional opinion. If he would like use the specific term "fraudulent" to describe MMS, then he must "clearly and precisely" cite a "reliable published source". This source must in fact say that MMS is, in fact, fraudulent. Anything less is opinion pushing, which AndyTheGrump makes no bones he is doing.
An honest look at this Wiki entry will reveal to any thinking mind that it is biased. As an editor, I endeavor to wrestle it back to neutrality devoid of all unsubstantiated claims, be they for or against. To support AndyTheGrump and his activity by reverting and blocking illustrates bias, non-neutrality and lack of due-diligence into the conflict at hand. As an administrator and a keeper of the Wiki flame, I must demand your best. As such, I am asking you to revert to the last edit and unblock the topic so it may continue its course to eventual neutrality.
Thank you for your consideration. (sorry forgot to sign)
PS, I just read more of your talk page and I think you are a fair person. Forgive me if my post is edgy or sterile. I'm really just looking for some hope yet in this Wiki project. My favorite encyclopedia is the 1911 Brittanica. No opinions, no egos, no agendas. Just brilliant fact gathering and editing. Cheers. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You can go ahead and complain, but it is a longstanding joke that articles are always protected to the 'wrong version'm read WP:WRONGVERSION. The dispute needs to be sorted out on the article talk page. It's my opinion a lot of Admins would simply have blocked you both, and I expected to come back this evening to find that had happened. I'll unprotect it if there is a consensus, but to simply unprotect it would lead to more edit warring and editors would probably be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Umm..
I had to get a new account b/c I am on a shared computer, but the addition of a 'Goodwill trust' under trust is actual and accurate. Yes, it was removed before (by Arthur Rubin), but there is a sourced reference. Also, this trust that you keep reverting is acknowledged by the IRS, and has paid taxes under the IRC. What don't you like about it, mate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanniefoster (talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone beat me to it, he's had an indefinite block " for making undiscussed and uncommented mass changes to reflect a particular nationalist POV in scores of articles, which is an abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground. See also WP:ARBAA2.. As he is likely to use socks, please let me know if you think you find any. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I've been following these articles quite closely as well and they seem to be under attack from a wide range of IPs and generally new editors. The protection template you imposed on the Erzurum page just recently expired and the same suspicious IPs have been carrying out the same form of attacks. Is it possible that you can re-establish a longer protection for this particular article? Similar edits are being carried out on other Armenian-related cities in Turkey (see here) and deserve close watch. I wouldn't be surprised if this is being coordinated off-Wiki or if multiple sockpuppets are play. Thank you. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Erzurum is being watched by other editors and is I hope dealt with. Likewise Hedoma is blocked. I'll try to look at the others, real life keeps getting in my way. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's interesting. I get easily distracted looking this stuff up instead of doing what I'm supposed to be doing! Paul B (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I see the article quotes the book "Justinian's flea". I found this gushing review!:
Justinian's Flea: Plague, Empire, and the Birth of Europe. By William Rosen. (New York, N.Y.: Viking Press, 2007. Pp. 367. $27.95.)
As a longtime editor and publishing executive, the author of this book could have made his first book a model of popular history. Instead, Justinian's Flea exemplifies most of the defects of popular history today.
The author discusses, in no logical order, the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (527-565 AD), the sixth-century bubonic plague, and various themes in Eurasian history, inserting bits of argument so disorganized that they defy summarizing. Apparently aiming at an informal but erudite style, William Rosen writes portentous sentences filled with metaphors and cliches. For example, Rosen declares of Boethius' "Consolations [sic] of Philosophy," "[T]he Ostrogoth king's caution grew into a paranoid episode that would lead directly to the creation of a work that, more than any other, marks the intellectual doorway between the classical world and the medieval world that would replace it" (65). Later we read in a description of the biology of the plague, "This circular journey, the linchpin of the three processes by which sugars are turned into energy, is such a remarkable energy motor that it is still very much the gold standard even among Johnny-come-lately species like Homo sapiens" (180). There are also outright solecisms, like "internment" for "interment" (216), "Frank's" for "Franks'" (256), and "immiseration" for "impoverishment" (270).
The endnotes and bibliographical note mix primary sources, scholarly works, obsolete scholarship, popularizations, and whatever Rosen found on the Internet. He makes such howlers as that Augustus founded the Roman Empire "in 74 C.E.," Constantinople was "in Asia Minor" (4) and fell to the Turks in "1458" (320), "Roman Armenia" is "today's Azerbaijan" (248), Justinian and Theodora are saints of the "Eastern Orthodox Church" (273), Maurice's Strategikon (c. 600 AD) is "eighth-century" (279), the philosopher-bishop Synesius was a "historian" (302), and the fourth-century martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica "wrote" about the plague in 597 (313). Rosen confuses mosaics in Ravenna with frescoes (160), Arianism with Monophysitism (257), and Monophysitism with Eastern Orthodoxy (274). Because none of Rosen's notes includes page numbers, the origins of his errors are hard to identify; but an estimate in a book by this reviewer that the sixth-century empire had a maximum of twenty-six million people seems to be his misremembered source for writing that "twenty-five million fewer people lived in the empire at the end of the sixth century as did at its beginning" (309).
Although this book is full of mistakes no scholar would make, it does avoid mistakes only a scholar would make. To take a recent example, Chris Wickham's Framing the Early Middle Ages (Oxford, 2005) asserts that the plague was unimportant and the European economy revived around 750 because feudal lords forced peasants to produce more--a Marxist assumption that people work harder under compulsion that is unsupported by medieval evidence and was disproved under Stalin and Mao. At least Rosen realizes that the European economy revived because population growth rebounded when the plague stopped. Yet his book is so inaccurate and poorly written as almost to give common sense a bad name.
Warren Treadgold
Saint Louis University
RE: Hannibal of the Carthaginians and Yalta Conference
You recently deleted my background on Hannibal and the aftermath of Yalta, to this i take great disrespect as i am confident that i have not contraviened any policy and was just adjusting the flawed infomation on the site. However, i am a new user so could you please inform me on your decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamWimborne (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
First, never sign anything you add to articles, only to talk pages. Secondly, as it says below, " You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". Thirdly, you are adding your own ideas, please see WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. And I've never deleted any edits of yours. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok thanks for your responce, noted for hannibal, however,the Yalta conferece does not contravene any of your points and is as valid as anything else tha has been written on that page is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamWimborne (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Same problems there - you deleted sourced text and added unsourced text, you signed it, you claimed copyright and you commented on another editor. Two editors have reverted you there. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I remember a few months back we both ran into one chap who was consistently changing BCE-CE to BC-AD. I was inactive for a while after that, so don't remember what happened since nor do I remember the editor's name or range, but is this the same? The edits are similar, but I've never really involved myself in WP:ERA edits except on my watchlist. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff07:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it could be but didn't he have an account? I don't know what to do about this sort of thing, as a range block wouldn't be reasonable. Just keep checking from time to time I guess. Let me know if you want any help or have any suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
He did have an account, but then started IP socking and was blocked. I can't remember anyhting, and can't seem to find it in my history either. Not sure I have any suggestions for handling this currently, it seems to have died off now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey dougweller, if a particular phrase is moved to a subsection of a page for instances lets just say the page is called "1" and the sub section "1.1" and when you type in the search option "1.1" it automatically moves u to the page 1 and subsection 1.1, and if you want to make a new page with the title of 1.1, how do you procced? Would it mean the new page would override the old page's subsection or not? Is there any regulations regarding this? thanks. Dr. Persi (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I see. No worries. Another admin helped me out and protected Avicenna page for the reasons I staetd here which was abundant vandalism. Another admin also blocked user Daiel Great from vandalistic edits. So no help needed there. The question I have is basically regarding "Achaemenid art" I have basically studied enough now to be able to start the article and since achaemenid art automatically directs to the subsection in the page Achaemenid empire, I wanted to be able to create that page so that the search would automatically go there so I wont have to create "Achaemenid Persian art" and instead just create "Achaemenid art." Cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, just click on [24] and replace the redirect with what you want in the article. Then put a main article template on the section where the redirect went to originally. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Odd edits
Hi Doug. I'm not sure why this person keeps making these edits [25]. Why would anyone get into a back and forth over something as silly as whether or not the 'h' in Marc Anthony is pronounced or not? So far it looks like this person's only contribution? I wasn't even sure if it was worth bringing to your attention. Maybe it's today's comical relief? LOL Of all the things to do with one's time, arguing about the pronunciation of 'Anthony' should really not be at the top of anyone's list. It made me laugh, hope it does the same for you. :-) --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug, actually I have been meaning to talk to you about that editor. He seems more and more to me like the typical new user who is way out in left field and will not acknowledge even when he is proven wrong, wants to debate endlessly about irrelevant quibbles on the wrong page. I have seen many new users who did less treated as disruptive; I don't get why this one needs so much extra coddling. Please assess for yourself the truth of the facts he wants to debate on Talk:Ur.
1) He insists that we regard Dumuzid strictly as a deity, even to the point of ignoring or ruling inadmissible all the many Sumerian texts and epics that clearly describe Dumuzid as a king of Uruk just before Gilgamesh. He baldfacedly claims that these Sumerian texts do not actually mean what they say at face value when they call Dumuzid "King of Unug", because he apparently knows how to read Sumerian "between the lines" better than any published scholar.
2) Although it is well known that on the oldest Sumerian King list, Dumuzid is represented as a king of Uruk who singlehandedly captured Enmebaragesi of Kish (a known historical figure), he is pretending he does not know this, and even implies that I made it all up myself. What do you do with something like that? It's already referenced on the correct wikipedia articles, and easy to find by clicking.
3) He accuses me of treating the SKL as a "valid historical document" although I have never done, I treat it for what it is; and neither do I see why it should be entirely brushed under the carpet as evidence wherever it may be inconvenient to revisionism.
Surely the "Dumuzid" talkpage or the "Sumerian king list" talkpage would be the place for him to propose all these arguments, if he wants to challenge the information we have already assembled. But now it looks like he wants to argue on Talk:Ur that Till Eulenspiegel is at an improper or incorrect title, and I'm afraid my patience is wearing thin.
Just want to point out that I am not a "college kid". I am working towards my PhD. 10 years ago I was a college kid, now I have become a professional Ancient Near Eastern archaeologist who goes to the Middle East annually for excavations. I am also already a published scholar (my first article appeared last year in the peer-reviewed and well-established journal Paleorient, and my second one will appear this year in a new volume on Susa and Elam). More articles will follow in the coming years, working on them as we speak. As a PhD student at the University of Pennsylvania (which you should know is one of the most important institutes in the world for the study of the Ancient Near East) I am currently working on unpublished material of al-Hiba (ancient Lagash) and on ceramics from Ur. Regarding that material I work closely together with world renowned scholars who are specialists in early Mesopotamia and Iran (go look them up!). I am not specializing in the languages myself, but I am studying Sumerian with Prof. Tinney who is one of the leading scholars in the Sumerian language and who is at the basis of websites such as ETCSL, ePSD and CDLI (you can verify that yourself easily). Before coming here I also studied Sumerian at the University of Leiden (another world renowned institute). So now I introduced myself and I would appreciate it very much that you stop acting as if I have no idea what I am talking about. In the summer, when I might have a little bit more time, I will try to contribute a bit more on various entries relating to third millennium Mesopotamia and Iran.
Perhaps Til, you can introduce yourself ... you seem very dismissive of college kids and seem to think you know better than scholars themselves. What is your training and education if you are so superior to those who actually work in this field of study and spend every day reading, researching, and writing down these matters? If anything, you should be pleased that professionals are interested in being involved!
As for the entire debate on the Ur site, I simply replied to your weird statements. I did not understand what it had to do with Ur, as I pointed out from the beginning. So don't go around accusing me of waging fights on the Ur site about unrelated topics! As far as I am concerned, that "debate" is over and I will not post anything anymore in that thread. As for the other statements and complaints you made here, I do not use Wikipedia entries as sources (which you are doing .. how convenient to use entries you wrote yourself as evidence), but I refer to scholarly works. I admit there might be a text which says that about Dumuzid, but all I wanted to say is that that does not matter one bit. So in any case, all of this debate is done now ... go ahead and change or add anything you want. As I said, in the summer I might be back and I will try to write some decent entries with recent scholarly references. It is about time that Wikipedia has some good information on this fascinating part of human history. It has been a thorn in my eye for a long time that it is very hard to find decent information on Mesopotamia online.
Greetings and apologies to anyone else than Til for letting myself get dragged into this and for letting this entire thing become so long and repetitive and VERY unproductive. Srenette (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)srenette
Greetings, Srenette. I am old enough to agree with our founder Jimbo that credentials are irrelevant for wikipedia editors; I prefer to be known simply as a wikipedia editor for 6 years, who does spend much of my time researching and adding information on these same topics, is university-educated, and yes, I do admit I have written a fair bit of what you may read in these topics. So, when you come back in the summer, let us try to work together productively and amicably, even if we have differences of opinion or understanding of facts. I am always willing to be proven wrong with sources, and this can be done without any rancour. I'm sure you will do fine here with observation of how articles usually turn out in the long run, source-based rather than opinion-based, just giving the differing opinions that can be sourced to explain whenever there is any controversy about a topic. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I have added the source: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/697090/ in the conviction section of the Article so as to make the judgment passed by the High Court available to the world at large. I thought this appropriate because when the trial court passed the judgment, it was made public immediately and was subject to severe criticism. And now everyone has gone quiet and the so called supporters/critics of the trial court judgment have made no efforts to make this public. Since wiki is read throughout the world, I thought why not everyone read it and let's say form an objective imapartial opinion of what has actually transpired in the case..
Although I'm not convinced that it is sensible to organise the article so that it has a 'High Court' section, if there is such a section it needs to be in chronological order I think. There must be reliable newspaper sources commenting on this surely? Use them and also add a link to the judgement. I am a bit confused as to why the edit was so difficult to read when you obviously can write clearly, by the way. Anything here also has to comply with WP:BLP. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the editor that ran the User:Wiki alf account, which is admin flagged and in good stead. I do not (and likely will not unless/until 'sanity prevails') use that anymore. That account has to its credits multiple DYKs, two FAs and a number of kick starts to GAs and had in excess of >60K edits. The ips that Verbal and Keepcalmandcarryon would know 'me' from are from those pages, where their lax or sloppy quoting of sources has been paired with slanted writing colouring the subjects according to set patterns (amongst other worrying habits) has been challenged by myself. The 'same guy' - 'me' is behing that admin account, and the ips that appear to give Verbal and KCCO et al some grief - I would ask you to consider whether the leopard who has done 60K edits to the good of the encyclopedia has actually changed his spots or not. I'd say no, but then I would wouldn't I? So now they have it that I have to write page upon page of screed for making very reasoned simple edits that solve their (and those in similar vein) messes.
Hi. I see you did RevDel on a couple of revisions of Talk:Gavin Menzies this morning. But it looks as if the subsequent Signbot version of one of them might still be there. And if you look at this too, you can see what looks like defamation in the "before" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if I could get your opinions and/or help on something. Over the last few weeks an editor User:Conaughy, who edits subjects mainly concerned with West Virginia prehistory and groups, has made a few edits that were less than stellar. Mostly the problem involves some bad grammar, wording, comprehensibility, etc., almost to the point where I have wondered at times if English was his first language. But the more I've started looking at his edits in the last few days to a week, the more I'm starting to think he copy and pastes from sources and does an incredibly bad job of paraphrasing, to the point of making almost any information added almost incomprehensible. Many times artifacts from the original work are left in the edits, fragments of footnotes such as (Dragoo, 1963:31) and then not including the article, book or paper this footnote seems to refer to in the original text. Their main project seems to be the Prehistory of West Virginia article, which while containing several mountains worth of information, is almost impossible to read and may be the worst put together article I've run across in over 3 yrs at WP. I'm not sure how much of the info they have inserted is copyvio, or if by pasting in half fragments of sentences that are so fragmented as to be devoid of their original meanings is even copyvio. I've cleaned up some of their stuff before, and had several short conversations on article talk pages, they seem to be the sweet well meaning sort. So how do I broach this subject with them? I dont want to come off too harsh or bitey, nor denigrate their well meaning contributions, but I've come to the conclusion that something does need to be done. Suggestions? (I have also posted this to another editor who works with a lot of Native American subjects for their input as well) Heiro01:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help on the articles I mentioned. You and Uyvsdi are life savers. The task at those 2 articles was just overwhelming to even contemplate. I've been working on some of the users smaller articles for the last week, Fort Ancient and a variety of sites associated with it, Hopewell tradition and some stuff associated with it, and over the last few days was starting to feel like Sisyphus. I then glanced at those 2 articles and almost cried, lol. I hope Connaughy takes this for what it is, a few well menaing editors trying to help out. Anyway, thanks, and cheers Heiro07:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good block on a pov warrior - checking sources, the Armenians arrived in the area around 700 BC and are not 'the original inhabitants'. But I'm no expert, if Dab is still around ask him. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I have provided sources about king David from the talmud which is the most logical source to follow.
See here http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/proof-torah-true/
Please refrain from spreading lies about king David and from slandering his name. You are here by warned. If you do not go and investigate the link I have provided you have no excuse for what happens to you if you continue in your apikorsim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
So what horrible thing is going to happen to me? And I'm not sure how reverting your unsourced edits/comments is spreading lies, but I'm sure you have some rationale.
Akkadian Empire
Hi Dougweller, I am sorry to bother you with this, but I noticed that you recently mediated on a similar issue between User:Til Eulenspiegel and another user, and that's why I approach you. Can you have a look at this edit from Til, and especially at the edit summary? I strongly disagree with the point that he makes, and if it is such a basic fact, then Til should be able to provide the sources without problem. Claiming that something is a basic fact doesn't make it so. However, he seems very opposed to strong changes made to some articles, so I don't want to push this issue much further without some good advice.
And on another note, I apologize for the edit I made that you reverted, I was correcting links to redirect pages and whenever I come across something that I think is incorrect, I correct that too. I must have done that too much on autopilot. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem, and I've reverted Til and posted to his talk age. I don't understand his attitude there. Please let me know if you want any more help. We need editors in this area. --Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Citations are supposed to be used for statements that editors wish to challenge. There is such a thing as a frivolous or nuisance citation request that only annoys the people who know or care about a subject. Does Zoeperkoe really (seriously) wish to challenge the statement that the Akkadians were influenced by the Sumerians?
I don't know what kind of kick Zoeperkoe has been on the last 3 days but it started with his proclamation on Talk:History_of_Mesopotamia that "Sumer is an ill-defined, oldfashioned term that is best not used." He claims that "mainstream science" has determined that the Sumerians never actually existed; apparently he wants to see "Sumer" written out of wikipedia as much as possible. The only problem with that is, nobody else but Zoeperkoe seems to have gotten the word. I must have been napping the day the BBC broke the news, that mainstream science has determined that Sumerian never existed. I am now eagerly awaiting any sign that the rest of the field is ready to fall into line with Zoeperkoe's proclamation of three days ago. Until then, I'm not going to waste time finding published citations for every Tom, Dick and Harry who demands referenced proof that Sumerians existed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
But you will waste time removing the citation requests? As I said before, they are useful for those who wish to follow up and learn more about the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
All I can see is that he challenged the statement that Akkadians were influenced by Sumerians. I would consider that a frivolous challenge, but perhaps some expert ought to be be consulted, eh? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This is in regards to the message that you erased on the page of Armageddon for the Seventh Day Remnant. I had realized the content needed to be fixed and had no problem in doing so. Unfortunately after fixing this a user by the name of B got rid of the post by stating that it is (Not Appropriate). I was only talking about the stance of a church and in no way attacking a person. I see no reason for the post to have been taken down this time. Please if you can let me know why this is not allowed I would greatly appreciate it.
Hi Doug, I had a question on user protocol. I've been left a rather abusive message on my talk page from someone with whom I've never interacted. In addition, the piece they're referring to I haven't edited in a couple of years, and they are completely misstating my position on the facts. It's the William Leidesdorff piece, which I think you followed for awhile. I don't desire to interact with a person like this editor, who is uncivil from the get-go, as well as ignorant of the editing history. Is it acceptable to delete his comment to me without reply? Thank you for any advice. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You might note that the editor in question is now making odd personal attacks on the talk page of the piece, which I haven't edited in years. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you have your answer. August may be a bit early though. And although it's not necessary, most of our clerks are Administrators. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
One of his edits used the name of a real 13 year old in Dorset, giving it to an adult in another country. No possibility of a coincidence due to the unusual name and Wimborne's interest in Dorset. He was writing BLP violation after BLP violation. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor Dorset. I'm far less bothered by name-calling than BLP violations, still more by disclosure of a minor's personal details. Worth coming down on heavily and permanently. Haploidavey (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I hate to have to nudge you on this but this matter will not resolve itself. The current wording is not supported by the cites, all requests for quotes to demonstrate otherwise have been ignored, all attempts to negotiate wording acceptable to both parties have also been ignored, obfuscations are still being employed to prevent policy compliancy over this. This needs remedy.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd take a break from our "War of Eden" for a quick personal note just to tell you how much I really do appreciate you Doug. Tidying my articles, getting the sourcing right, letting me know what's allowed, helping me to get around the rules, you've mentored me from the beginning in many ways and I have to thank you from the bottom of my heart. I wanted you to know that whilst I might appear contrary at times, I hold you and your opinion in the highest respect for everything you've taught me.
Sorry about making edits when not logged in. I work long 12 hour shifts lately, which can be awkward when we're in the middle of blazing deletion discussions! I'll make greater effort though. I thought I'd also let you know my forthcoming plans, so you can keep an eye on me and help get the wiki-compass straight on everything. After finishing my DYK? award winning streak of Henri de Contenson's work on Syrian and Lebanese Archaeological Tells near Kharsag with some further work on Tell Aswad, i've been translating interesting stuff from the French about Danielle Stordeur's recent work on the PPNB "explosion of knowledge" at 8200 BC there (O'Brien's date for the arrival of his Shining Ones (aka smart cavemen)) within a day or 2's walk from Rashaya. I abolished the Aswadian on the PPNA page because of her work. I do have lots more to do and Tell Neba'a Faour will be next on the list.
You'll probably not mind those pages so much as where i'm going with my pretty, little Scorhill page, which is the only Devon circle I can be bothered creating... in practice to create pages for the numerous missing stone circles, notable Cairns and Logan Stones in Cornwall that comprise the suggested Bodmin Moor Astronomical Complex. You have kindly provided me with an (albeit negative) citation for O'Brien's "Megalithic Odyssey" but don't worry, I will only be going for targets with substantial mainstream sourcing and try to keep my bias reasonable, but quite possibly astronomically aligned.
I was also thinking of starting one about the Megalithomania conference, but thought I'd check you have enough server space on the fringe noticeboard for all that comes with that. ;-)
In any case, it's always lovely arguing with you. Speaking to Mrs. O'Brien was really a high point for me this week, whatever the outcome of our deletion discussion. It was great for me to talk to a peer who understood all this, she said to me 'The world doesn't know', which is why I'm doing what I'm doing, not for money. She had seen photos of me walking on Eden's watercourse and it had made her so happy. It did make me think that whatever our disagreements, I do have a peer in you too Doug, for which I'm very grateful. Keep well and I only hope we get to meet at a "Wikimania" convention oneday! Paul Bedson (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this. Although I guessed you might not have read the Newman and Darvill book after looking at it, I also thought I might have missed something in it. I don't understand why Newman now writes as Hugh, but then I don't understand why Darvill published with him unless at that time he was more mainstream. I was very impressed with your work recently until of course this came up. We'll see if people think the Telegraph article is enough (and Wilson). You always need to be careful to stick to what the sources say and not interpret them, and not use sources that don't mention a subject to argue for that subject. (See WP:SYNTH. I learned that editing an article on Troy in Britain, where I think Akhilleus explained to me that if the sources didn't mention Wilkins work, I couldn't use them to argue against Wilkins work. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world what it doesn't know. That's pretty fundamental, it's not here to promote new ideas - which is why we insist on reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I overestimated Yongle when I thought he was the one who created Clan of Zhu. Apparently he's not capable of creating new articles of that quality on a first attempt. Anyway, I'm glad that we've caught him once again. :) Lonelydarksky (暗無天日)contact me (聯絡)14:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Protohistory of West Virginia
I've been trying to make some sort of sense from this article over the last few days, see here User:Heironymous Rowe/Sandbox3 where I created a sandbox page to work on weeding out the unconnected, unnecessary or redundant. I've rewritten the lede and tried moving the prehistoric archaeological cultures into one section, then a section on the groups first encountered by Europeans, and a section to deal with the first written accounts in journals, beginning the historic period. I still think about half of the information left in the article is unconnected, unnecessary or redundant. The mainspace article Protohistory of West Virginia is so long and convoluted I felt it might be better to work out a better version and then replace it all at once. I have a general understanding of this time period and area, but I'm not real sure of alot for the specifics, i.e. which Native groups where where, and when as the moved alot at this time, specific european explorers in what years and where exactly to, etc. Any help or advice you could offer would be appreciated. You can either start a talk page at the sandbox page or edit the sandbox article, whichever you prefer. Thanks, Heiro18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool, no big hurry. Mainly I could use your help just looking at what I haven't cut from the article already and see what could be further eliminated from a general article about the subject matter. I'm about to be really busy for the next week or so IRL as its Mardi Gras here. I'm working on a costume all weekend and doing a traditional Courir de Mardi Gras on tuesday(fun!) and by the next weekend may be an extra on Treme (TV series) which is doing a Courir related story arc of some kind(dont know the details but sounds like fun). Heiro23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, he made the same edit to Generator Rex, without any explanation. Can you please block him so he has to learn how to communicate with other editors. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Although “these” are new editor(s), they appear to have no interest in improving Wikipedia except to censor images of professional women from they describe in edit summaries as “alluring” and “should be replaced by an image of someone in a lab coat”. Despite repeated warnings, and 3RR warnings, they continue. While trying to be sensitive to cultural norms, editors should not be able to impose their own cultures dress code on women health care practicioners as represented at Wikipedia, and they have violated 3RR after warnings, and admit to being WP:MP. PPdd (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
They WP:MP self describe themselves as “a number of concerned professionals have been attempting to remove some offensive material from the Traditional Chinese Medicine page.”[48]. Following the 3RR warning to User:Brendan.mattson, a new account created by User:Donhossen here[49]. PPdd (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Doug - I think you need to look again at what I did. I simply reverted a PREVIOUSLY EXISTING link because I disagreed with the reasoning behind the deletion. If you feel that it should have rightly been removed, that's all well and good, but I've already learned my lesson about inserting my own opinion into an actual article. Trying to be good. Ckruschke (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
Thanks for your post. I've explained my reasoning on your talk page as you know. I think in a situation where historicity is disputed having no link suggesting that it is historical or not historical is better than one suggesting it is historical. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
See WP:SPI. By the way, I don't like Kitchen, but so long as something is directly attributed to him it would normally be ok by our policies. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, but in the context of the article at issue Kitchen is just as speculative and pseudo-scientific as e.g. Ron Wyatt. After all, he is the very last dinosaur to cling to Ramesses II as the king of the exodus. Almost everybody else has already accepted the exodus as non-historical. ♆ CUSH ♆18:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I don't get the slightest idea how WP:SPI works. The explanation on the page is way too convoluted for someone with an attention span as short as mine. ♆ CUSH ♆18:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
A J Morton's theory on the Shugborough inscription
I saw your edits on the A. J. Morton page, fixing promotional stuff. You may be interested in the discussion on the Talk:Shugborough inscription page. One user is very...er...keen on...er...insisting that A J Morton's suggested solution to the Shugborough inscription (namely that 'OUOSVAVV' stands for 'Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon') is by far the most reasonable and noteworthy theory.Elephantwood (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Doug,
You just deleted my site Hadrian's Wall Live from the Hadrian's Wall page.
The site is dedicated to Hadrian's Wall and has a mass on info which most people would find very useful if they wanted to know info about it.
Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.
The historical journal « Storia In Rete » (whose documentaries are used by broadcasters: RAI and La7) included him in list of the most influential figures in Italian history. Scientific Committee:
Aldo Giovanni Ricci, superintendent of the Central Archives of the State and professor of history at S. Pio V University of Rome.
Alessandra Gigante (Historian), Fabio Andriola (Journalist and Historian), Emanuele Mastrangelo (Journalist and Historian), Luciano Garibaldi (Journalist and Historian), Vittorio G. Cardinali (Journalist and Historian), Fabio Andriola (Journalist and Historian).
Taine, Hippolyte. The Modern Regime (Volume II). Echo Library, 2006. p. 18. He says: "Napoleon, far more Italian than French, Italian by race, instinct, imagination, and souvenirs, considers in his plan the future of Italy, and, on casting up the final account of his reign, we find that the net profit is for Italy and the net loss is to France."
Horne, Richard H. The history of Napoleon Bonaparte. G. Routledge and Sons, 1878. Page 1. "He also inquired how the Christian name of his son, Napoleone, could be translated into French. At that time Napoleon's father was the representative of Corsica at the Court of France. He sent a reply from Versailles, saying the Republic of Genoa had, two hundred years previously, given to one of his ancestors, Jerome, the title of Egregiitm Hieronium de Buonaparte, and that the article de had been omitted because it was of very little use in Italy; that Napoleone was Italian; and that his family name was "Buonaparte," or "Bonaparte." The Bonapartes are of Tuscan origin. In the middle ages they were eminent as senators of the Republics of Florence, San Miniato, Bologna, Sarzana, and Treviso; and as prelates attached to the Court of Rome. They were allied to the Medici, the Orsini, and Lomellini families."
John Holland Rose writes [ Book: Napoleon, a life ] " Napoleon, far more Italian than French. " (Synthesis)
Napoleon was much more an Italian than a Frenchman. His father and mother were Italians, his ancestors were Italian (is essential to remember, had not a drop of French blood in his veins) and Italian was his mother-tongue. His family and Christian names were Italian. Always fluent in his native Italian, Napoleon learned French as a second language, speaking it with a heavy accent and unable to write it grammatically. The spelling of the name was changed from the Corsican-Italian form Buonaparte only in 1796. His manners, gestures, and mode of speech were Italian; he was Italian in his fierce explosions of rage; Italian in his declamatory eloquence [...]
These are historically certain facts. Is correct put Napoleon on both lists.
Credible sources \ At least 20 Historians. " I fight with the children. " What should I do? " Continues to insist." A warm greeting. --Davide41 (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Why? What difference did it make? I wanted to see the edit above mine while I was editing. I've obviously missed something (besides the space before '2').Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary you used in that edit was the following:
No big deal, but it's confusing (in this particular case it lead me to check the diff since I was curious to see what Ebionites had to do with Rodhullandemu), and the link behind the arrow leads to the wrong section. Amalthea14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot say for this is not exactly according to our Knowledge but many books say link between Brahma and Abraham. A-brahma means not of Brahma. You find many books on Google. (Januarythe18th (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)).
Polygenism
I am not sure if you are in charge of the fringe notice board, but is there any chance you can delete the section that is called polygenism?
The debate has gone far enough and it is just dragging on, apparently the sources i have listed are not reliable enough to be put on wikipedia, i accept this, i believe the conversation should be closed. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The 3rd may be copyvio and I've nominated it for deletion on Commons (it was nominated for deletion last year on the basis of being wrong, but that's not a reason for deletion although the nominator was advised he could add a fact tag). None of them are in use, so it seems just a matter of keeping them out of articles. The editor was warned about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and has been blocked twice recently, including a block today. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually the 3rd map isn't so bad. Its second version has a legible legend but the map quality is very bad. The map is used on Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Maybe a better version with English labels can be found? ♆ CUSH ♆10:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh I think it's copyvio. I just meant that what is depicted in the map is not necessarily some expression of baseless pseudo-history. Not all the orange areas in the map are parts of Armenia. The first two maps however seem to be derived from the 3rd and they show it all as being Armenia. ♆ CUSH ♆11:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's a copyvio. This is just Ararat arev.
Probably a bona fide historical map from some Armenian textbook. I can't be bothered to decipher the Armenian text labels, but they probably just label each state for what it is, in Armenian because it's from an Armenian language book.
The copy-paste job of the image of a coin in the image corner is probably due to some patriotic website, and our troll just enjoys uploading stuff from such websites he finds on the web at large.
Just block the account, revert its edits and move on. No point in wasting time over this. --dab(𒁳)13:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
If the "3rd map" is File:Armenian Empire3.png, I would be interested in what the hell it is supposed to represent. The grey thing is the Armenian Empire, this much is clear. So we are looking at 69 BCE. So what is shown in black? Compare File:East-Hem 100bc.jpg.
Parthia, of course, plus some random collection of Levantine states, but not the Arab states along the Red Sea, and then a bunch of Middle Iranian territories, which somehow magically exactly correspond to the modern borders of Usbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? And then not all of Afghanistan for some reason, but a strip more or less corresponding to Balochistan?
Or perhaps our man was simply drunk and had some fun with MS paint and bucket fill? The reason such meaningless images should be deleted is because of the danger that they could accidentially be used in articles. --dab(𒁳)13:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the textbook copyvio looks like a map of the empire of Tigranes the Great (almost certainly the dude on the coin). The resolution is even worse than my Armenian but I can make out "Metz Hayk" (Great Armenia), labelling Tigranes' territory, and "Hrom" (Rome) on the dark blue area in western Anatolia. The self-made maps are nonsense as far as I can see. I've had some fun trying to discover the "logic" behind them, but so far no success. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Update According to their creator [51], the made-up maps are apparently the empire of Tigranes the Great, including his "vassal" the Parthian Empire. First rule of imperial map-making on Wikipedia: make your empire as big as possible, however tenuous the factual basis. --Folantin (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Reputable Sources?
Are either of these considered reputable sources? Both are listed on the "Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible" page as sources for Pepi II being the Pharoah of the Exodus (with the gist being there should be 1000 yrs added to the "scholarly agreed upon" chronology). The first one appears to be a "crackpot", but if the second source websie is reputable, I could see it being used on several pages as a source for renumbering Biblical Chronology - not that I would be the one doing it, but just saying.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/wrongdates.php http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm
Again: Response on the Tom Meseroll site, and Thanks
Hey there again Sir,
Thank you so much for your response to my ‘talk’ message. I really do appreciate your advice and what you do, so thank you so much. It also seems you may have a science background as well, so that is all good.
Now in regards to the Wiki page about me, I am going to stand down on editing it anyway. It just seems to egotistical to me. I was not the one who put the material out there in the first place anyway, and they did check with me when they cut and paste the one portion from my website and I said fine. Also I thought they had in fact put in third party references when they put the material in, especially for the novel like I think, for articles from newspaper on the charity book signings I did for ‘Feed the Children’…But I could be wrong (not the first time!). I just thought there were references at the bottom. Also as I said the novel is on Google books (which I think you said that it was not) and it is on Amazon as I said and students from colleges reviewed it etc….HOWEVER, I really don’t want to put my own material out there on Wikipedia, nor do I think that is appropriate. And the way some of the article read before you editied it, did read like a publicity release for the book which I think is very inappropriate for Wikipedia (which is why I edited too after you did, and I had just put that I wrote the book which is of course true (I mean you can buy it on Amazon as many have) and nothing else….I did not think that was debatable, but you of course, know better than I on this material).
And very amusingly, about ten other people wrote me in emails that they noticed the Wikipedia page about me had been edited (Wow! I had no idea people were paying attention!), including my attorney who had all sorts of things to say but I rarely listen to him anyway cause I am as I said, I am a scientist not an attorney and definitely don’t think legal words are appropriate for Wikipedia anyway. So my feeling is, I think other people, besides me should do the writing and references. I think much of it is already out on the web but I am not going to put it on the Wiki site. I will let others do the work and if it is inappropriate what they put down, either I, or you or someone else will hopefully edit it.
Again thank you so much for your help. I do really appreciate it. Thank you.
It's been a while since I've looked at the Joseph Lerner article. It appears the article is once again being used a promotional tool. I'm concerned that some sockpuppetry might be going on with User:Researcher88 (who was indefinitely blocked by you) with two accounts: User:Watcherpost and User:Tricom2010. I thought I would get your oppinion/advice on the matter.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Doughweller and 4meter4 for keeping an eye on Lerner's bio. If you look at my talk page you would learn that I am a new contributor with not much experience. Furthermore, each time that I have made a correction to this specific article I have described the nature of the change in my talk page. If you refer to my talk page and see my last edit of Lerner's bio, you would precisely see that I have removed a piece of information that I thought it had a promotional nature. At the same time, I noticed that some of the stubs are removed from Lerner's bio "North American composer" and "Poli-bio-stub". Lerner is a Canadian composer that is fact. Therefore, he is a North American composer. Lerner's bio also falls into the "Poli-bio-stub", which is a fact as well. I am going to put the stubs back. If you decide to remove them then I respect your choices. My question is: if there are enough reasons that we so meticulously need to monitor this specific bio and spend time and energy on it, then why bother. Why not just put it for deletion and get rid of it. (Watcherpost (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC))
Yeah. Not too concerned about it though, as it only applies to a small group, and will be forgotten by June. BTW, they're the same article aren't they? If not they really should be merged. Serendipodous07:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that when editors, knowingly or not, insist on reinstating obvious OR material into articles, reverts should be excused (assuming other policies are satisfied) until the editor with OR finally listens. However, you can propose this since I'm going to sleep Koakhtzvigad (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Because I noticed that we were both at 3RR, and you warned both of us, I refrained from making any more reverts to Gog and Magog. Instead I added some new sourced information directly to the Lead section with this edit and the edit summary: "Add a new sentence to revise the lede, explaining the source of the phrase 'Gog and Magog', now let's see if that gets reverted". (I also added the supporting ref here.) Well guess what, sure enough he reverted it right out of there a few moments ago, and scarcely 9 hours have elapsed since the edit war. He certainly doesn't seem to favor discussion or consensus; who needs consensus or discussion when one is so convinced of the correctness of one's opinions? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
That is right Til. Consensus is the last resort, IF there is a need to establish one. However, I see no reason whats so ever for consensus here. I have expanded the section, and referenced it that explains the reason the two words are used together in the Septuagint Greek. It is used as a reference to the very well known passage from an often studied text in the then Jewish society. There was no reason for John to even fully quote it, as mentioned in Strong's. Your insistence on adding it to the lede is giving it undue precedence over the Ezekiel source it is derived from. I expect to be doing a bit more editing on this article in future, so will likely be expanding that section yet again. I hope you can live with that. If on the other hand you want to help, you could find the original Greek text and add it there Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You told me quite insultingly that I should take the time to find out what consensus means. Ironically, it appears that you don't appreciate what our basic consensus policy means. Consensus and discussion are never the "last resort" when there is a disagreement among editors. Edit-warring and reverting should be the "last resort". If you truly "see no reason for consensus", it means you are totally dismissing other editors and taking "ownership" of what was already an often highly contested and controversial article before you showed up. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No, consensus is the last resort in the editing process. The reason you are here, I hope, is to edit articles, i.e. improve the information they provide to Wikipedia readers. The way to do this is to in the first instance edit complying with Manual of Style and supporting your editing with reliable sources. If you do these two things modereately well, you should never need consensus that takes time away from editing (contributing). I am not here for talkfests Til KoakhtzvigadMobile (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well that's what I would call a blatantly uncooperative attitude, I guess you make no bones about your unwillingness to collaborate or work along with others if there is any disagreement, it's either your way or else. Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen that sort of attitude on here, but certainly one of the most extreme and blunt expressions of it. Good luck. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
My mistake Doug, someone deleted content on my talkpage, which resulted in your talkback, (which was dated 2011-03-11, appearing as the latest, I missed the date, of-course I have seen your message on your page, sorry for bothering you. If what I have written is not followed by you, please see my talkpage history and my contribution history.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Every body here claimes to use a sourses, but where are the sourses which prove that Rohl "invented" the term New Chronology? Or any body else? Even Morozov who realy scientificaly change chronology didn´t call that so! Nither Isaak Newton! I don´t mean the "frase" ,I mean the scientific term and scientific use of it, which started in 1995in "New chronology, ancient Russia, England and Rome". Where are the proves that somebody else used the term not "frase" ??? What is realy important is all of you do not understand that scientific term can introduce only the scientists, while your "history" and your "historians" are in fact nothing but the publicists and newspappermen based in ancient "sourses" inspite of contemporary ones. You should know what kind of "science" do any of these "knights of the pan", they cook up whatever from whatever. But not looking for the truth. Arceology and C14 and other "metods" if ever used honestly, just prove A.Fomenko´s New Chronology. For example when there was only one objective, imprejudiced C14 test which gave "absolut" dating of Shrade of Turin in between 12 and 14sentury it consisted with Fomenko dating, then the same with astronomical dating of CrabNebula http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080217.html , beeng the remains of explosion of a star which they took in the past as Vithlehem star it confirms Fomenko´s dating of Jesus living. So i do not refer to terminology of historians-journalists collecting gossips and "frases" giving them scientific likeness, but to the scientific terminology. You cath? So what sort of sourses you want of me? My sourses are the books of A.Fomenko http://chronologia.su/ which I study from 12 years ago, go and learn! He is a greatest fundamental scientist and akademik ,mathematician, astronomist, first check they methods later read on. Every body hurrys up tu pick holes in conclusions of that SCIENTIFIC work but no one the METODS couse it is imposible!!! Everything what assure A.Fomenko can be scientificali verified, if not he himself say that is assumption.
Keep on rummage in this "historical" swamp, keep on looking the truth wathig TV, eating papers. Somebody here says I have poor english, sorry,I see the truth is less important for you than the style,but let me see how plentiful will be your language when you try to speak my language :) you will be not poor ,but ruin. Keep on and sorry again for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iljuha (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't say he invented the term, but I've rephrased the lead to make this clear. We can't use Fomenko as a source claiming he invented the phrase, we would need other good sources stating that. Wikipedia is not a search for truth - we reflect what reliable sources -- see WP:RS say about a subject. And note that discussing Fomenko's ideas belongs elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. Yes, I'd be terrible trying to speak your language! Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Cyrus Cylinder lead
Dougweller, I'm trying to explain to Aero13792468 and GoetheFromm that the lead of the Cyrus Cylinder article has to summarise what goes in the body, as WP:LEAD says, but they simply don't seem to accept this requirement. I would really appreciate your input because right now I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall... Prioryman (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No, Prioryman, you have not done that. Please don't deflect. I am very well aware of WP:LEAD requirements, but what what you are adding is repetitive. Also, you are going to have to get used to the idea of actually discussing changes and allowing others to edit. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, I know that DougWeller can appreciate this point: if you feel that there is an issue with my editing, you can always use my talk page. GoetheFromm (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have discussed the changes on the talk page, at length, as has Aero (to his credit). Unfortunately you have not... Actually, this is a perfect example of the problem - you have simply deleted a third of the lead with a nonsensical justification that you have not bothered to explain on the talk page. This is supposed to be a collaborative endeavour but you are simply not collaborating. Prioryman (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
An attempt is being made to exclude the following citation because it associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus: Rothe, R.D., et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=L-kijfFNiiMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
It contains the following quote which is being censored and suppressed in deliberate violation of NPOV, "There are many petroglyphs which depict ostriches and a few that depict giraffes. Butzer (1961) has used relative frequencies of the appearance of these animals in petroglyphs to gauge the changing climate. This evidence fits well with the three OK inscriptions, at least one of which is from the reign of Pepy II, which tell of digging wells (inscriptions DN28, ML01, ML12). While it is possible that these people could be simply pioneering a new route, it seems more likely that the old sources of water were drying up. Additional weight is given to the latter argument by a passage from a document known to Egyptologists as the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer,' which described conditions during the First Intermediate Period."
I would like to include this citation, however forces of censorship wouldn't like to include this for obvious reasons -- too much reality and truth for them to handle!76.216.196.209 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The text is not supporting the paragraph(s) where you used it as a reference. All that we can conclude from this section is that the situation during the First Intermediate Period referred to in the Ipuwer papyrus, may have been a continuation of the situation in the land at the time of Pepi II. This had already been explained to you btw. The book just really does not belong in this section as a reference with the text as it is. If there is a section where there is mention of the deterioration of the climate and an onset of a draught as possibly evidenced by the digging of wells during Pepi's reign, then that would be a good place to use Rothe as a reference. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Beast Hunter
I was looking for sources when you deleted Mokele-mbembe#2011: Beast Hunter, so I put it back with sources and non-promotional language. There is a very good argument that we should not have these minor sections without some secondary sourcing indicating impact, though, so no worries if you want to go clean it up. On an unrelated note, how do National Geographic and the History Channel expect us to write a decent encyclopedia when they keep broadcasting cryptozoology and pyramid power? - 2/0 (cont.) 08:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder. National Geographic is getting worse and worse, History Channel I'd no longer accept as a reliable source for anything except what it broadcasts. I'm not sure about adding forthcoming stuff, will you change it tomorrow as it will have been aired? Did you see that an old book by Christian O'Brien is to be reprinted, I expect a lot of new and old articles using it as a source. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you happen to know the naming conventions for archaeological sites? There has been an argument going on here Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) for close to a year about how to structure this article, since it is actually 3 separate NHRP sites situated very close to each other. One editor wants to lump them all together under the one name, which has to include the qualifier of the nearest town in parentheses to distinguish it from the other places named Old town(26 others in the US alone). The second editor wants to split them all up under their own articles. After watching them occasionally argue for the last 6 or 8 months? year? I've recently suggested it be moved to Old Town Archeological Site, its official name which is currently a redirect. Since locally it is known as "Old Town", editor number one wants to keep it as is per WP:COMMONNAME. Is there any kind of policy or guideline or consensus on this matter that you know of? Heiro01:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Happy Nowruz
Almost sure you do not celebrate it but any chance to celebrate, "I jump on it." So happy nowruz man. May you have a good and healthy new Persian year :) Dr. Persi (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I did cite sources. I do not know what will happen to you personally. It's nothing spooky; what usually happens to people is something very bad that they perceive as good and pleasurable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I am just going to split this and redirect it to the Hand of God disambiguation page.
In the meantime, you could officially close the Afd as "redirect". --dab(𒁳)13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, looks fine but I'm not sure as the nominator I can do that? Struggling with a tiny keyboard netbook doesn't help either. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Gospel of Matthew
Doug -
We have a problem at Gospel of Matthew. This isn't a subject area I normally get involved in at all, of course - far too modern for my taste. Anyway, the problem is that when I arrived, there were 2 editors involved in what looks very like an edit war. I wasn't involved and don't want to become so. But it would be good if something could be done to break the dam. I made a suggestion, which is to seek a neutral admin. The admin will be asked to give a view on a very focused question, which is whether a certain sub-section on authorship should be retained or moved to another article. So, my question to you is, how do we go about finding a candidate? IS ANI the place? PiCo (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Original Research
I have tagged both Cumans and Volga Tatars with original research tags. User:146.232.75.208 has decided to add his/her opinion to both articles in an attempt to mitigate their Turkic ancestry. He/she has removed references from Harvard University and replaced it with unpublished internet websites to support his/her claim. My appeals to other Admins have gone unheeded. This person does not recognize published documents and after attempts to explain on the talk page, apparently suffers from a reading problem. Can you help? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
>>>I am by no way attempting to mitigate Turkic ancestory - that is a blatant and rude thing to say, I have nothing against Turkic people at all and am very interested in their culture and history. You on the other hand seems to be "mitigating" all other views other than the Turkic theory (If I talk about Iranic theory you will be "mitigating" that). I dont suffwer from a reading problem, on the contrary the person who ignores and never discusses the valid and logical problems of the Turkic theory of these two nations and does not seem to understand my clear explanations, seems to have a reading problem. Sorry about the removal of the Harvard source, didnt notice, I have no objection to it being there, I removed it without noticing when I reverted the whole article. Some of the sources I have provided have actually been published in university papers, US governmetn website and mainstream websites (according to wiki rules they are allowed). Add back the Harvard source but it can be changed to maybe this or something "newer research would be incorporated like this: "Mainstream scholarship says this is true (Turkic theory, even though no genetic studies have ever been done, and thus nothing is known for certain - Bear is asserting this as a fact, while I am suggesting other possibilites without asserting anything as fact, to keep it safe), but newer research indicates that that is true instead (incorporating the new finds - latest genetic research)."
As an admin, to understand the whole issue, please read the discussion page on the Volga Tatars, and dont forget to also read all my edit comments for Volga Tatars, which is crucial in understanding the issue more. The greater Bulgar issue is discussed in the latest discussion page under "Complaint of Racism". To understand the Cuman issue please read all my previous edits, under anon op 41 and read the past edits themselves - those uder ip 41 and the current one - plus read my edit comments and the discussion page of cumans. Please know that I am only trying to add more valid views to pages and making it more NPOV, nothing else.
I wondered if you wanted to work together taking down the Wall of Jericho which really should be deleted or merged with Jericho - currently still a B-Class article.
Naturally, I want to write about the celestial alignments of the tower of jericho written about recently and expanded in a recent 2011 article [55], but the coverage on this off-beat page is not where it belongs.
I'll second the motion if you want to merge it into Jericho. Thought it might be nice if we were on the same side for a change ;-) Paul Bedson (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I would like your opinion about the right way to write the lede on Akhenaten. Someone called Uncle Bubba started deleting one of the alternate names mentioned. I reverted him and added more alternate spellings. He claims the list is too long. Not sure by what rule. I do not see it detracting from the lede, and think that alternate spellings are important to mention in case people are trying to do some research and want to do a (digital) search. The exchange on my talkpage got a bit heated :-) As an experienced admin, do you see anything wrong with the lede? If others do not agree, then I have no problems changing it of course, but I found Bubba's edits rather arbitrary. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
May I make the suggestion to remove the rather pointless list of various transliterations from the lead and create a new section that deals with the king's name. I wonder why this article does not feature the full titulary of the king as is customary for articles on Egyptian kings. The new section should give the full names used by the king in various periods of his life and also the various transliterations that occurr in modern literature about him.
I would request and assistance regarding distributive editing by M.A.R 1993 on multiple India-Pakistan wars related pages. I have written about the problem here for his OR addition on Operation Dwarka. He is also removing sources on Operation Dwarka and Battle of Lahore. I had worked on these for a very long time and these are articles where reliable sources are not easy to find so removal of source would render the article without any references. On article like Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 where neutral reliable sources are easily available he is removing any highly reliable neutral (non-Indian and non-Pakistani) source like BBC and instead adding Pakistani source. I have invited him to talk pages of the articles to proceed to dispute resolution but he does not seem to be interested in that. Only after receiving multiple warnings including final warning he sent a short message on my talk page stating not to threaten him by sending warning and continued reverting.I am at loss on ideas on how to stop his distributive editing. Please help.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Editors who appear to be suggesting they are problem editors can expected to be monitored. It isn't what we call wikihounding, it's just being a good editor/administrator. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Account Creator
Hi there,
I think almost certainly - if you look at Special:ListGroupRights, all the stuff in Account Creator can be found in Administrators - what were your problems?
pls see wp:npov: Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. we shouldn't handle minority views like that. --Wangond (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been published in an article in Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory and will be coming out as a book. I'll probably rewrite it but NPOV doesn't mean this can't be in the article. You are welcome to take this to WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to your rewrite suggestions. As it stands, people may read this as a change in scholarly consensus, which is quite cemented regarding the mother goddess topic.--Wangond (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it reads as a change, but I'll make sure it doesn't, give me until tomorrow night but hopefully I'll do it todayl Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
'They' is just a figure of speech, I could have ssaid 'xie' or 'he/she". When you edit there is a yellow banner at the top saying you have new messages, click on that. See [57]. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you reverted my edits on the PCC page for inappropriately using the word Secular. No problem there, my reason was that I felt that there needed to be a distinction that the viewpoint that A Beka Books takes although not mainstream (secular) is in keeping with other Creationist organizations. I felt that my edits brought some objectivity by stating a distinction but without pointing fingers. Instead of simply deleting my edit without providing a solution please provide better solution for this obvious and glaring deficiency in the article. Thank you. Mortsey (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess you can say that A Beka Books publishes books similar to other Creationist books which to my mind makes the point - secular is simply not accurate, as people of various religions can be supporters of mainstream science, etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Reachoutandtouch88 (talk·contribs) is a new editor who has been changing the statistics in battle infoboxes without any edit summaries indicating why. I reverted one of his edits to Battle of Artaxata[58], because I thought it was pretty suspicious, but there are plenty of others I haven't checked. Since you've dealt with articles about battles in the Classical world (IIRC) maybe you could have a look. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the research. I've reverted all of Historyaddict88's edits. Judging from his talk page, he's had fair warning about sourcing stuff. The speed he was making them, with sometimes two articles edited in the course of a minute, suggests these statistics might have been made up off the top of his head.--Folantin (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, how come dead link Ronz or somebody else posts is OK and when I post it is called dubious? What do you mean by other sites? What sites? Could you cite them please as I have to cite every single detail on what I publish.
Borchica (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
And what else must I read beside you all quoted in my talk section to know all the rules of wikipedia? Thx&bye, B Borchica (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Where did I say other sites? Sorry, I can't recall. Your welcome message has some useful links. See also WP:AGF which describes how we hope editors will treat other editors. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Orontid dynasty
It appears that an Anon IP and user:Phoenicians8[59] are controlling the article Orontid dynasty. I have posted a listing of references(mostly universities) that state the Orontids were a Persian/Iranian/Bactria/Achaemenid family. However, Phoenicians8 and the anon IP have been reverting any edits that state this. Phoenicians8's latest revert stated this, "rv vandalism by banned IP that was banned for 2 weeks for these very reasons of vandalism, and vandalizing other pages also see his contribs, added more sources". If the page is locked down with it saying Orontids were Persian or Armenian, do you think they will participate on the talk page?? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Now we have open canvassing for reverting my references by both the anon IP[60][61] and Phoenicians8[62][63]. The Orontid article and Satrap of Armenia have been reverted by 3 different editors, none of whom feel the need to use the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but did you use the talk page? And why are you not mentioning the other IP user who began the whole affair by adding in Iranian POV?--Moosh88 (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why? I don't care a whit about some anon IP. I searched for university sources concerning Orontid origins. I added university sources with quotes stating their origins. Apparently all you need to justify your removal of those references is to label them "Iranian POV pusher". --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Doug, I am almsot a complete beginner - I hope you or some other kind soul (that whom goes easy on beginners) can assist me. I have written a large edit on my Draft subpage that I want to add to an existing article (actually a Stub). I am quite lost as to the next step apart from start editing that article but I would invite someone to look over what have done to see if anything obvious is out of place or can be improved. I am actually having a problem with 2 references in that Draft - N.8 and No. 10. I have expanded on what that problem is in my Sandbox No. 2
I hope you can help, please. --NehruR42 10:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehruR42 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your advice.
Can you advice how I can get some feedback on what I have written in my draft supbpage - I did see some instructions but lost them again - as mentioned earlier; I'm ne at this and really stuggling at getting a handle on Wikipedia but want to persist.--NehruR42 10:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehruR42 (talk • contribs)
You are doing pretty well. Wikipedia:Requests for feedback is what you want for feedback. I haven't looked at your draft, but what I struggled with most early on is our concept of original research -- WP:NOR, which basically means your sources must actually discuss your subject, unlike in an essay, journal article or book where sources can support an argument relative to the subject without actually discussing the specific subject. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to respond with some good ideas - I will next submitt a Request for Feedback. No we haven't interacted before - I found you via a plate full of biscuits - it seemed a sincere welcome to new-comers; I felt quite comfortable to approach you. I hope you can keep an eye out from time to time as to how I'm progressing at Wikipedia. The asteroid Kridsadaporn is actually named after my wife. It has been a stub for some time, it seems - just waiting for someone to complete it - seems that job falls to me - I am honored but I'm struggling with Wikipedia. If you read the NASA/JPL citation for 7604 Kridsadaporn you can determine who I am, in fact. I've now retired from the ANU but again working part-time for Thai Government in their attempt to join the international Astronomical community - I their (Thai Gov) technical consultant - building a research telescope here near Chaing Mai. I know what Kridsadaporn means (we [Kridsadaporn and I] had lots of discussions together about its meaning) but that amounts to nothing in the Wikipedia world - I must research and develop its presentation using Wikipedia ways and methods. A bit of a struggle for me. Thanks again for your warm welcome - I hope you can make the time to read may edit. I would really appreciate any further assistance you may be able to offer me.--NehruR42 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Hope all goes well with you. I have a request for a checkuser. An IP address has shown up again on the Bones piece, with a connection to Wesleyan that reminds me of another anonymous IP you checked and blocked awhile back. I was wondering if you might run a checkuser on 129.133.127.112? Thanks much. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't do that. I'd suggest WP:SPI if I thought it would help, but they won't do CU for that. Can't do much unless they really misbehave. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you really mean to go for pending changes with review permissions rather than auto-confirmed permissions? It looks like an error to me :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
From the log it looks like its still requiring review permissions before you can edit without having your edit checked rather than auto-confirmed :).
I know this isn't a big deal, but there's been a lot of bad blood over pending changes, and I happened to see it when looking at a few of the pending changes "level 2" protections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I do apologise. I know I attempted to do it early this morning but I know I was having problems with Wikipedia and it obviously didn't work and I didn't check it. I have now and hopefully it's fixed! Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Brought up at WP:NPOVN, I think you are confused about NPOV and I note you have deleted cited text, changed text so it does not match the source, etc on several articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Nibiru collision
Hey. I've been pondering an issue re: the alien invasion element. It all began late last year when rolling news sources, mainly in Russia, began reporting that SETI had detected 3 giant spaceships heading to Earth in 2012 (the Russian media have continuously played up doomsday 2012, for some reason). This caused a predictable internet firestorm, and I thought it was worth adding to the main 2012 phenomenon article, just to cool things down. But when considering the page for FAC, the relevance of that section was called into question, since it referred only to a single specific event. So I moved it to Nibiru collision. However, it isn't directly tied to the Nibiru collision either (many websites have claimed that Nibiru is an alien spacecraft, but I don't think I'll be able to locate a reliable source that says so). My gut instinct is to simply delete it; however, it is still getting a lot of play on the internet and it's clear that it has left a lasting imprint. I was wondering what I should do. Serendipodous09:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm talking about Titanic (1997 film) discussion page. I'm User: Bakhshi82. User: Flyer22 abused my username several times in section of Consensus at the talk page and don't let me to remove her wrong comments. Trying to solve the problem between us via discussion is resultless and i entreaty you to clear comments that contain personal attacks, WP:AVOIDYOU and disputes, or guide me how can i do that? Thank You.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As I stated elsewhere: You are misinterpreting/abusing the policy you are citing. It is not some serious case of a personal attack to state my suspicions that you edited the article as IPs against consensus and then did it again once you could no longer edit the article as IPs (once it was semi-locked). You clearly did so under the name Bakhshi82, that's for certain. There is no problem between us, other than your going against consensus and changing/removing my comments.
I have made some edits to Measuring rod. I think I'm getting close to WP:3RR, so I'm not touching it for the rest of the day. I have outlined some of the issues I have with edits on the talkpage. Can you take a look? I noticed you had brought up the page on the Fringe notice board and had mentioned that this is not a fringe page and should not turn into one. --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
An of the other editors keeps reverting my deletion of the Akhenaten image claiming he really is holding a "rod and line" (he will not accept they are a crook and flail), and claims that phi is used by the ancient Egyptians. This is mathematically not possible as I have tried to explain on the talkpage. --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, stay away for 24 hours. I've edit the article heavily as it was veering way away from the article's topic, & warned Paul Bedson for 3RR. He's a fringe editor who does create a lot of good articles but uses some of them to push fringe ideas. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that was a good idea. I also added the pages to Ancient Egypt related articles list so the edits show up on the watch list --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I was afraid this would happen, my bluntness with this edit when I reverted it here has led to this exchange User talk:Heironymous Rowe#No edit war. I'm not sure if I'm handling the situation well, would you mind keeping an eye on it as well? I'm really not out to chase the editor away, but I have come to see them as having serious competence issues. Any advise or help would be appreciated and sorry for any inconvenience. Heiro22:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, your changes were (in my opinion incorrectly) reverted
in this edit. It is clear that as you stated Cresswell is not a WP:RS source, and that user keeps adding the same source to other pages, and on Talk:Marriage at Cana even admits that they are shaky references but keeps arguing that they need to be there regardless of being less than reliable. I have over 1,000 pages on my watchlist and not to prolong it want to see what can be done with minimal effort to stop this type of non-RS additions. The user has been reverted on those by 3 people now (2 users on Cana plus your revert), but keeps adding them. Best policy? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted my addition to the Genesis creation article. Defending the edit by saying that it was "a small Christian group whose views are being added to articles, not significant enough for this article." Or something along those lines. I am very confused. First, I felt like I wrote the segment unbiased enough that it didn't seem like "views" were being added, and second, the Christian group to whom I referred has several million members in over 150 countries. I do not understand how that is not significant enough for the article. Perhaps, I could have been less wordy, but to delete the section entirely seems unfair when so many people legitimately believe in it, and also because it is such an interesting new view on the Genesis creation story. I admit it could be shorter, but I think it deserves some recognition in the public domain, since so many people in the world do believe and follow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.143.86 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I have also. There are many small groups with various views and this is one of them. It would be relevant in an article on the group itself of course. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have an interest in Burma (not China), as also in Cambodia - a result of having lived in both those countries. I was surprised to come across that reference to the old British journal - very old! (1838) - and thought I'd put it to good use. Certainly the story it tells is slightly different to what was there already - the original version was that a certain Hong Chengchou invaded Burma and was repulsed, but the Hong Chengchou page says he didn't. In fact he refused to go when ordered. Anyway, it's interesting to see this from the Burmese side - the Burmese had very comprehensive histories, and for that period they're probably pretty accurate. Pity I don't have any good modern source. I'll put it on my watchlist - wonder why the Vietnamese would bother with it? PiCo (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I see he calls himself Yongle the Great - perhaps he's the last claimant to the Ming throne! I believe there are still descendants of the last king of Burma around - a very old man who lives in Pyinoolwin and has no interest in politics. PiCo (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The source that is used [64] here, says otherwise. It clearly says that language of the common people spoken was Armenian, while the elite spoke Urartian, during the period of 9th BC to 585 BC, "not after that period". That sentence I removed is POV , because its not even in the source, and it says Urartian territory existed until after Christ in AD 5th century??? This is when Armenian language is first attested, doesnt mean Armenian was not spoken during 5th century BC all the way to AD 5th century. Do you understand what I mean? That sentence is beyond POV, its saying Armenian was not the spoke language during that time when its universally accepted that from after the fall of Urartu , Armenia is not only mentioned in Persian behistun cuneifom records, but Strabo, Xenophon , and other ancient sources say otherwise, that Armenian was the language spoke in the Armenian Highlands. Aryamahasattva (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Aryamahasattva, in your last edit you asserted that Urartian was a form of Proto-Armenian, which is plain nonsense, since Proto-Armenian was an IE language and Urartian was not (though it may appeal to Armenian patriotism). As for the insignificant sentence that you deleted - you are interpreting it incorrectly. The sentence simply states that "It is Classical Armenian that emerges in written records in the 5th century AD as the dominant language of what had used to be the Urartian territory." This in no way excludes that Armenian was spoken earlier. It just says when the Armenian language as such is attested. Nor does it say that the territory was Urartian until the 5th century AD, it says it "had used to be Urartian" at some point in the past.
The issue whether Armenian was the "tongue of the common people" is irrelevant to that sentence. If we must discuss it - while the site "Livius" does say that, it is a generalist source and is beaten by Wilhelm and Carlson's linguistic articles in "The Ancient languages of Asia minor", which say no such thing, definitely state that "Urartian was dominant [spoken by the majority of the population] in the mountainous areas along the upper Zab Valley", that "we do not know when the language became extinct" and that "speakers of Armenian appear to have replaced an earlier population of Urartian speakers in the mountainous regions of Eastern Anatolia". We just don't know with any certainty when that happened and there's no need to state it in the lead.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Requesting advice about filing a pseudoscience AE request
The Man Who Would Be Queen is an article afflicted by persistent POV pushing from one editor, who has retired her user name (after some blocks) and edits using an IP address, 98.149.114.34. She has engaged in persistent albeit slow churn edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and extensive soapboxing on the article's talk page (although some other editors couldn't resist responding in kind). TMWWBQ is a popsci book about a controversial theory of transsexualism. Some sexologists don't see it as fringe, but the transsexual community, of whom 98.149.114.34 seems to be an exponent, surely see it this way. The main problem with 98.149.114.34's edits is that she overstates (in the direction of her strong POV, of course) what various sources critical of the book state. I don't know if the pseudoscience case can be used to lay law in this article, but I hope some way of ending the long-term disruption may be found. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You could ask at WP:FTN but I think you need to follow the advice on the article's talk page and file an RfC. That looks like the best way to go right now. If that fails, then maybe try something else. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't think of a serious question to ask at RfC about the article's content ("Should this article make claims not supported by the sources cited?", Hmm...) There's no indication that the IP will take feedback from anyone. Just read her last unprovoked attack on an univolved admin who merely protected the page [65]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ask the Admin who suggested RfC what would be a good question. Or start an RfCU on the IP, but I'd start with the article - an RfC may show more about the IP in any case. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Insfoar the IP has been the only editor to support a particular version of the article. And she reverted a fair number of other editors; just the most recent and obvious ones: [66][67][68]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your note
I appreciate all that you are doing to try to move things along, but I am still going through the diffs provided by Laura as well as the facts to make a short yet accurate statement and need a bit more time. I have not been at the computer that much in the last 24 hours. Thank you for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a settlement offer to cut through all of this. I would expect that it will be acceptable to all concerned. If not, I can leave a long response to the diffs offered by some other parties. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Original Research \ Disruptive element: Philosopher12 ( an amateur )
This person does not recognize published documents and after attempts to explain on the talk page, apparently suffers from a reading problem. Can you help?
Doug, to save you some work, Michell and Neal were long standing friends and collaborators. So for as far as I can see any endorsement of Michell is just an endorsement of one fringe author and friend of another. See [69] (bottom third of page), [70] (first sentence under "it's all mirrors" listing) for example for the connection between the two. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I've done a bit more work on the Dail Mor Archaeology section, which I'm sure you'll agree is notable (if you want to read the extensive archaeological reports that I've just left as "further reading". I've added brief mention of the Dalmore bone there that I was hoping we could find middle ground to keep as a sentence and setup a redirect to it? I'm happy to agree on wording if you like, but left the megalithic yard out to make it less contentious. Regards, Paul Bedson ❉talk❉01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind following up on the nominators comments for this DYK nom. The nominator responded to your concerns, but I'm not sure if they were adequately addressed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Hi, it seems that discussion for Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011 is not going anywhere, not because of consensus, but because of no consensus is claimed, in spite of 3 different users saying so. The reasons are given and are finally replies are a new question: Extending Biographies of living people to organisations? ... , I think you have answered your own question! ... For other organisations, go to the respective page/talk page... and so on; In spite of giving reasons. So I would like to know where are the ironclad rules for first line of an organization? Where is the rule that usual principles can not be extended to first line of an organization?
I would request to set a standard for organizations and as such. Also I would like to know what to do in cases where in the name of consensus, no effort is made to form a consensus but all efforts are made just to claim no consensus."
Is there any information/link on standards to write first line of an organization please? The biography page WP:BLPN was used as an extention to guidelines in absence of the same i.e. in absence of information on standard to write first line of an organization. Thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..09:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I've answered your question on the consensus issue, ie RFC or dispute resolution. WP:LEAD is written so that it can apply to all articles (as do our policies). Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller! I hope everything is going well with you. I actually originally just wanted to see how you are doing and to say a quick hi, but also as a function of my wandering in Wikipedia I came across this link: Iranian Azerbaijanis.
I read the discussion page and frankly it looks really bad with certain parties, harboring a POV. The article is also locked down from edit, which I was not sure was done by who or for what reason. I know, you are a no bs type of admin, so I like you to take a look at this and tell me what you think of this. My only worry is that the undue weight carried by certain special interest groups on this page mostly those carrying pan-Turkic agendas can affecte the quality and neutrality of this article. Nonetheless, let me know here or at my page what you think and whether you believe this deserves further delving. Thanks! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Dougweller. You are right, my mistake. I should have looked at the first source in more detail. But what about the second source I included in the article? It's from a reliable Argentine cinematographic website, isn't it? Perhaps, I've missed something. Regards , --Góngora (Talk) 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If it's not much problem, I'm still waiting for an answer. Thanks and sorry for the inconveniences. --Góngora (Talk) 11:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Yes, it says "is supported by the National Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual Arts (INCAA), the Museo del Cine Pablo C. Duckro Hicken and has been declared of Cultural Interest by the Legislature of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (resolution 190/2002). " I've replaced your edit less the first source. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That's why I was a little bit surprised when you deleted it for the first time. It looks much better now. Thanks. --Góngora (Talk) 12:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Your co-clerk AlexandrDmitri just confirmed that the deadline for filing evidence is May 14 not May 7. Is there any way you can update {{ArbComOpenTasks}} to reflect the correct date? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this editor's[71] contributions? He/she has been adding an anonymous blog to Kurdistan Workers' Party. Maybe let them know they need consensus. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
清宫专家
Doesn't quite seem like, since his focus is on the Qing Dynasty instead of the Ming. But there's still a possibility. Maybe he's trying to divert attention? Why not use CheckUser on him to confirm? Lonelydarksky (暗無天日)contact me (聯絡)03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.jewishjericho.org.il is the only website representing current Jewish life in Jericho (as opposed to purely historical / academic sites) and shows that Jericho is central to the Jewish People even today. The site is still under development but consists of many articles, talks and films in Hebrew reflecting the importance, the centrality and the historical connection of the Jewish People to the city of Jericho. The English section is yet to be revamped. It is important to show that the PLO narrative is not the only one. Blessings, Yoni. My e-mail yoni_go at hotmail com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.81.208 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Removal of links
I was surprised and disappointed at the systematic removal of my links. I appreciate that blogs are not normally considered appropriate source material, but many of the links took readers to carefully collected and properly referenced primary source material, including some rare theological texts that are otherwise unavailable on the internet in English. I was particularly disappointed that every one of my links appears to have been removed, without any regard for the nature or quality of what was being linked to. I can only assume that you were within your rights to do this, but, since I don't have time to go through all the deletions and appeal against individual cases (with no assurance that someone else won't do the same thing in the future), the result must be that I will now have to stop contributing to Wikipedia. I realise that you have a job to do, but this strikes me as an unfortunate outcome, and I have a feeling that it could have been different given a less aggressive approach. Shoneen (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It still can be. Although I can't give you assurance no one else will do this. It's very unfortunate no one intervened earlier. You can gather I feel pretty strongly about blogs as sources and links as do others. And it definitely appeared to be promoting a blog or rather blogs. What I do apologise for is being so thorough before you responded. I can take this myself to the appropriate venues as a general issue if you like. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I think I'll have to consider which links can be justified within the Wikipedia policy and take a conservative approach. I freely admit to wanting to promote my blogs, but equally I thought that the material I was linking to was legitimate and valid. I can understand the need to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry from linking to their blogs, but many of my linked articles consist mostly of primary source material with quite limited editorial commentary from me. Shoneen (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Great, please don't leave, I'd hate to have driven you off. Another problem is the 'further discussion' comments, which were probably unnnecessary. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's very interesting and useful material, and I hope this episode doesn't stop you contributing. The problem is that, while the primary source material is legitimate, because the translation is published on a blog we can't just accept it as a reliable source. Particularly as you note that you've edited as well as translated. Where did you get the text you translated it from? References don't have to be online, so you could still cite a hard copy. Alternately, is the text online in languages other than English? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Indus Valley Civilization, you may be blocked from editing. --Wangond (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
, --Góngora (Talk) 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)