Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

BC / AD

Doug - Are you (personally) strongly opposed to the use of "BC" and "AD" ... see the 'Great Zimbabwe' Talk-File. --DLMcN (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist

Could you possibly provide some diffs? I'm personally not seeing anything but I'm not familiar with the user. Alexandria (chew out) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? Saying the edit the same articles is helpful yes, but do you have any specific diffs to help? Alexandria (chew out) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong suggested I raise an SPI and get a CU check. If I'm right, this is just one of a number of socks he's created. He doesn't repeat himself so I can't show repeated text, except for one possible example that if yo wish I can email you about. I'm not the only one thinking this is the same editor. I wish I could be more helpful but this new editor's interests are identical to those of AP, and the creation of the bios is also a major link. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Third Uninvolved Party Needed for Edit Resolution

Please help to ensure that Prof. Joel Mata's publications regarding life at All-Saints including Filipa Moniz as member of Military Order of Santiago is taken into consideration on Wikipedia's the page about Filipa Moniz, since all my edits are immediately deleted.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Your message about Lee Carroll

Thx. Replied on my talk page -- Nazar (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You are mentioned on ANI

Here. un☯mi 23:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Too late as usual

I see everything I recommended on the pyramidiot ANI thread had already been either said or done, sorry about that. The edit conflict I got flustered me a bit. Then on the other hand Fluffernutter removed my post, lol.. per the ANI bug, I expect, rather than in annoyance at my uselessness (though such would have been fairly reasonable.) Bishonen | talk 00:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC).

Moderator Needed for Edit Resolution

Please help to ensure that Prof. Joel Mata's publications regarding life at All-Saints including Filipa Moniz as member of Military Order of Santiago is taken into consideration on Wikipedia's the page about Filipa Moniz, since all my edits are immediately deleted.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I am back, logged in to wiki after a long time, in some of my messages, an article I created "Oldest Afghan Tribes" has been deleted !!!. Alot of other stuff has been changed!!! mostly by yourself "Doug Weller", whats going on here? Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WarriorsPride6565

He has removed multiple words in nearly every single edit, and tons of the articles which he did it in haven't even been fixed I only just reverted this one.Fixkihitter (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible

I am somewhat confused by your continued revert on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible. You have reverted to an edit that has NO CITED SOURCE MATERIAL, and yet, you state that you are reverting my material because you view it as OR....I'm at a loss for what basis you are using in 1. Preferring one edit over the other 2. Declaring that the edit I posted required any additional source material than the bible, which is what the overall article is based on to begin with and therefore the best source for the material under consideration. Please explain, I do not wish to, nor will I continue to engage in an edit war with you over this material, but I would like a reasonable explanation of you actions and your line of thinking on this edit as so far something seems amiss. Thanks.Willietell (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DougWeller, I'm going to make another attempt at it and provide a non-biblical source, hopefully it will meet your criteria, if not, since I am a new editor, maybe you can guide me through it, because the information I have put in the edit is factually correct. Hopefully this time I get it right, please don't report me for edit Waring, because that isn't what I'm trying to do here, it's just that I'm new and haven't caught on yet.ThanksWillietell (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinianated and Baised

Hi,

your responses leave much to be desired for and to say you are actually a wiki clerk as you have pasted on your page is truly sad, still (please excuse for the language but I have kept my cool for all the wrong clueless editings you have been doing for the last six months) Coming to the point: "I also note that the book I mention above is written in Hebrew (and I also note you have never seen "a" book either, it has been translated into English and quoted multiple times in English and other languages). Your quote doesn't give a page name (The account is given in the book from pages 97-106) and I'm guessing that you haven't actually read the book (and I am guessing you never have read "a" book to begin with,on any account, please dont try to guess for us poor simple folk) and simply copied that from another website (this is what goes in your mind, maybe this is exactly what you have been doing, experienced eh! ). And as virtually all the reliable sources say (so now you are an expert on Afghan History, wow, and you certified yourself did you?) he is said to be the forefather of the Pashtun's, I've removed it. (yes that you can do, but with people like you Wiki is never going to be a knowledge friendly encyclopedia, I gave a referenced excerpt, of a genuine book, one I read and you remove it, they call such behavior fascism, you are biased and heavily opinionated)

>>> You say he is merely legendary?? what a joke!! and you are actually editing stuff on Afghan History?? if this is your level of knowledge on the subject, I advise you to do us a service and stop doing us this service!! The man has "A grave", I have visited "it", "PEOPLE visit it" everyday, books mention it but then for people like you....

>>> From your past reckless actions on a subject you know nothing of, I am still going to state the references and I am going to put them in. The burden of proof is on you. Go to the biggest library you can find and prove me wrong before you do us the great service of editing anything about Afghans.

[Rabbi Avihail A. and A. Brin, The Lost Tribes in Assyria, Translation: S. Matlofsky, Jerusalem: Amishav, 1985, pages 97–106]

Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the burden of proof is not on me but on any editor adding something. See WP:VERIFY. There are a number of graves of legendary figures that people visit, that doesn't prove the person existed. The article calls him legendary, so I don't see why you are upset that I've called him legendary also (not 'merely legendary'. Name-calling won't get you anywhere.
I replied at that link, Thanx. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Your comments invited

Dear User:Dougweller, thanks for your invitation to comment. I've added my comments there. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012

I noticed your recent [edit] and I like it. I've been having to fight POV and POVish editing for so long, and I actually think I've succeeded with much of the Gingrich and Rick Perry presidential campaign articles. The Bachmann page is too far gone, but I think the Gingrich page can be made a lot better and is really moving into a substantive page.

I would like your input on the ==Reviews== section of his page. Do you think it is fair to put reviews of his candidacy based on early speculation? And shouldn't it then be renamed to ==early reviews== or something to that effect? And why is it even necessary for us to have reviews and analysis of his candidacy so forward like that? Wouldn't it be appropriate to hold off until its later on and the campaign has finished? Let me know your thoughts on this.--Screwball23 talk 04:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think Newt would make a great pres of the us. Though I'd really much rather have that nice Bachman lady. PiCo (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Because as a non-American you'd like to see the final downfall of the US? ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Cush, it's a joke. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

User:Carinae986 has added two sources to the Zengid dynasty article. I was curious as to the sincerity of the sources. Only one source, The Venture of Islam, Volume 1: The Classical Age of Islam, is searchable and neither Amazon nor Google books indicate the words Zengid/Zangid, Turkish or Persian showing up on page 152. I politely asked for a quote[1] and received a snide remark in response[2] and to "assume good faith".[3] Since I have reasonable doubt what can I do about this situation? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is sorted now, right? Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparently not[4]. Given the volume of text written by user:Carinae attempting to make this issue personal(You're not much of a researcher[5], how completely ridiculous you're being[6], what this boils down to is that I know something about this subject that you don't, I own and have read a book that you haven't[7]) one would think two quotes from his "sources" would have taken up less space and time! I had no idea I was "asking for the moon"! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
And I guess I don't know anything now![8] --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Do not bother wasting your time on my behalf as I will not longer be editing that article since my "ignorance" was getting in the way. Have a happy holiday, DW. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A shame. I've posted a note on his talk page. Happy holidays to you also. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki

Hi! I'd be very happy if you could help with this request. Particularly with the image which will soon be on wikipedia's mainpage as DYK. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could but I don't have online access to the Yale University Library. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Juan Ponce de León II

Oops! Big mistake. Made the proper fixes, thanks for letting me know. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hello Dougweller, I am beginning to suspect that both Users: User:74.233.219.224 and User:184.32.55.194 are Sockpuppet accounts. Both have dedicated themselves to reverting and making the same edits to a couple of articles. You may want to look into it or advice someone who knows about these things to check into the matter. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, both IPs geolocate to the same place (you can check this sort of thing yourself from an IP's talk page). Not enough edits to worry about yet, but it could be a problem. Having said that, ethnicity isn't really relevant unless it's clearly a significant part of a person's life. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Bible cosmos images

Doug, is there any way we can get some decent bible cosmos images for wiki-commons? Or maybe they're already there? I have no idea how to access or use wiki-commons, unfortunately. PiCo (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Try this source [9] and there's [10]. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Undeaddanny4

Saying the Bible is fiction is not vandalism. You can reprimand the user for not wording it properly, but not for vandalism. In fact, I wonder why the word "fiction" does not occurr once in the Bible article. Too many religious editors? ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

None of this editor's edits have been constructive, including that one. He's going to be blocked but I thought he deserved a final warning, which is why I added "None of your edits so far appear to have been constructive, this is your last chance." It's pretty obvious that the Bible isn't fiction although it isn't a historical text either. It's a religious text and there is a difference. If we can source it, we can say that some people view the Bible as fiction, but we can't state as a fact that the Bible is fiction (which would clearly be wrong as besides the mythological elements there are historical elements). Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The historical elements? The stories about king Arthur also contain historical elements, but it's still fiction. The book Shogun re-tells history, but it's still fiction. Same goes for the Bible. The events and the lives of biblical figures do not reflect real-world events and lives as they in fact took place. The Bible is fiction. All of it. But you know very well how much the sections of Wikipedia dealing with religions and ancient history are under control of religious editors, which is why many articles still are rather proselytization pamphlets than encyclopedic papers. And almost no admins do anything about it although it is very obvious that the used sources are not reliable. Heck, even Mr Wales takes the side of the religionists. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm hardly a religionist and although I agree that it is almost impossible to keep our religious articles NPOV, or our ethnic ones and many of our historical ones, I try and so do many others. But it isn't accurate to call the Bible fiction. It's much more complex than that, and to simply label it that would also be a gross violation of NPOV. 10:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me clarify: everything in the Bible that is currently assigned to before circa 850 BCE is fiction, i.e. prior to the Divided Monarchy. And even most of the details assigned to the time after the United Monarchy have no basis in archaeology or historical research. And that's jsut for the Jewish part. In the New Testament almost nothing comes from any identifiable, let alone reliable author. The Bible is not a reliable source for dozens of reasons, and to pretend that it has some value around here because so many believe in it, is simply encyclopedic dishonesty.
I know you are not a religionist, but sometimes I wonder what you stand for. And maybe you should enforce certain principles around here, e.g. that history is not determined by "biblical scholars" (i.e. theologians) but by archaeologists and historians. There is no objectivity in religious sources ever, and how could there be? So why allow material from religious sources to dominate so many articles, especially with emphasis on the Jewish aspects? Why do I constantly have to change "Hebrew Bible" references to "Bible" references? You know, I do fight for accuracy in describing what the Bible says and what the Bible is. But what has gone on in Wikipedia in the 10 years that I have been here, really is a disgrace for an organisation that has the aim to provide a serious encyclopedia. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it isn't a reliable source for history. If it's being used as such, complain on the article's talk page and let me know. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Gulf of cambay civilisation deletion

the current article (Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay) from which i redirected to my now deleted article does not give the entire picture. Moreover both the articles are resourced from the same sites. Yet one is deleted the other is not !! Moreover my article was resourced not only from graham hancocks website and also from many other websites. It is not only grahm hancock but Prog G a milne who is an expert in "Glacial isostasy, sea-level change, earth rotation, the static and time-varying geopotentia" has verified it. Prof. S.N Rao India's leading archaeologist has dedicated 14 years of his life for this. There are lot of google hits for this article and also you tube videos. Could you please revert the deletion so that I can add appropriate resources to it atleast, otherwise we are denying the write knowledge to readers whi are interested in this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gururaj Nayak (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First, much of it was copyvio and you haven't admitted this. Secondly, it's a POV fork, see WP:POVFORK, ie "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)". We already have an article on the subject, you should be editing that one if you can find sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS and edit according to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. That isn't the only article of yours with copyright violations. And I doubt that you can find any current academic sources that agree with your perspective, which is both fringe and political.
Another issue is WP:NOR. Exactly where does Milne say there is an ancient civilization there? If he doesn't, then you can't use him as a source. You really need to become familiar with our policies and guidelines if you don't want your edits to be reverted. And you need to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia before you do any more editing as editors who persistenly add copyvio to articles end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Apologise for repeating myself but the current article which is incomplete and more importantly with the wrong title refers the same resources and does not get deleted, my article which I have tried to add more information with the right title referring to many resources and also containing a lot more well resourced information gets deleted. Moreover before i could add more resources the article itself was deleted without warning nor i given any time. With in 2 hours of creation it is gone. Atleast i should have been given a couple of days to rectify it. I hope you understand that creating an article and adding resources takes time. this article has been of high academic interest in recent years and the entire world civilisation timeline is not accurate with discoveries like it and this is slowly dawning on many archeologist. just because western world does not endorse it or reports it incorrectly does not make it wrong. Lot of articles do not depict the right picture and it pains me when i see them in wiki and when i want to modify them mods delete it under one pretext or the other. i just wanted to highlight this. coming back to my article there is lot of info, and photographs of this material which cannot be denied. i have asked for permission from graham hancock and i hope when i get it i can add this important article to wiki, better is if he adds it himself so that wiki is benefited. In the name of moderation we should not deny knowledge that is well resourced to the knowledge hungry ppl like me...

Cheers Guru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gururaj Nayak (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears you didn't read the links I gave you. We already have an article that covers the controversy, we do not have two articles on the same subject, nor do we have articles that present only one viewpoint on a controversy. If people are deleting pictures you are adding to articles than you are using other accounts or editing without an account to add them as I see no such contributions by you. If there's an argument over whether an image is correct, use the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Ohh dear !!! when i say "picture" I donot mean the silly .jpeg/.gif image as such but I mean the article as a whole. Lots of article(s) in wiki are not right or rather not accurate. "If people are deleting pictures you are adding to articles than you are using other accounts or editing without an account to add them as I see no such contributions by you" this is so out of context !!! Nobody is deleting my images, it took me a while to understand what you were talking. Anyways I used the word "picture" as a metaphor to indicate that omission of certain articles distorts the entire "picture". Again picture in the sentence is a metaphor indicating the content as a whole and does not refer a .gif/.jpeg file. I have read the wiki rules and as i understand most of these rules are subjective otherwise wiki would not be what it is today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gururaj Nayak (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As a picture you uploaded was in fact deleted, it's not surprising I thought you meant real images. It is still the case that we should not have two articles on the same subject, or change a balanced article (or at least one with more than one viewpoint) to one with only one viewpoint. See WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Sorry mate, looks like you are missing a few points...
1. I had uploaded no image file whatsoever for the deleted article, whatever pics were there in my deleted article where re-used pics from the other wiki article. I suppose one can re-use pics already present in wiki domain. I don't see any rules against reusing of the images.
2. It looks like you deleted the article without even bothering to see it thoroughly which is a shame, otherwise we would not be discussing the above point.
3. The deleted article included all the contents of the current article plus I added much more info, which deserves to be mentioned given all the irrefutable data that we have. So my article was a kinda super set, hence the redirection as explained before. So this also addresses the POV fork rule. since if there is a better article the smaller article is always redirected to that article, which i have seen happening many times in wiki.
4. I referred some more resources on net and found that I did not violate the copyright rules of wiki, since copyright rule says that any info already present in the public domain with no obvious copyright to it can be added to wiki. This article which was referring to "graham hancock's website" was one of the sites where it was present. The article in question was not written by him but he was merely hosting it like so many other websites which are doing it. I found the very same referred material present in many other websites like "archaeologyonline" etc..which in turn means that it is already present in public domain and my wiki article has a right to refer to that material.
5. The article also followed the WP:NPOV since I had carefully included all the controversy related to the article to make it a balanced POV. All the controversies included in the Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay article where also added to my article, so that nothing is left out.
6. We can take any article in wiki and like a harsh critic start breaking it down by citing the various rules, that is easy to do and anybody can do it. I personally feel we should follow the wiki rules in spirit otherwise wiki would get most of its articles deleted.
7. Agreed that majority of the scientific community does not adhere to my deleted article, but that is because this article has not been published with the right data in the right forum by the right people. If this is the sole reason for not accepting my article then no issues whatsoever.
- --Gururaj Nayak (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand our copyright policy. Unless it is unambiguously copyright free, we consider copying text from somewhere else copyvio. Being elsewhere on the web does not make it public domain. You think it's the other way around, but it isn't. Edit the Marine archaeology article if you can do that within our policies and guidelines, but remember that sources must pass our WP:RS criteria and directly discuss the subject. And 'irrefutable' is obviously not the case as there's been refutation. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you so much for your message!!! Happy holidays!!! Everstanley (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Aurangzeb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Carnatic, Puna, Sati, Punjab, Shahu, Anandpur, Shah Shuja and George Oxenden

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, first of all merry christmas! Could you take a look and perhaps take action against an already blocked user that is harassing and threatning me on his/hers talk page [11]. I think these comments from the user plus the fact that the user tried to evade the block yesterday justifies an extension of the block. Seems to me like the account will only be used to vandalize Wikipedia. Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree. I think the block was justified but this dispute should never have taken place, and if either of you had researched it properly it wouldn't have happened. His reasons for reversion were wrong, but in fact she didn't work for France 24. His edits weren't vandalism, and he appears to be a new editor, so WP:AGF is appropriate right now. I think I'll ask him about his edit to Zakir Naik though. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It still doesnt justify threats and harassments from the user like the ones his posted a few hours ago. Instead he should have tried to explained his edits and his thinking properly and yes then the dispute would never had happen. Anyway if the user behaves from now on and just moves on like I will, then I dont see a problem from my point of view atleast. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he shouldn't have said those things, but if he's new he may be used to a very different type of environment. I'm hoping he will move on and learn. If he doesn't.... Thanks for understanding. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is OK. I see your point of view. And I hope it ends here. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
But with continued insulting comments like this edit summary did you read my unblock request? did I attack others? No. It seems to me to be a lot of "knee-jerk" reactions by the so-called "admin" here. I find it a bit difficult to move on but I will be the better person and look beyond it and ignore it. By the way I am not sure if it is directed towards me or you. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your removals

Could you please explain the reason you removed information here and here? In both cases you claim the chapter and the movie were produced by Lee Carroll, but in both cases the official sources say otherwise. Both the book and the movie are written and directed by David Thomas, and they include compilation of interviews with Lee Carroll and other channelers by this journalist. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I said that the chapter in the book is by Kryon - I've now realised he was being interviewed and found [12]. I'm not convinced he's notable enough or independent but have restored it for the time being. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation :) -- Nazar (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sad ignorance

You claim that i've edited two pages on my personal beliefs? Yet you ignore the fact that most of the stuff i changed (which was less than 2 lines) is true. Dont you know thousands of scientists have shifted away from that piece of propaganda? Hundreds of frauds exposed throughout the history, yet you still blindly defend it. It's gonna be even more funny if you even delete this post. That would just show simple fear of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner9999 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Gee, since you don't seem to have edited any articles at all, why should I pay attention to your post? Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Cant you look up my ip..? Last two edits you removed from my ip. I just logged in later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner9999 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may make an intuitive guess, this may have something to do with the Adam and Eve article. Also, if I may be so bold should not the lede say, "....according to the Book of Genesis..", not, "...according to the Genesis creation myth..."? Therefore, we(editors on wikipedia) are not making a judgement concerning Adam and Eve, Genesis, or creation, correct? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, probably. I'm not a check user so can't look up IPs. I thought it had been left as creation myth after discussiojn, but it clearly shouldn't say 'according to the Genesis'. The other edit was clearly vandalism, as the editor claimed it had been discussed on the talk page (he removed the hidden comment) and of course calling evolution pseudo-science.... See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=467795707 ] Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, DW. I did not mean to sound like I was criticising your reversion(s). I simply noticed something that read like a very non-neutral statement. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem - as I said, I thought the issue had been worked out, still do. And even Christian theologians call it a creation myth (it isn't just a creation myth of course). Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Ten_Lost_Tribes

I updated link, but You undo my update. [13] Please, see it link. 1. it update for bad link (without pictures). 2. it link on website author (Kubo, Arimasa). 3. This author is on main article Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory (references #6, 7, Additional reading - 3 links). 4. On Talk page of article is section (2006 year) with precisely these links to this website: Talk:Ten_Lost_Tribes#Theory_about_Ancient_Israelites_in_Ancient_Japan. 92.100.79.169 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it meeting our criteria at WP:RS. I've raised the issue at WP:FTN, scroll down to the bottom. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Newport Tower ( Newport Rhode Island)

The Elizabethan Colonization attempt of 1583

While writing a biography on Rhode Island's first Governor, Benedict Arnold (and owner of the Tower), photographer and researcher Jim Egan came across a chapter in Rhode Island history that has few historians have written about since it was first discovered by William Goodwin in 1934. Goodwin, William B., “Dee River of 1583,” R. I. Historical Society, Collections, April 1934, pp. 38–50.


In 1577, the brilliant polymath John Dee wrote a series of eight books convincing Queen Elizabeth she had a legal right to all of North America (except for Florida which had been settled by the Spanish.) One month later, the Queen granted letters patent to the entire continent to one of her bravest generals, Sir Humphrey Gilbert. Navigational, cartographical, and legal advisor for the mission, John Dee, selected what is now Narragansett Bay to be the site of this very first colony of the British Empire (a term coined by Dee). And he named the site after himself: the “Dee River and port.”

On the summer solstice, June 11, 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert set sail from Plymouth, England with 5 ships and 280 men. Four of the ships made it to Saint John's Harbor in Newfoundland, but on the way down the coast, they hit a fierce tempest. The largest supply ship, The Delight, got stuck on a sandbar and was crushed to pieces.

Gilbert decided to head back to England for more men and supplies. But off the coast to the Azores, he hit another tempest. His ship was swallowed by a huge wave and he drowned. (Incidentally, a year later, the Queen granted letters patent to Gilbert’s younger half-brother: Sir Walter Raleigh.)

Researcher David Beers Quinn found that about a year earlier, in July of 1582, Gilbert had sent a preliminary expedition to the New World. Quinn, David Beers, England and the Discovery of America 1481–1620, pp. 374–377 (New York, Knopf, 1974) .

These 2 ships and about 80 men were under the leadership of Anthony Brigham, who returned to England 9 months later. Egan claims these were the stone-masons and carpenters who built the Tower which was to be the city-center of the first Elizabethan colony in the New World.

Egan has concluded the Tower was designed by John Dee as a Vitruvian circular temple that functioned as a horologium, a building the keeps track of time. Dee was an expert in geometry, astronomy, and optics. Also in 1582, at the Queen's request, he wrote a 60-page treatise explaining why England should adopt the calendar reform similar to the Gregorian Calendar Reform of 1582.

After translating and decoding Dee’s most cherished work, the Monas Hieroglyphica, Egan found clues indicating what the Tower originally looked like, and the function of three interior rooms: as camera-obscura solar-disc calendar-rooms. This conclusion was first made by William Penhallow, retired professor of astronomy at the University of Rhode Island, who found astronomical alignments in the windows of the Tower in the early 1990’s. Penhallow, William S., Astronomical Alignments in the Newport Tower, (republished in The Newport Tower: Arnold to Zeno, 2006, New England Antiquities Research Association monograph., pp. 32-43) .

Egan has also found that the early colonial leaders of Rhode Island in the 1630’s knew all about this colonization effort undertaken by their countrymen a mere 50 years earlier. And that it was Benedict Arnold who insisted Aquidneck Island be named after John Dee's secret code word for the 1583 colonization attempt: Rhode

Egan runs the Newport Tower Museum, just 50 steps northeast of the Tower, and has put all of his 11 books and 25 videos on the Newport Tower Museum website. WILL ARTICLE BE OK IF I SIMPLY DELETE THE LAST PARAGRAPH? Thanks for your careful attention. I appreciate your help, Jim Egan```` ````Jim Egan ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimEgan252 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You really need to discuss this on the talk page (after reading WP:COI. And sources for articles need to both meet criteria at WP:RS and to discuss the subject directly, see WP:NOR which catches out a lot of new editors, including me years ago. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Doug, I appreciate your help. I am a first timer, and am a but perlexeed how all this works. I read your links, and feel I have presented my research findings in a fair, truthful way, with a gentle third party voice. What do you mean "discuss this on the talk Page"? Is there someone who might edit my work for any problems. I feel it's very important my research is included as one of the Newport Tower theories on Wikipedia, as I have devoted 10 years to research and written 10 books, and now want to share it with the world in a few paragraphs. You can see the depth of my research as I have made my books and 25 videos free to the world at newporttowermuseum.com. Everyone who comes to my museum keeps asking "Why isn't your work up on Wikipedia?" I need your help. Thanks. Thanks a million. Jim Egan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimEgan252 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It can be very difficult. I recall editing an article on the book Where Troy Once Stood using really good sources to show why Wilkens is wrong. They were reverted - because none of them discussed Wilkens book. I was wrong, and hadn't understood WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Some of your edit was like that one. But I was also wrong because I was using my own research/ideas - you need to read WP:NOR carefully. When your ideas are discussed in reliable sources (by our criteria) or published in such a form they meet our criteria, then they could be included. But preferably not by you, as you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. The talk page I referred to is Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island) where editors with a conflict of interest should suggest changes they want made in the article, or ordinary editors discuss sources, the structure of the article, etc - or at times throw mud at each other but that is a very bad idea (we ask editors to be civil and assume good faith but it happens). Another tricky thing for new editors is that article talk pages aren't forums to discuss the subject of the article, they are strictly for discussing improvements to the article. I hope this helps. You do some very good work. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Warning is Fraudulent

My edits were completely legitimate. On Aesop, I removed a portion of text arguing that Aesop could not have been a black African because the animals in his fables are those common to Egypt and Libya, not Ethiopia. What the author was unaware of is that in antiquity, "Ethiopia" referred to a region encompassing Upper Egypt, Nubia, and Libya, which the Greeks blatantly attributed to having been inhabited by black Africans. So the author confused Ancient Ethiopia (ie. the Nile Valley) with the modern-day country called Ethiopia. His source material was irrelevant because the conclusion he drew from it was completely false and unscholarly.

You can't just silence me because you don't like my edits.

As for the King Alfred Plan, how can you allow this complete LIE of a page to exist? You have completely disregarded the source that I provided and this is completely unfair. Rex-84 was an actual plan that has now been de-classified as it is no longer in use. You should do the research yourself before jumping to conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktheconjurer (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You either don't understand or care about our policies and guidelines. Our articles are meant to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject - read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to understand what this means and our criteria for reliable sources. We cannot use our own understanding, experience, knowledge, etc =read WP:NOR. My warnings were not fraudulent they were in line with policy. The existence of REX-84 does not mean that the King Alfred Plan wasn't fraudulent, and your source was just one of many copies of a fictional memo - I don't know why you thought it proved anything, you can find that on a number of websites. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


And how about my completely legitimate Aesop edit, what do you have to say about that? In any case, the King Alfred page should be removed because Rex-84 and King Alfred are the exact same thing. There is already a Rex-84 page that has the correct information. In other words, one page says one thing, and the other actually has the right info (The Rex-84 page). So in other words - I win. Your warning is still fraudulent, and you're abusing your "authority". Disinformation is just as morally wrong as lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktheconjurer (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

re. "Origin of Yahweh and the Kenite hypothesis" edit

I tried last night to correct an entry in the "Origin of Yahweh and the Kenite hypothesis" section but saw that you reverted back to the original text. The edit I tried to make was based upon the fact that the language used in that paragraph indicates authority and consensus where it in fact does not exist. Yes, the person who made the comment gave citation to the claim, but if you check the citation you'll see that the so-called expert is far from the voice of authority regarding the Kenite hypothesis.

If you noticed I did not alter what was said to speak to the issue, but removed the language that communicated a sense of academic certainty that does not in fact exist. In fact since the Kenite hypothesis has been rejected by a number of scholars, including E. Koenig, T.J. Meek, P. Volz, W.J. Phythian-Adams, M. Buber, and R. de Vaux, that theory can hardly be regarded as established with any degree of certainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lounsbury (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Welcomed and explained relevant guidelines on his talk page. Welcome back, Doug, hope your holidays went well. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Eduard Koenig, if that is who is meant, wrote over a century ago, right? Meek about the same time. Volz ditto. Oh hell, that's all copied without attribution: "Since the Kenite hypothesis has been rejected by a number of scholars, including E.Konig,21 TJ Meek,” P. Volz,23 WJ Phythian-Adams,“ M. Buber,“ and R. de Vaux,26 the theory can hardly be regarded as established with any degree of" which is from (Yehovah) =: Yahweh : the divine name in the Bible by Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor: [14]. But all of that is actually irrelevant, because what you (Lounsbury) did was add something to cited text that is not in the source and in fact contradicts the source which draws upon modern (much more recent than the people you refer to) religious and secular scholars (well, probably secular, the ones I checked were in fact religious). Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Thanks Doug, I'm not an expert at this (granted) but I was trying to address the fact that the addition of the word and concept of "overwhelming" is a stretch that the citation given doesn't support. I did check the credentials of the Robert Karl Gnuse and he has a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in the area of Old Testament. Fair enough credentials, but the statement is very controversial so my position that the use of the word "overwhelming" either needs a counter-weight to hold in contrast or more substance to verify the claim. As for the age of the statements I cited, the controversy is not new and the historians and archeologists I gave you for reference was just an example that controversy exists to speak to the concept of overwhelming support. When I see the word overwhelming I envision the type of consensus you see when the evidence is so strong and generally accepted that it is nearly beyond dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lounsbury (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

He couldnt let it go

Hi I just want you to know that user Twaftofs couldnt let it go and has started a thread about me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mostly made to offend me it seems.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Carsten Thiede

That seems bizarre, but I won't argue with the idea of academic titles. OCF and KStJ however are not academic titles. I will return those (without MA and Prof). FWTTVK (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Again pseudohistory on "Kurds"

Please check this kind of changes by one nationalistic editor who removed relevant sources as "outdated" and also insulted academic authors on talk page. I left short explanation there about sources. --109.165.156.171 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Could you take a look at these users[15],[16], and see if they seem to be quacking. I would like your opinion in this matter, to ensure I am not seeing this in a biased manner. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Haven't a clue, except to say that I imagine others will notice it if you are right. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Psst, I found a sock

I found someone who probably is a reincarnation of someone else. You don't have to do anything or tell anyone if you don't want to. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Screw that, I'm blocking him, he's up to old tricks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Puri Family Name

The Puri family name is associated with Puru Tribe that is what the information is all about. There are specific quotes as a reference Gpuri (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I know it's associated with the tribe, but we don't need to duplicate the Puri Tribe article. If you think it is necessary, a short summary without the quotes & a main article link. By the way, the quotes are ugly, far too large and against our manual of style. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The only problem removing the quotes by historians and indologists is that it will hard to prove the point. I will try to fix it Gpuri (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes from the Puru Vedic tribe and consolidated at one place in Puri family name. Gpuri (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours

Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:

  • The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
  • An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
  • An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Periodization.

Understand Periodization? --J. D. Redding 11:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY also. Take it to the article's talk page. Start an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently not ... three parts, viz. ancient, medieval, and modern time, of Universal History. --J. D. Redding 11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You're applying a concept from universal history to a recognised period of history. That's OR, take it to the talk page of the article, ask for an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It is the "recognized period of universal history". --J. D. Redding 11:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Richard Dawkins Avenue

Uh-oh... I shoud have checked the edit history of Circumferential Road 5 in combination with the (short) contributions list of the editor. I merely glanced at the article - <blush />.

Anyway, best wishes for 2012! - DVdm (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The same to you. No problem. You might find this interesting [17]. I've blocked his earlier account since he can only have one. If he's got a static IP he may be blocked on his new account, but I doubt he's here to improve Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh. As long as his actions sharpen my sense of deep-checking context before merely asking for a source, he's doing something useful ;-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Parkville High School

Thank you for taking care of the STUDENT section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.18.151 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year.I tagged George Withy article for copyright violations under G12 and it was deleted.Now an IP came to my talk page with this message.

I have received notification that the page I created for "George Withy" has been deleted, due to copyreght issues - but I had submitted an e-mail to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" to confirm that I was the copyright owner and that it could be used. Is it possible for me to re-submit the materail again?

Many thanks

Andy Worrall

Can you help me on how to proceed further in this and know whether they have got the ORTS ticket.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Working on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank You very much it has been resolved.Got the ORTS Ticket.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Zep Tepi

I'm not sure what to do about this article. The Egyptians did believe that a sequence of gods ruled on earth before the historical kings of Egypt, and lists of those divine rulers appeared in several Egyptian king lists. However, those lists differed in the sequence of rulers and the lengths of their reigns, so the article shouldn't use the one list described by Breasted as if it represents a consistent tradition. More importantly, the sources that I've seen mention the phrase zp tpj (e.g., James P. Allen's Middle Egyptian or Erik Hornung's Idea into Image: Essays on Egyptian Thought) don't indicate that the phrase meant the entire period of divine rule, just the time of creation. The article uses a citation from a book E. A. Wallis Budge to support its definition, but I've looked at the Google preview (which includes the entire book), and I can't find any mention of zp tpj or its spelling variants. If zp tpj really does mean just the time of creation, the article should probably be merged with ancient Egyptian creation myths. A. Parrot (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get an expert opinion. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

here's the reply:

"Briefly, the /sp tpy/* represents the primordial, "die Urzeit", "first time" and "first matter". It is the time before creation and represents a mythical isthmus between total 'negation' of being (in the void of Nun) and 'creation' (the emergence of the primordial hill), thought to be situated in the primordial waters. It does not represent a specific time period (pace Wikipedia), but is a reference to the mythological time when the universe began - in short, the creation myth system of Egypt.

The term /sp tpy/ did not originate with Manetho, and is found within a number of ancient Egyptian religious works, which hearken back to a "time before creation." All Manetho did was try and create a "kingship genealogy" for the period before the first actual king appeared on the throne of Egypt, but all he was basically doing was using mythology as a basis for an indefinable period of time.

There is a good discussion of the concept of /sp tpy/ in these works:

Bickel, S. 1994. La cosmogonie égyptienne. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 134. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. (/sp tpy/ is discussed in detail in Chapter 1.)

The idea of a /sp tpy/ is prevalent throughout the culture of Egypt, albeit it was expressed in a variety of "creation mythologies" (such the Heliopolitan, Memphite, Esnan, and Hermopolitan forms, for example). So, I'm not sure what "regionality" there is to the term for it does appear in texts throughout Egypt as that time of either "total void" or "total perfection" (thus, the moment of creation).

You may find this work better in the explanation of Manethian concepts of /sp tpy/:

Verbrugghe, G. P. and J. M. Wickersham 1996. Berossos and Manetho: Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press."

  • Both /sp tpy/ and /zp tpy/ (alt. /zp tpi/) are acceptable spellings for

the concept, BTW. The inquirer's /zp tpj/ is using the German form of transliteration, rather than the English form. (The Germans use /j/ for /i/y/ endings).

/sp tpy/ does not refer to a kingslist (in fact, the term is touched on only briefly in Manetho as a way of giving a "timeline" for his mythical kingslist when the earth was ruled by gods) nor does it have anything to do with actual timelines of reigns (such are dynastic chronologies).

I hope this helps. We might also ask on the Wikiproject. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to add yes, we should merge it. I've edited it down to the bare bones right now, but we should turn it into a redirect and hopefully at least att a bit about it to the main article. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I thought; I even have Bickel's book, though I can't read it (language barriers are quite annoying). Anyway, I made Zep Tepi into a redirect and included mention of the term in the creation myth article. I used the zp tpj spelling because it's the one used in Allen's transliteration system, the one I'm most familiar with. Feel free to change it to a different system, if you feel the need. I just wish Egyptologists would standardize their transliterations. A. Parrot (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

I've returned to this article. I've outlined in the Talk page what I would like to do. You might like to look in, since you were taking an interest earlier. PiCo (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Jeraphine Gryphon's talk page.
Message added 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Request unprotect ACLU

Hi. Could you take a look at unprotect request? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery

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

Amel-Marduk

I noticed you changed my edit on the page [18] [19]diff, changing the wording from historical accounts to texts and I was just curious as to your reasoning here. I feel that the term historical accounts is more fitting because of the nature of the material the references are taken from. To use the term texts seems to suggest, to me, that the references come from some sort of religious document instead of a historical one, which is hardly the case. Please explain, thanks. Willietell (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The word 'texts' is neutral and doesn't imply anything. 'Historical accounts' suggests some form of veracity. Seriously, how can the Avot of Rabbi Natan written c.700–900 CE according to our article be a historical account of someone our article says died died 560 BC. And how, now that I notice it, can the Avot of Rabbi Natan have written anything? People write books/texts/whatever, texts can't write texts. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that, Avot of Rabbi Natan wasn't my reference, I was just correcting the wording in the sentence, maybe it still needs more correcting, I'll do some research. Willietell (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wives

Re this edit (and edit summary), what's the point of being a patriarchal society, if you have to mention the wives? ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm slow

Did you mean Rtrammel sent a complaint about me? I'm guessing you can't tell me exactly what he said but I have reasonable cause to believe that he may have lied about me, so I'm a tad concerned here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no problem here for you, but if you initiated an email exchange with an editor you didn't know well and were concerned about, I'd say that's generally a bad idea, which is what I wanted to say. Please don't worry about it. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Charlie Patton studio portrait.jpg @ Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 3

Just a question about this file and the ORTS ticket, are you satisfied that the person claiming copyright does in fact have copyright over the picture ? Mtking (edits) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't responded to my email to him in which I also suggested he contact our designated agent. Maybe I should ask her if she's had an email from him. I can't verify any claim that he purchased it, etc. from just an email. I'll check with Sue and see if she's heard from him. If not is there anything you would like me to ask him? Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, not sure what to ask him other than under what grounds does he feel that the picture is still in copyright, as, by my reading of the copyright rules something first published at that time would need to have been registered and then re-registered to still be in copyright, but I am sure that the designated agent will know all about that. Mtking (edits) 10:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

  • We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
  • A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Userspace categories

I don't think the American and British editors categories are meant to (or allowed to) be used in userspace. Actual articles use them. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, saw it on the user page of someone much more experienced than I am, didn't check. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Columbus was ours (say polish)

Aired yesterday on Polish TV, Columbus was ours video documentary.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metro Walk

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metro Walk. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for all your help in designing the new article feedback tools, so we can provide a better user experience and engage more readers to become editors over time!

Even though I am a newbie on Wikipedia, I have learned a lot from you already, and look forward to a great collaboration with you in 2012! Fabrice Florin (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: West Puntland state

The only things I could find on the topic were in web forums, and in Somali. I wasn't even sure it would work as a redirect, i.e. what is the likelihood of someone typing out "West puntland state" with same lowercase etc. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers provided

Hi Weller,

please go here [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khattak ], at the bottom, I have provided the page and chapter numbers you asked for.

Thanx. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Atlantis discussion edit

Hi Doug,

On the talk section of the Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis article you removed my commentary about the Tunisian location because it was a "forum" style post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis&oldid=470570610#More_Tunisian_details

I am having a little trouble with that concept. The discussion are is not meant to "discuss" the topic of what is worthy of inclusion in the main article?

I think my examples show that a diverse number of sources lend credence to the inclusion of a Tunisian location.

Ulrich Hofmann alone as a attendee of the 2005 Atlantis conference should be notable enough to warrant an entry.

Does the discussion are have the same post requirements as the article itself?

That seems a little redundant.

As a side note, I really think the article should be broken into Ice Age Atlantis and Bronze Age Atlantis.

The former being further into the realm of pseudo-science.

It would also be nice to have some listing at the top of the article for artifacts and locations that one would presumably need to begin the search.

Eg:

  • 1) The original Greek version of Plato's works
  • 2) Anaximander's Map (or a suitably contemporary map to Solon's age)
  • 3) Pillars of Sais (or pillars from Egypt with a similar tale... fi. A pillar at Karnak has the tale of "Auriteans" )
  • 4) Regional identifications (Where is river Eridanus? Po River? Where is the Eumelus \ Gadirus region? Spain? These locations conflict, etc)
  • 5) Orichalcum? What is this substance? Where is it found?
  • 6) Pillars of Hercules cited in previous literature
  • 7) Mythology that predates the Plato account that echoes the tale
  • 8) Sea levels at the time of Solon
  • 9) Plate positions at the time of Solon
  • 10) Seismic, Volcanic or other natural events (asteroid impacts, etc) just prior to Solon

Thanks,

Randy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

All of our articles are meant to be based upon what other people say - we talk about 'reliable sources' which are described at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. So an appropriate discussion would be 'so and so advocates this as a location. I think this publication of his meets our criteria.' Your post was just advocating a location and that's what I mean by a forum style post.
For the same reason, we shouldn't have a "listing at the top of the article for artifacts and locations that one would presumably need to begin the search." You might want to read our policy on original research also at WP:NOR.
Feel free to bring up your suggested division on the talk page, and Ulrich Hofman, but being a participant in a conference isn't enough. A quick Google search turned up very little about him, which suggests he's not that well known. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications Doug. I really wish that WP:NOR was not a part of Wikipedia's policy. It would be great if instead the community could just ascertain the veracity of the provided conclusions and nullify the addition if needed. That way Wikipedia could extend beyond an archival role to a place where new knowledge is born. Though, this would probably only be productive for test-able scientific topics lol... Yes, a silly wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Legio IX Hispana". Thank you. --99.101.160.126 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool

Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Belgrade

Hi! The search was a google-book search, which inculdes the scanned book. It was a never version/publish of the book. What's your problem?--Bornder (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Then edit the cite please, don't just provide a search which includes a lot of other stuff. You've changed some of the details also with no explanation. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

All modern books(after end of the cold-war) represent at least 100,000 men in the Ottoman side. The disputed number of forces must be mention in the article. --Bornder (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The article had the disputed figures before you edited it, so I don't see any disagreement there. You changed "mostly crusader peasants and citizens of Belgrade" (sourced it says from Setton's book) to "peasants, refugees of the area (inc. children and women" - is that a more accurate rendition of what Setton says? You also changed 30,000 (sourced to Setton) to 60,000 still with the same source I think. Mind you, I'm struggling finding what Setton actually says about this figure. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bornder is the sock-puppet of Stubes99 79.117.167.229 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


Notice: he is not professional about this battle, he use only own speculations, ,after reading of other later published works he and his numbers in Battle of Belgrade article of his book hadn't real impact on historian society, therefore it is a single negligabe opinion.--84.2.153.154 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue on Chariots of the Gods

The video issue has become ancient history and has moved on to Der Spiegel as a citation. Is there a problem with using Der Spiegel as a source on Wikipedia? Lung salad (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

About Dhulkarnayn Article

Why did you delete the Oghuz Khan / Bilge Qaghan section of the article? Have you ever read the Quran's section of Dhulkarnayn and the monuments and compared these two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.151.127 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We aren't allowed to do that, we have a policy saying we must not do our own research - we call that original research. See WP:NOR. Our articles have to reflect what other sources say about a subject and we have criteria for the sorts of sources that can be used. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I looked for sources and found none. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no contradiction for Alexander the Great or Cyrus the Great. But if you seek the Turkic epics and especially the Orkhon inscriptions you can also see the exact matching. I have added some references for the section. What's more it is not my own research. Noting another possibility about Dhul-Qarnayn cannot create any vandalism or violism.
Whose research is it? [20] doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. What exactly does the JSTOR article say? And we don't use urls as sources, see WP:CITE. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
ANd how does he meet our criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS?
  • I cannot understand what is wrong with noting another possibility with its justification only within two rows and with no violence, vandalism to any other section to the article.
Because if you can't provide a reliable source it is your own research, and we have a firm policy against that at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Charlie Patton studio portrait.jpg

hello,

I saw this file was deleted. Can you ask him to release the picture under fair use or other license? And can you ask, if that does not help, how much will one need to pay to upload it here? Thanks.♫GoP♫TCN 12:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll get back to you. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry

im really going to just have to exit editing the article. it looks like bmk has editing over 10000 articles so i cant touch any of those articles? i was just trying to defend another editor from the admin that warned me todd and thats why he did it i wasnt hounding bmk at all. i can show you the ani notice where it happened. this is all just a mess though ill probably just stop editing. i almost did before but aditya was very nice so i didnt. thanks anyway. Bouket (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't stop editing, just avoid articles you haven't edited before that he's edited recently - or rather avoid the talk pages and reverting any of his edits. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
he reverted my edit i didnt revert his. i just saw what people said that i dont count at the afd you commented on. honestly i cannot say what i think of bmk without getting in trouble but he keeps trying to make people do what he wants by telling them rules and not following them. its frustrating. i might just leave because i see he is always defended by admins. sorry its just too much stress knowing wikipedia is not accurate but just shows what people like him want it to say and that i cant do anything about it and no one else can too. Bouket (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Judi Shekoni

I think they've already been blocked for edit warring. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Return of the Common

Hi Doug,

I am just writing to let you know that I have turned under a new alias. I hope you consider this appropriate and ingenius as promised.

I will not post until the Paul Bedson account is re-opened however until starting work on archaeology articles...

...without any more logic from ancient texts I use to forsee comets hitting the Earth at certain dates. For now...

I need some sleep.

Shutting down,

Stephen Paul Stephen Common (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Lanternix and Touregypt

I don't know if there's anything to be done about this at the moment, much less by you, but it raises some unsettling possibilities, and I thought I should at least tell somebody else. I happened across Monastery of the Martyrs and realized that the article was contradictory (it said the monastery is near Akhmim and between Esna and Edfu, but Esna and Edfu are miles and miles from Akhmim). I looked at the external link, to the corresponding article at www.touregypt.net, and realized that the entire text of the Wikipedia article was lifted, with a few cosmetic changes, from the Touregypt article. Not having the resources for a rewrite, I slashed the Wikipedia article down to a stub.

Then I looked at the history and realized the copyright violator was User:Lanternix, who is now indefinitely blocked. One image was added to the article by User:Jimmydunn2010, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lanternix. "Jimmy Dunn" is the person credited with writing many (if not all) of the articles on Touregypt, including the one on the Monastery of the Martyrs. I've noticed that at least one Touregypt article is textbook WP:Close paraphrasing of reliable Egyptological sources. If Lanternix and the Touregypt author have the same habits, and one used the other's name, could they be the same person? Something to keep in mind, anyway. A. Parrot (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly but we need to avoid outing an editor. The biggest issue is whether our articles should use Touregypt as sources. See [21]. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

-Ilhador-

I don't believe we've met before. I wanted to tell you that -Ilhador- is a disruptive editor. He has just been blocked for using sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall meeting you either, but thanks very much for this. I'm not surprised. Congratulations on spotting this. It's only a short block so do let me know if there are any problems in the future. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Information

Since you are an Admin, could you inform me of what exactly can be done to my page and talk page(such as permanent lockdown?), if I decide to retire. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, rl has been very distracting. Please don't go. We can only protect your pages if there is vandalism I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Persecution of Hindus. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Shame it had to be protected, but with such a prolific puppet master at work there was no choice. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Frank W. Lewis

Thanks for updating the article. I'm curious about the wording in the edit summary, however. I wrote (and no substantial edits have been made since) that he had 5 children, citing a reliable source as no other one I could find had that information, but you found a better source. Why would anyone change it? Also, would it be better to use the original source? Valfontis (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see--you are on the OTRS team. Any other feedback I should know about? Feel free to e-mail me if appropriate. Valfontis (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi

Please let me know in detail what I should to be not offending anything. Thank you for watching me out! (Indusengineer (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Need Administrator assistance with a move discussion here

Hi,
We need assistance in this move. Hope you can spare some time to settle this discussion which has been draging on for many days now. If you do not have the time, please name another administrator, who can handle this move. I found your name at the talk page of Naming conventions (Royalty and Nobility). You seem to be the only admistrator who has left a comment there. I was refered there by another Administrator (ErikHaugen) whom I approached yesterday, after waiting for days after posting this on the requested moves talk page. Since it is quite difficult to find an administrator amoung all the non-administrator editors in the discussion pages, I'll really appreciate it if you could name one who can handle this move, if you do not have the time. Thanks. --SriSuren (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

office hours

Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting help.

Dougweller,

Hello, I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005. It's been a very fun and rewarding experience for me - a bit of a solo experience, for I have never interacted much with the Wiki community. Perhaps I should have. I have read all of the Wiki rules, and abide by them. I am curious, as you are an administrator and I have never really encountered such a problem, how I should proceed with a fellow user who keeps engaging with me in a prolonged back-and-forth on an aricle talk page and reverting my edits. Basically, I wrote an article on an individual (Vera Renczi), that is well sourced, he claims the subject never existed (!) and claims he can prove she never exists (without sourcing and a lot of WP:OR). Sorry, I realize your talk page isn't the place to ask, I am curious if you can help me by pointing me in the right direction. I found you through his talkpage User:Shylocksboy. Thanks again. ExRat (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. You know that the issues are sources and whether the article is OR, so as I see it you've got 3 choices, actually more. You can focus on the sources and go to WP:RSN, or focus on whether it is original research and go to WP:NOR. You can start a request for comment - an RfC, or finally you can go to dispute resolution at WP:DRN. I don't think RfC is a good route as you might not get any responses. You can never guarantee responses in any case. The main issue seems to be sources though, so I'd go to WP:RSN - maybe with a section heading 'Are all these sources wrong' as that seems to be the contention of the editors opposing you & might get some attention. I think the 'yellow press stuff' is wrong - our article on the San Antonio Express-News doesn't say anything like that. Let me know what you do. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at MikeLynch's talk page.
Message added 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lynch7 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at MikeLynch's talk page.
Message added 19:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lynch7 19:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South Asia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Removal of an item added to the 'Prophecies of Ryden' section of the page about Vassula Ryden

Mr Dougweller,

You have asked to move these exchanges to your talk page so here I am.

To summarize my current concern about your removal of my attempted contribution, I copy below a simplified version of the item. I have removed any reference to readers reaction to the message as people's reaction is irrelevant.

Readers of Vassula Ryden's True Life in God messages have pointed to a particular message as prophetic which states, "The earth will shiver and shake and every evil built into Towers (like the towers of Babel) will collapse into a heap of rubble and be buried in the dust of sin!". This message was dated September 11th, 1991 (10 years to the day before the attack) and was printed in a book published and distributed in 1991 (JMJ Publications - ISBN 0-9519973-1-9)

Could you please explain why this paragraph is unacceptable to you.

Sasanack (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What Doug appears to mean here in his edit summary is that this information must be given WP:DUE WEIGHT and must be backed up by WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources. The work you attempted to cite is a primary source, you must find a secondary or tertiary source arguing that this particular passage of this book is actually noteworthy for inclusion in the article. We are not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, information added must pass WP:Notability requirements. Please read all of the bluelinked policy pages in my last two sentences, they will help you understand the concepts better. Heiro 08:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
And after giving a quick glance at your talk page, Doug suggested you take it to the articles talk page, Talk:Vassula Ryden where this is already being discussed, not here at his own talk page. Heiro 08:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Dating creation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Epoch and Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oversight?

Dear Dougweller, In reference to the message you posted on my talk page about the Euclid University article. I never accused anyone of being islamophobic. I said I think the anonymous attacks coming from IPs have roots in islamophobia.

However, you still saw fit to warn me about this. Fair enough! I have no experience editing on wikipedia, so don't know all the rules and regs.

Out of interest though, did you also warn the anonymous IPs that they should not make accusations against me?

Did you also see fit to go on to the talk pages of the anonymous IPs and warn them about the 3 revert rule in 24hrs, as you did with me on my talk page?Satinmaster (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any personal attacks against you, just a conflict of interest suggestion. No IPs had reached or have reached 3RR so far as I can see. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well my suggestion is that I think these attacks have roots in Islamophobia. Why else would someone claim that an article in the Official Journal of the Organization of the Islamic Conference is not credible as a source of info for wikipedia? Satinmaster (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps ecause it's a press release and I also note it doesn't claim accreditation. It could be used if attributed, but not to claim accreditation. Good faith means you shouldn't simply assume evil of people because they disagree with you. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Shalom Doug, What is your evidence it is a press release? Does not say its a press release. I never said I wanted to use it as a reference for using the term 'accredited', I wanted to use it for using the term 'University Charter'. Satinmaster (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like outing attempts continue by this user. Check thenTalk page for Euclid. 89.241.149.98 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI re Satinmaster

Since you have given several warnings with no apparent effect, you might be interested in the ANI I posted re User:Satinmaster. [22] Fladrif (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It occurred to me, shortly after I posted the ANI, that it was probably a mistake. I suspect posting the ANI took this out of your hands, which you were perfectly capable of dealing with appropriately. Now the ANI has been closed for no activity in 24 hours, with no action having been taken. If that encourages Satinmaster that s/he can continue as before without consequence, that would be unfortunate. Fladrif (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo

Hi, Dougweller. You made a minor formatting error here. I'd just fix it, but since it relates to something you did with your mop I'd rather let you do it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So annoying, I keep doing that and yet don't preview! I don't think anyone would have minded if you'd fixed it, but I'm glad you didn't and pointed it out to me. I must be more careful. I'm doing so many of those recently! Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't feel bad. I accidentally blanked half an article the other day. Rivertorch (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Newgrange

Hello,

I am responding to your removal of my edit to the Newgrange page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange

where I posted on Wednesday a link to my Newgrange site http://www.voicesfromthedawn.com/?p=50

which contain the only resource on the web for a high-resolution virtual-reality tour of the monument, plus much in the way of archival scholarship and other resources for researcher. The Voices from the Dawn project is my sabbatical research work, done under the auspices of the University of Nevada, Reno (where I'm a professor) with funding from other institutions and government support. It has no commercial or income producing aspects, and is entirely free of advertising. I understand that links from Wikipedia have no bearing on my site's rankings; that is most certainly not a concern of mine.

I've posted links to significant archaeological sites of Ireland on their Wikipedia pages where I sincerely feel that the content in my project will be useful to other researchers.

I hope that you will take a look at the Newgrange page, or other pages on the site, and come to a similar conclusion and see fit to please restore my edit.

BTW, there a link still extant on the Newgrange page (360 degree view in Newgrange Central Chamber <http://www.lookaroundireland.com/newgrange/virtualtours/inside-newgrange.html>) that does not function, and consists mostly of commercial advertising.

Thanks for listening, and I hope to hear back from you one way or the other.

Sincerely,

Howard Goldbaum

AenghusOg (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

POV Edits to Sri Vikrama Rajasinha Article: Request for an Administrator to Mediate

Hi Dougweller,

Thanks for your help resolving the move discussion on the Sri Vikrama Rajasinha article. If you have the time, I would really appreciate it if you could help resolve the constant spate of edits and revisions to the article (including POV vandalism. I was not sure if this request belonged in the dispute resolution page, since it concerns the article's content. I had posted the following message on the talk page but someone has anonymously deleted it. In the statement, I outline the current state of the article and how I think some of the conflict (edit warring) can be resolved.

I am writing to express my concern over the persistent POV edits by some users (Tamilian101, in particular). These edits, as seen in the current version of the article, promote a politically motivated brand of historical revisionism. In particular, the assertion that the king was a Tamil and that Tamil was a court language during the king's reign; seem to be given an inexplicable level of significance in the article at the expense of more significant information. The assertion that Tamil was spoken in court is hardly the most significant thing to occur during the king’s reign and does not need to be in the first paragraph of the article. Let’s not forget that during this period, the Kandyan monarch was deposed and Sri Lanka became a British colony. This information has greater implications for Sri Lanka and should feature more prominently rather than speculative quibbling about languages used in the court.

Furthermore, given the recent civil war in Sri Lanka, I think that it is prudent to tread carefully when it comes to issues divided along ethnic or sectarian lines. For this reason, I am in favour of omitting references to Tamil and Sinhalese unless absolutely necessary, particularly because it is the primary source of contention in the recent spate of edits and reversions. Most historical sources state that the king belonged to the Nayak dynasty from Madurai in South India (he is not referred to as Tamil or Sinhalese). The mother tongue of the Nayaks was Telegu. While Madurai is located in what is now Tamil Nadu, it does not follow that the Kandyan kingdom was somehow Tamilian. For the sake of accuracy and neutrality, I hope we can all come to an understanding that during the king’s reign, Sri Lanka was not so deeply divided along ethnic lines. This is arguably why there was no recorded public outcry over the Nayaks succeeding their Sinhalese (Dinajara dynasty) predecessors to the throne. Let’s put politics aside to help make the article more accessible and accurate, it is after all, addressing one of the most interesting periods of the nation’s history.

I find it absurd that ungrammatical and uninformative sentences like “from the Tamil speaking Telugu originating kings” should continually make it back into the article. The original formulation was much more clear and informative. Likewise, the constant reference to the king by his pre-coronation and more junior title, “Prince Kannusamy” while reporting aspects of his reign is inaccurate and unconstructive. To politically motivated individuals, “Prince Kannusamy” may sound more Tamil than “Sri Vikrama Rajasinha” and helps advance certain agendas. This however, is not a valid reason to use pre-coronation titles to refer to the king during his reign, where his regnal name (Sri Vikrama Rajasinha) is more appropriate.

The title of “Prince Kannusamy” was the previous dynastic title of the king and should not take precedence of over the regnal title of “Sri Vikrama Rajasinha”. By all means, his pre-coronation name should be mentioned in the article, but it should not precede his regnal title in the caption above the image. I uploaded the image, entitled “Sri Vikrama Rajasinha”, in good faith several years ago and do not appreciate it being mislabelled in this manner. It is unfortunate that this article is being used as a vehicle for conveying politically motivated agendas, given its importance to Sri Lankan history. I am disappointed by the current state of the article and hope an administrator can mediate, so we can put an end to the constant edit/reversion cycle we have been seeing over the past few weeks. Thanks for your help.

Warm Regards, Vivecius (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't need an Administrator for this and I don't think I should get involved again. Try the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Please help me edit the page mid west radio! Dooniver (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

American Third Position Party

How many SPA IP accounts do we need doing this [23] or [24] without discussion at the talk or providing sources do we need before we ask for semi protection?(not implying you should do so now, just wondering what your thoughts are on the subject) We've had 4 separate IPs just in the last 2 days. Heiro 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens

Science begins with an hypothesis. With supporting evidence it becomes a theory. When proven it becomes a fact. Imagination is as much a requirement as an equation in the scientific method. Without imagination, Jules Verne would not have conceived the submarine, nor would Arthur C. Clarke have conceived communication satellites. Now, tell me how the Egyptians left machine tool marks ( lathes, milling machines, surface grinders) on granite monoliths prior to the iron age. Silence. The question becomes, if humans didn't do it, who did? ET is one of the possibilities. That is all they are saying.

This article is biased against the TV series. My comment would have provided some balance. ( 21:54, 3 February 2012 (diff | hist) m Ancient Aliens ‎ (first paragraph, last sentence:,however the critics cannot explain ancient granite sculptures that have perfect left/right symmetry, polished surfaces, distinct machine tool marks and weigh hundreds of tons.)

References: 

 Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt, Christopher Dunn, Bear & Company, 2010 
 The Solipsist Approach to Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Carl Sagan, Cornell, UCLA, 1982

Danlsullivan (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is about a tv series. It is not about ancient aliens, so that's not an appropriate place to discuss them pro or con. It might be in another article, but not without a source - read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. The phrasing of your question is called 'begging the question', assuming that your initial point about machine tool marks is correct, but I'm not debating that with you. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Another fine mess

Koiry is definitely Koeri, and the latter is a much better article. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've dealt with it, good. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I have also sent the 49.x IP to WP:3RRNB - they've been warned etc & we have a discussion going. This is where those discretionary sanctions would come in, as are presently being discussed at WP:AN. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A note

Please don't refer to other editors in the fashion you did here in the edit summary. Whether it is true or not, it violates WP:NPA. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

First they came… It wasn't a violation of our policy which specifically says normally, with 'normally' a piped redirect to WP:IAR and commonsense. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Whom are you comparing to Nazis? Are you comparing yourself to a victim of Nazism?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course not. I see you are also questioning me at ANI and another editor's talk page. I'm not one of the Admins who blocked you for disruptive editing and I didn't comment on your civility RFCU, so it's a puzzle as to why you're following me around. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tim Allen

Some revisions from Tim Allen (e|t|h|li|w|lo) need to be hidden from public view. ─═Klilidiplomus █ Talk═─ 07:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, IP blocked for 31 hours. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Threats regarding Darius The Great article

There is no need to make crude threats. The user Kauffner has been engaged in bringing in people in support of his efforts to rename the article in his favor, on a topic that he has no knowledge of. He and his friends have ignored facts. At some point this silly survey has to be closed and the user input based on people that know the facts, not just a silly and childish popularity contest.Janus945 (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The request was closed by another Administrator. I did not threaten you. You must not call editors vandals when their edits don't meet our criteria at WP:VANDALISM. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nil carborundum, so to speak...

Sheesh. ANI's a madhouse. Our "Oxford-educated" friend is the most blatant example of a Far Right troll I've seen in many a long year and it should be easy enough to turf her off WP and guide her to a site where her "talents" would be more appreciated, e.g. Stormfront. Not to say it would also be funny to see her try to make good her legal threat. Yet take this clear-cut case to ANI and it immediately becomes about other people and their peculiar personal agendas. (I'm meant to be on a long break from WP and incidents like this don't make me regret my leave of absence).Anyhow, keep on keeping on. Best. --Folantin (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice hearing from you. Yes, it's weird how it's all been deflected on to my alleged NPA. And interesting. I do hope you return though, don't let this put you off! Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I need a break for a while to recharge my batteries. I just happened to see you come in for some grief which you absolutely do not deserve, since you are one of the most honest admins out there. The ANI thread should have been about a troll ranting about the Zionist Occupation Government forcing their homosexual agenda on innocent Europeans. Instead it got derailed by Wikipedia's tedious office (or playground) politics. Maybe you should have just banned the troll for legal threats and waited for Odin to smite you down with Gungnir ;). --Folantin (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Complete nonsense IMO, any reasonable person who actually went and looked at that persons edits would have come to the same conclusion, neo nazi homophobic troll or a nasty piece of work. And the civility records of some of the posters there makes it surreal in a world turned upside down sort of way. Heiro 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Truthalwaystriumphs

I've reported Truthalwaystriumphs & HistoryofKushwaha at SPI. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I've used the NLT template but am inclined not to pursue it further right now. What do you think? - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That he made a bad mistake? I see he's blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he made a worse mistake on my talk page and Salvio spotted it. I note that you have since blocked the troublesome IP at Koeri. All the Kushwaha IPs that I looked at were, like that one (who admits Kushwaha connection), geolocating to Delhi. I can only presume that area has a concentration of the Koeri/Kushwaha community. Then again, the one you blocked also made a similar statement to Truthalwaystriumphs, ie: an appeal for people not to edit the article unless they had local knowledge etc. What with other goings-on, including an impending nightmare on the talk page of DGG, it is not turning out to be a very productive day for me. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Hello, Doug Weller. I never said "comparing references." What I said was: comparison should be a legitimate function of a reference. In other works comparison is used in references to compare the text to other sources. Hence, the function of comparison implies other sources. Remember, I wrote "Compare the Bible ..." This is a perfectly relevant and not unusual procedure. In comparisons the reference do not have a confirming function. Instead, its function is to draw the reader's attention to additional material of relevance and interest. ChristianContributor (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

MSU Interview

Dear Doug,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical Structure in Suras based on number 19 (Over it is Nineteen 74:30)

Peace, would appreciate you letting me know the reason behind the removal of the article from various pages of the Suras of Quran, in spite of me giving the necessary explanation for its reliability and relevance to the article in the talk section, one of the article for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maryam_(sura). This I have explained and supported on the talk page of all the articles that you have removed. Thank you in advance for the reply. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC))

Peace, I believe you had left the explanation on the talk page of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sura, apologies for not having seen it prior to posting this request above, I have added more links with other sources supporting the article, would appreciate your comment if that does not satisfy the requirements for all the other related and similar articles on the various pages (Sura:Chapters) of the Quran. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC))

Davykamanzi

Doug, what was resolved by this discussion? Davy still has the same user page. Indeed, he continues to update it. If it weren't for the ANI discussion, I would deal with it in the normal way for inappropriate user pages, but I don't want to trod on anyone's toes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say ask Ched. Or revive it. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a third option, which is following the steps at WP:MFD, which seems preferable to me than to resurrecting the topic at ANI. However, I don't see any urgency in any of this, so I'll see what Ched has to say. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Ask Ched and depending on what he says, MfD. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A new BCE/AD warrior

2 articles so far, [25] and [26], both of which have used the BCE style for many years. Discussion have been started at both talkpages. Heiro 04:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a warrior on the topic. I usually focus on the elimination of weasel words on wikipedia. I have started the topic on the talk page because that is what the rules state. If User talk:Heironymous Rowe had not invalidly revert my edit, my attention would have been elsewhere. Primus128 (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You've hit 3RR and you have been actively reverting BCE for some time. You are also using a 'rule' which does not exist. The original date does not have priority. It's up to you to arguje for a change. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I did hit it, and I stopped. On the other hand, people on the other side also hit the 3RR and never received a warning from you. Maybe this is because of your history of actively reverting BC/AD? You will also notice that MANY of the topics I have edited do have the BCE/CE style. The BCE/CE date style does not bother me. Inconsistency and biased enforcement of the rules does. Primus128 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe I didn't warn anyone else because in fact no one else hit 3RR. You can't lump in an edit by Hiero 3 days ago and give him a warning, which is what you did. I didn't give him a warning because there is no 2RR warning. The fact that you are changing era styles in articles that have been stable for years suggests that BCE does bother you. I don't have a history of arbitrarily reverting BC/AD, I do revert when someone comes along and makes such changes without a justification. Is that a problem? It's pretty rare, by the way, to find IP changes (and they are usually IPs) from BC to BCE. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dravidians

Hi Doug I did send you an email..but thought i would write to you here too.. Doug it is very well established among historians and anthropologists that the Dravidians went to India from Mesopotamia and established the three major civilizations in India. In India today,it is hard to track the Dravidians ,yes most are in the South of India where many have mixed in with the indigenous of India..but Dravidians are scattered throughout India and Afghanistan.. I am disappointed with your edit because you have left a blank in Indian history where there does not need to be.. Please reply ,as i too would like accuracy , Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difiicult (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't care at all who it was, but you changed cited sources and added unsourced statements. Find some reliable sources but read WP:RS before you add them. Don't use websites, use academy sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you've had contact with him too. I've given him the same advice. I guess I will have to state this more clearly. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Focussing now on relevant facts > ... We could [for example] probably cite the postulated relationship between the old Elamite language and the Dravidian ones ... It should be feasible to find suitable sources. --DLMcN (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC) >
^ Perhaps: David McAlpin, "Toward Proto-Elamo-Dravidian", Language vol. 50 no. 1 (1974); David McAlpin: "Elamite and Dravidian, Further Evidence of Relationships", Current Anthropology vol. 16 no. 1 (1975); David McAlpin: "Linguistic prehistory: the Dravidian situation", in Madhav M. Deshpande and Peter Edwin Hook: Aryan and Non-Aryan in India, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1979); David McAlpin, "Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society vol. 71 pt. 3, (1981) ... --DLMcN (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Impressive. Not something I have time for - although more interesting than "Mathematical Structure in Suras based on number 19 (Over it is Nineteen 74:30)" above which I need to figure out. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Berlin

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

Edits on Abu Simbel page

Hi Doug,

I'm wondering why the edits I made on the Abu Simbel page are marked as vandalism. I am an employee of an online "encyclopedia" of information about Egypt that has been around since about 1995, and has even been associated with the Ministry of Tourism for about 10 years, and I am just including valuable information from our site to related articles on Wikipedia to add information.

Please let me know what I should do to change things back.

Thanks.

Mona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaibra (talk • contribs) 06:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They are a copyright violation. If you are offering to release the copyright to us, you could possibly do that, but I doubt you want to. As an employee of Touregypt you should not be adding material from the site to the article or links to the site in any case, see WP:COI. And finally, we don't consider that Touregypt meets our criteria as a source as defined at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Certainly for Ancient Egypt we should be using academic sources and those are clearly available. To be honest, your edits have caused us problems as we have to go through and remove them. Are you the only employee doing this? I ask as we have a similar but greater problem with another editor. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, their edits are also copyvio from Touregypt. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


I'm the only employee doing this. How would you recommend that I add the information in?Monaibra (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The Editor posted the same message in my talk page and I told the user to take it forward with you as you are already in contact with the user .Just for infro.Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Monaibra, if touregypt is the website to which you refer, the easiest way to do this is to get your employers to release either the entire website or specific pages under a license compatible with Wikipedia's. We recommend Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, but any license marked compatible at WP:COMPLIC would do. To do this, they would need to modify their statement that currently reads "Copyright © 1996-2011 Tour Egypt. All Rights Reserved." Some recommended language can be found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. There are alternative approaches, but these are much more difficult. If you'd like to explore them, please come to my talk page so we can discuss it further. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Moonridden girl is correct, but I need to be honest with you, there are two other hurdles. One is WP:COI - as an employee of touregypt.net you shouldn't be adding material from your site, and clearly not links. And the other is what I've said above, that for Ancient Egypt at least we really do want sources more in line with WP:RS and that means in this case academic books and journals wherever possible. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, User:94.175.118.39 continuously keep re-adding information that have been previous removed to articles such as Tocharians and Tarim Basin. I noticed you and several other editors have reverted this anonymous user's edit in revision history, but the anonymous user keeps coming back to the articles. This time, the user for example has added a reference [27] (the user copied it word for word from the source material, i.e. "The documents date..."), but the reference only supported a new sentence, and several other claims in the paragraph are not supported by any references.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted and warned, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

blog del narco

Even though blog del narco is a blog I believe it is considered a reliable source. Please reconsider the removal of my link. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What you need to do now is go to WP:ELN] and get other opinions, explaining why you think it is different from an ordinary blog, They might agree. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, Thanks Phoenician Patriot (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

FYI, please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243#Topic ban proposal for Anupam and Lionelt. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. Thanks for your note.

Have a great week. - Paul Paul Race (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Exodus

Quark sent me a "please help me" request and looking through the extensive talk sections, I'm struggling to figure out what he wants to do and why he thinks I can help (other than to further confuse the issue). It appears that he wants to add an off-topic section on the Bronze Age collapse of Egypt and the near east - which I don't know if I'd support. Is this it or does he have a problem with the POV of the whole page? Ckruschke (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

He's been canvassing in various places. The Bronze Age collapse bit has no sources discussing The Exodus, and Quark keeps ducking the issue of original research, instead just saying that loads of scholars believe the Exodus actually took place. I don't think he'd be happy unless the article had that pov. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kind of what I thought. I would be happy too if the page talked more about the Exodus as fact, but unfortunately I can't produce any (legitimate) sources either. 3 yrs ago I too would be ticked by this seeming POV pushing by "biased" non-Christians (or even other Christians). However, I've now come to understand that Wiki is about more than just making sure I agree with everything that's in print on my favorite page.
Looks like PiCo has setup a para by para review of the page, which should honestly really thrill Quark, so I'll check in and contribute to that. Thanks again - Ckruschke (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wrong Reason Given for Deletion

Dear Dougweller,

You have chosen to delete the entry about the book YESHUA and given the reason as "someone's version of the Gospels, seems to be available only from this site."

May I respectfully point out the following:

1. The page is about "Books on Jesus" and Yeshua is a book on Jesus that is published in India in February 2012.

2. The book is definitely NOT "someone's version" but is a compilation of the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

3. Kindly note that the book is of the same genre as Diatessaron which you will find included among the "ancient" books.

4. Nowhere does it say that the book is available only from the website. It is being made available from bookshops across India and the rest of Asia in a phased manner.

5. I understand your, and Wikipedia's, concern to keep out spammers and others who endanger the integrity of the contents of Wikipedia. However, I believe you have made an error of judgement in deleting our entry as it is an authentic entry regarding a modern book on the life of Jesus.

We would request you to kindly reconsider and view the entry objectively.

Kind regards, Boca Junir

PS. May I further direct your attention to at least two other entries that are ACTUALLY someone's version of the gospels? Please look at "Swami Paramananda. Hidden Teachings in the Bible (ISBN 99903-23-41-0)." and "Yogananda, Paramahansa. The Second Coming of Christ (ISBN 0-87612-555-0)." These are books by Hindu religious leaders who have given their version/interpretation "hidden teachings!". I find it utterly amazing that you have chosen to retain books like these and reverted the one we posted.

Boca Junir (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't chosen to retain anything, I just removed a book that doesn't seem to have been published by a reliable publisher (see WP:RS, that doesn't seem to have an author, that is just published and thus not at the moment significant among all the many thousands of books written on the subject. The very fact it's just published (and not by a well known author, well known publisher, major reviews etc) suggests that this is promotional. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all the other books you have in that list are "significant"? I really do not think that is the case. Anyway, I leave it to your judgement.

But are you saying I can't add any books to the list? There is an excellent book by Charles Tempelton - do you have a problem if I add this? If you do, please tell me so I can save myself the time and effort involved in adding it! Here are the details: Jesus - a Bible in Modern English www.templetons.com/charles/jesus/ Charles Tempelton's blending of the four gospels of the New Testament into a single modern English narrative.

Thanks! Boca Junir (talk)

My first was an edit summary, using shorthand, my second I of course have had more opportunity to explain. I've removed some more books including the one by Swami Paramananda - can't find a publisher, the description was clearly promotional. As we have an article on Paramahansa Yogananda I left that one. I need to be clear - any editor can add, delete, etc but we do have Wikipedia:Notability (books) and WP:PEOPLE and I think one or the other of these need to be met before adding a book. So, we do have Brad Templeton - but isn't his book self-published? Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, Dougweller. Thank you! Regarding Paramahansa Yogananda, we may have an article, but please note the following:

1. This is what the Wiki article says: "...Echoing traditional Hindu teachings, he taught that the entire universe is God's cosmic motion picture, and that individuals are merely actors in the divine play who change roles through reincarnation. He taught that mankind's deep suffering is rooted in identifying too closely with one's current role, rather than with the movie's director, or God."

2. This is the description from the Amazon page: "In this unprecedented masterwork of inspiration, Paramahansa Yogananda takes the reader on a profoundly enriching journey through the four Gospels. Verse by verse, he illumines the universal path to oneness with God taught by Jesus to his immediate disciples but obscured through centuries of misinterpretation: "how to become like Christ, how to resurrect the Eternal Christ within one's self.".. and "What is necessary is for the cosmic wisdom and divine perception of Jesus to speak again through each one's own experience and understanding of the infinite Christ Consciousness that was incarnate in Jesus. That will be his true Second Coming..." [[28]]

3. This is another description of the book: "it imparts the life-transforming realization that each of us can experience for ourselves the promised Second Coming — awakening of the all-fulfilling Divine Consciousness latent within our souls." [[29]]

4. Please note that there is no publisher mentioned.

From all of the above, I submit that this book can at best be included under "Controversial books on Jesus Christ". It cannot be in the category it is in because (1) he is promoting traditional Hindu teachings, (2) it claims to "illuminate the universal path" but what he is proposing is contrary to the orthodox Christian interpretation (Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant) of the Gospels, (3) he talks of "centuries of misinterpretation" but it is HE who is misinterpreting! (4) he talks of "resurrecting the eternal Christ within one's self" which is pure Hindu philosophy and totally opposed to the actual teaching of Christ, (5) he talks of "cosmic wisdom" which again is contrary to the generally accepted principles of interpreting the teachings of Jesus, (6) he mentions the "true Second Coming" as a non-literal event which is, again, totally contrary to the generally accepted Christian interpretation, (7) it also speaks of "awakening... the Divine... within our souls" which is pure Hindu/Vedantic philosophy and has nothing to do with the real teachings of Jesus Christ, and (8) the book does not have a reliable publisher.

Based on the above reasons, I request that the entry be removed from its present place. I have no objections if it is placed in the "Controversial books on Jesus Christ" list.

As for Templeton, I am trying to get more reliable/ additional information.

Thanks. Boca Junir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

My Goodness! I'm amazed at the sheer lack of due diligence in checking the books in this list. Schaberg's book, "Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives" claims that "Matthew and Luke were aware that Jesus had been conceived illegitimately, probably as a result of a rape of Mary, and had left in their Gospels some hints of that knowledge" [[30]]. Jesus conceived illegitimately via a rape!? Where did this lady get her information from? This is sheer (and irresponsible) imagination. There is NO way such a book can be included in this section, but it could find a place in the "Controversial books" section. Boca Junir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Everyone enters their favorite books I guess, but in this case it meets our criteria as a reliable source as it's published by an academic source, but I agree it's in the wrong section, move it there. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Harold Connor

That was really too bad about Harold Connor. I never new him. I added A.S.C.A.P. and a bunch of other background detail because I have worked professionally in so many fields, and worked alongside professionals in so many others that folks don't always believe me when I say I really do know what I'm talking about. I guess I'm being preemptive, for a series of articles I'm working on which may or may not grow into useful links from related Wikipedia articles. Have a great rest of the week - Paul Paul Race (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mound Builders

Thank you for the suggestion. I will remove the tag until I have the chance to review the sources that you have suggested and only replace it if I can't find something in those sources. --AntigrandiosËTalk 19:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I see you beat me to it! --AntigrandiosËTalk 19:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not me, but that's probably one I would have added. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Mr BC/AD

I think Mr BC/AD is back: [31]. New IP ( 64.168.255.26 (talk · contribs)), but same Texas ISP as before: 99.101.160.126 (talk · contribs). Barsoomian (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence

We are not the only website with a long time user named User:Trojancowboy. Apparently, Stormfront has one too, [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t855249/], [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t5576/], [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t855249-2/]. Also, I found some other very disturbing things. Do you mind if I email you a collection of links, you could look for yourself, I don't want to out the person on Wiki, but I would like your opinion on how to deal with this person in the future, especially considering this [32]. Heiro 09:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

email

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

Heiro 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My internet access

It comes and goes, right now I seem to have it but still not every time I try to use it. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Calvin R. Schlabach

Hi Dougweller,

I am trying to contact Calvin R. Schlabach to see if he does have have any qualifications apropos.

I think some link to the agreement of a distinguished archeologist (in James A Sauer) should be maintained as it is both directly appropriate and a balance to the claim that it is not 'generally' accepted.

On another point, that claim without a citation is an appeal to general (/esoteric!) knowledge. I guess there must be citations available?!

Thanks DaveG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.184.19 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he does, but just qualifications wouldn't make him significant enough for us to use him. Which article are we talking about? Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

PV Narasimh Acharya page

Doug:

I have no interest in makng a career of defending my father's work or what I wrote about him. I feel I kept it balanced and cited the appropriate articles. They stand on their own. Thanks. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC))

Talkback

Just in case you aren't watching my talk page, [33]. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

Might it be a good idea to proactively semi-protect the Kelso page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We haven't had anything except the addition of the dubious tag again but this time by a good faith editor - although wrongly I believe. There are enough people watching it right now. If we start getting new editors and IPs with the same pov as Kelso I'm sure it will be quickly protected, meanwhile if it's unprotected we can get a better idea whether or not anything is going on, if you follow me. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I follow. 10-4. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Said in haste?

"Nor do I believe the claim ..." I think you should consider retracting that (even if you don't believe said claim). All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

How far does GF have to go? I guess you know I've got good reasons for saying that. WP:OUT protects him but does it mean I can't make such a comment? Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This[34] might be technically incorrect, in that the editor claims to have tried to contact Kelso but has so far not succeeded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is it moves the focus of the debate to something else. There are already two fairly inflammatory topics, the BLP one and the NLT one. Getting embroiled in AGF, OUTing and ad hominem does nothing to calm the situation. I can give you a very good example of me walking right into this trap if you wish. Really the way forward is to get the legal threat stuff out of the way, and then let the policy stuff sink in. Might take time, might never happen, but it's better not to muddy the waters. Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
The debate primarily was, "Why was I blocked?" He was told why, over and over, by various users, and he wouldn't listen to any of it. You responded sufficiently to his final post, to which he cannot reply but does not really need to, for his own good. The best course at this point is to just leave his talk page alone and let him think about things for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, deleted it. Ironically someone else has replaced the 'dubious' tag on Jamie Kelso -- see my comments at the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I had a brief look at the page - and Stormfront's. I can see there's a lot to do there. There is a much non-controversial biographical details of Kelso at the SPLC site, which would balance the article IMHO. Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Re this, at least 2 of us already agreed to here. Cheers, Heiro 06:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ushuaia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ushuaia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

the earth expanded .com...deleted ??

hi ..you deleted my contributuion to the expanded earth wiki page. my web site is based on the earth expanding and biblical truths, noahs flood. discriminating because of the bible content is wrong. i do not believe the earth is growing but rather the earth expanded on one particular day.. i use a balloon to demonstate that..i mentioned all this in my short contribution.. please correct reinstate my post. thank you .....joseph benante — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5mrjoe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides the fact it was in an inappropriate place in the article, as your personal website it fails our criteria at WP:EL - see WP:ELNO. If you want to challenge this you can do that at our noticeboard for external links, WP:ELN. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your quick response...where on the site should i add my contribution and website ? What can normally be linked Shortcut: WP:ELYES 1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, thank you joseph benante — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5mrjoe (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sakal and Uttam Kamble

Admin, Sakal and Uttam Kamble have been extensively edited by — Samaphadnis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. who seems to have a COI, how to go about it as it has anonymity and privacy issues? Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Since there have been no edits from that editor for about five months, I think the only thing that is needed to to make sure the two articles follow our policies and guidelines. If the editor starts editing again, we can reconsider the situation, but it's too old to do anything else about it now. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a need to provide evidence for COI? How does one go about it? What about the many issues as brought to notice by the tags the article carries? It makes the article look ugly, and the action of the tagging editor a little odd (me), I mean so many tags. Please have a look. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, too many tags. I noticed that the article about Kamble claims he's important but uses [35] as a source, which clearly fails WP:RS - you can just delete that with an edit summary explaining why. I know nothing about all those awards but none of them are sourced & I suspect some of them are trivial. You could remove them all as unsourced but if any do look important you should try to replace them with sources. The Sakal article you could always just revert to the pre-Samaphadnis version and see what happens.
When I say 'you can' I don't mean that I'm authorising you do to that, they are just suggestions of edits anyone could make, and you might of course be challenged although not many editors seem involved in those articles.
Personally I don't like long lists of publications, especially when they dwarf the rest of the article and aren't discussed. Inappropriate detail and commentary on the research publications. If you know what's well known and what isn't, delete the stuff that isn't well known/award winning.
Does that help? Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! We could watch for a while and then trim the articles. The tags are there, the concerned editor would perhaps comply and remove the tags? What say?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Capolinho and Egyptian wedding

I'm sporadically working on the Touregypt problem. While looking through the list of pages that link to Touregypt, I came across The Egyptian Peasant. Almost as soon as I saw it I wondered if I should propose it for deletion, because its tone is essay-like and its subject is rather redundant next to articles like fellah and ancient Egyptian agriculture. Then I realized that it's taken entirely from a Touregypt article of the same name, so I felt fully justified in prodding it. There may be some bureaucratic reason why that's not the best way to handle the situation, but to me it seems perfectly sensible to just let a copyright-violating, useless article expire.

I went to notify the article's creator, User:Capolinho, out of fairness. (He or she has not edited in a few weeks.) Then I looked at his or her contributions and found that they include twenty other new articles [36]. At least one of these, Egyptian wedding, is a large-scale copyright violation of a Touregypt article of the same name—all of the sections titled "Ancient Traditions" and "Modern Traditions" are taken from there. I don't know how to handle that. The topic is valid, and large parts of the text seem to be original, but the most essential parts of the article are stolen. Rewriting is impractical because I don't have reliable sources on the subject. Should I just strip out the offending text and leave the article with just the bare-bones description in the lead?

And, of course, there are Capolinho's other article creations. I don't recall seeing them on the list of Touregypt links and they seem to be outside Touregypt's subject scope, but they may include copyright violations from elsewhere. A. Parrot (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted the one with the PROD, posted to User talk:Moonriddengirl. Off to bed now. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I've blanked Egyptian wedding and listed it at WP:CP. The article is going to need rewriting from scratch if we are to retain it; there is no salvageable history. :/ Let's see how widespread this issue is; a WP:CCI may be needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've found issues in every article I've looked at yet that included substantive text. I've opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Capolinho. This one could be fast-moving, as he hasn't worked on that many articles and as it will very likely simply mean removing content he added. If either of you have time to pitch in, that would be great. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Dhul Qarnayn

Hi you reversed the changes i made to the Dhul Qarnayn Article.

As mentioned in the bible quotation at the end of the article Dhul Qarnayn was known to be the ruler of Median and Persia which Hiraculis was not. Heraculis was a contemporary of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the arabs of his time knew him by that name. Because in the letter the prophet made someone write and sent him he addressed him as Hiraclius the ruler of the roman.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_career_of_Muhammad#Letter_to_Heraclius) The picture of the original letter is attached. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad-Letter-To-Heraclius.jpg The lone citation provided on this point is unscholarly [10] published in 2010 and the notion of Heraclius being Dhul-Qarnayn has been unheard of more than 1400 years of Islamic history. This is an attempt to distort a religious history. The citations 5 by Robert Spenser fro "A complete Infidels guide to Islam" is biased. If you are going to represent an issue of Islam it should not be a misrepresentation of traditional Islamic sources even if the source is non muslim. I mean its like putting Armish sources on the topics of science. Traditionally in Islam Alexander has almost never been hypothesized as being Alexander. Further the persons of Oghuz Khan and/or Bilge Qaghan were born in 717 and first recorded in 13th century long after the revelation of Quran. One of the first copies of quran is from around 650AD (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Qur%27an) I am having my suspensions there are extraneous motives involved here trying to create confusion instead of sharing scholarly point of view from traditional sources giving marginal and and erroneous points of view.

Here is whats going on. As for the Hiraculis part the author of the reference is trying to imply that since the he was not cruel to the Muslim envoy he was given a mention and a good story in Quran the implication here is that there is no truth to the story and its just to appreciate a nice guy. For the Alexander part, we all know how he is known to have character unsuitable for being a holy person such as worshiping more than one gods and having a male lover Hephaestion. so its trying to say look muslims priase a man with bad qualities. As for Oghuz Khan and/or Bilge Qaghan ..just to throw it in the mix ..you know.. add to the confusion.

Even though there is overwhelming evidence and similarities between Quran's mention of Dhul Qarnayan and Cyrus as mentioned in "Hypotheses of Alexander vs Cyrus as Dhul-Qarnayn"

If you do not think the sources I restored meet our criteria as described at WP:RS then you should take the issue to WP:RSN which is the noticeboard where we discuss sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Satinmaster

I went ahead and issued an indef block. It seems to me that disruptive editing had gone on plenty long enough. --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok I guess, but of course... Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome

The rougarou is me last year, lol

Per [37], your welcome, no problem. Gonna be logged off and busy for the next few days, doing Courir de Mardi Gras tomorrow :-) . Chasing chickens, listening to music[38], dancing[39], drinking in muddy fields[40] and getting reference for my next batch of paintings. Capitaine, voyage ton flag!. Heiro 16:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great, a place I've never been. I went through the state when I was 12 but have no memory of it. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Its a different world, especially tomorrow. Check out the couple of links above, its like a convention of medieval jesters. If you ever get the chance, come on down :-) Heiro 17:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The only thing is I don't think I'd like the food. I am going to the Texas Renaissance Festival in November however as my wife is going to the Houston International Quilt Festival. Obvously very different and much more commercial though. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The food is the best part about living here! Its not spicy like tex-mex or that crappy "blackened" or overly cayenned stuff they sell in commercial restaurants as "cajun". In 20 yrs of being here I've never actually seen anything on a menu that was blackened or "cajun". Its actually a lot of sauces, stews and fricasses, over rice, like a french/caribbean mix. I was a skinny kid when I moved down here, no more, lol. Was just talking to someone last week about the Houston renfest, might try to make it myself this year, only 3 or so hrs away. Heiro 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That sounds better, although I'm not too fond of seafood (well, most fish cooked not in a stew etc is ok). The renfest isn't in Houston you know. I'll be there on the Saturday of the Roman weekend, can't recall the date. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, a little farther west, but still considering it. In an unrelated not, this guy User talk:Todd Volker#WP:ERA again just popped up again in the last 5 minutes and I am heading out door right now for next 2 days. Heiro 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

For you?

I suspect this might be a message for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Dealings with inexperienced user

I happened to inspect some revisions to the 2012 phenomenon article and I found that you had intervened against one of the users on their user page, User talk:Omegafold. Your first edit (of 2 so far) adds a {{uw-vandalism4}} to the user's talk page. Why did you do that? This is a user with 13 edits on Wikipedia, yet you assert in your reaction, "Given that you seem to understand our policies and guidelines and have decided to ignore them, I'll give you a final warning." Above this warning message I see the same user responding to a level 1 user warning posted 3 weeks ago in all caps and not signing their post. I have reviewed all 13 edits by this user to see if there was something in some of them that might explain your assessment of this user's level of experience, but I could find nothing to support anything but my own impression of this being a fresh, inexperienced user.

Then, 10 hours later you post a follow-up to your initial user warning. In that edit you accuse the user of having sent to you an email through the Wikipedia email interface leveling pejoratives at you. Was this sent through the "E-mail this User" feature or the OTRS interface (seeing as you are a member of the OTRS team)?

I just find some of this a bit odd. I hope you can clarify this matter somewhat. __meco (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia mail. After the first warning the editor seemed to be saying he was going to ignore our NOR policy. That response clearly colored my warning. His email also called me a moron and made it clear he was going to continue. If you think you can counsel him on his talk page, please do, I'd rather see him turn into a constructive editor than see him blocked. But his attitude suggests that might be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll reach out to this editor. Hopefully that will be appreciated. __meco (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and best of luck. Dougweller (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Input requested

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Doug and thank you for responding to my edit request. I agree this article needs to be rewritten, especially since my entry was completely deleted, but I am not capable of doing so given I am not all that computer literate. Is this something I can work with you on or how do I go about getting someone to assistance me on this entry? Thanks WashTeh (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Informal report of edit war, editor removing stable version: of Charles Dickens[41] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That needs to be settled on the article talk page. I don't think I know Harrison, but Paul B, Anthony Appleyard and Johnuniq are all experienced good editors. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Devreotes

Hi, Doug,

I am currently working on Dr. Peter Devreotes' (my boss) Wikipedia page, and am still stuck in Userpage mode. I have been trying to figure out how to "go live" as an encyclopedic article, and was hoping you would be able to help me out. I have been trying to figure this out for the past 2 days and feel quite frustrated.

I would appreciate your advice and feedback.

Thank you SO much!

Peterdevreotes (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Jinna Kim


Bukan

Iran has not and will not have a census in 2012, so adding population figures as of the such a census cannot be correct. In addition, someone way back decided to delete much of the article; that's been restored as inadequately explained deletions are usually wrong too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't thinking hard enough there, just saw 2012 figures in the source and put them in. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
No prob. I've seen you around a lot but have never interacted with you before. Thanks for sprucing up geographic articles! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Gleick

This is a list of Dr. Gleicks honors and appointments, starting in 1987. It is unencyclopedic to omit his most recent ones 70.46.241.77 (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a list, it is the WP:LEAD and although it can be mentioned, it doesn't belong in the lead and your quote ""Gleick is certainly the right man for the job." is clearly meant to make a point. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. " In 2003 he was ... In 2006 he was ... . In 2011, Dr. Gleick was ... In 2012 ,...". Please note the first two were in the wikipedia article since a long time ago. If this is not a list, can you please provide a definition of what a list is.70.46.241.77 (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the list of Dr. Gleick's appointments is probably not ideally suited for the WP:LEAD. Selectively deleting portions of such lead as currently written may not be the best solution, don't you think? 70.46.241.77 (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a discussion for the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Devreotes

Hi, Doug!

Much thanks for your speedy response!

Dr. D. saw the entry for Lewis C.Cantley, and asked me to follow that example. I feel that I have closely matched his entry style, but without the REFERENCES.

Would you suggest I add that section to Dr. Devreotes' entry as well?

Thank you, Doug!

Peterdevreotes (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Jinna Kim

Jinna, I've added a references section, but the references only show up when you add them to the article, as I said, use WP:CITE. Also look at the top of the edit field and try the tools there, one of them may make it easier to cite stuff. And if you look at Cantley's article, he's always just 'Cantley', no Dr or first names after his full name is mentioned. So you need to find sources for as much as you can, sources that comment on Devreotes, not simply sources for his work. And in particular 'internationally recognised', stuff like that. It may be obvious to you but it needs to be shown.
I really wish your account wasn't in his name, that might cause problems down the line. Maybe registering a new account in your name and linking it to the one you are using now. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Devreotes

Thank you for your advice - the specifics and explanations really helped!

I will also follow your suggestion to register a new account in my own name.

BIG thanks, Doug!

Peterdevreotes (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Jinna Kim

I believe the series of edits beginning here contains text indicating the IP editor did not intend to grant a copyright license to Wikimedia foundation and thus should be revision deleted. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't find that it exists elsewhere, I think that somehow the IP thought they could copyright something they wrote there, which of course they can't. I don't think there's a problem. Unless we can find that it is copy and paste from elsewhere, rev/del wouldn't be appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that if the editor makes contradictory claims about whether they granted a license, one being the license they were supposed to read at the bottom of the edit screen, the other in the text of their submission, there is doubt about whether the submission is licensed, and thus it should be removed. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The IP is right that what they put here is copyrighted. :) They don't surrender copyright; they just license the content. They do still own the copyright to what they say. If they had written "All rights reserved", we'd have a conflict...but even then, their last action would not have been to write "All rights reserved", but to click save. As it says at the bottom of the page, "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." (I'm lazy; I'm not linking those licenses. :D) I think we're clear. That said, I don't know if there's much value in retaining it anyway, as it doesn't seem to add much to the development of the article. (FWIW, I'm inclined to accept his assertion that he's a child, based on his other talk page edits.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence

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

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help. Self-reversion by proxy who'd have thunk it's possible. In any event, thanks!Capitalismojo (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I know how difficult it is to edit with an iPad! And thank you for being so cooperative. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Image vandal not quite done yet

Since you blocked Bobbyxxx, are you going to delete this image » File:MarkFranklin.jpg.jpeg as well since it was used as nothing but a tool for the vandalism and was uploaded by the user? • GunMetal Angel 08:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's on Commons, where I'm not an Admin, and in any case as I recall needs to be tagged first, I'll take a look later on today when I have time. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How to handle?

Per this, I suggest semi-protect on key talk pages. Create a subpage as some others have done where IPs and new accounts can reply that keep it off-focus and link to it from your talk. If you do, let me know so I can watchlist it. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Things are fine the way they are. He's weaving the rope that will hang him, and I'd rather not slow him down. Rklawton (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Besides being stupid, he's pretty sick. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - Stupid Question...

Doug - I used to have this great link on my User page where when I clicked on it, it would show graphically how many edits I've made (bar graphs plus the number of edits) for every month I've been on Wiki and a big pie chart of how all edits have been divvied out (talk, user pages, etc). Obviously this also had a running total of my total edits. It also listed the total number of new pages I've created plus the Top 10 pages I've edited, User Pages i've posted on and Talk pages that I've been on - which I thought was cool. Unfortunately this widgit went belly up and I'm dying. You probably can't point a similar widgit, but I see you have a User box showing that you are the 303rd most prolific Wiki contributor. So how would I check the total number of contributions I've made. I've looked around in "My contributions", but I can't find anything that shows totals so I feel lost (must be the engineer in me - I'm unable to quantify my work). Hoping you can help. Ckruschke (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Go to Special Pages in your toolbox and click on my preferences. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Good enough. As always, you're the best Doug! Ckruschke (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

ANI--don't shoot the messenger

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See section Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button". Drmies (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a pattern of disruptive editing that references an engagement you have had with the editor. You may wish to add your thoughts. The thread is Year-long a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Lung salad needs to be addressed.. Thank you. —Eusebeus (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Manson48

Since you asked, it is my opinion that Manson48 is a probable sockpuppet of USER:Carmelmount, who in turn is a sockpuppet of an older banned user USER:Machn who had multiple sockpuppets. My observations are based primarily on the activities at the Leo Frank article.

Machn got in trouble when he repeatedly made references on the article's discussion page concerning a Jewish conspiracy to make the Frank case into an anti-Semitic incident -- he particularly focused on authors Steve Oney and Leonard Dinnerstein. After his banning he went through a variety of sockpuppets, many of them obvious with some variation of his banned username. His most interesting one was USER:Potzeey in which he used a dumbed-down writing style to disguise his connection.

Carmelmount appears to me to be pursuing the same agenda as Machn, but he has learned the lesson of what he can't say. He continues to attack the same authors and continues to emphasize primary sources over secondary sources, but has learned not to couch his arguments in Jewish conspiracy terms.

One of his earliest edits ([[42]] was treated as vandalism. This edit [[43]] removed the reference to antisemitism in the article lead while using a misleading edit explanation. This edit [[44]] on another article also eliminated the antisemitism reference to the Frank case.

If you want to pursue this, you should probably look at the website leofrank.org (this [[45]] might be of particular interest) Basically this site appears to have many useful links, but the narratives provided by the website's anonymous author are characterized by numerous anti-Semitic arguments. While Carmelmount pays lip service to criticizing the site, his editing agenda comes straight from the arguments made by leofrank.org. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The main trick is to simply watch his favorite articles and block his socks as they pop up. In that way he doesn't get to push his agenda, and he does nothing more than waste his time here while entertaining us with his silliness. For a guy who claims to be smart, he was as stupid as hell to choose a user name that matches his off-wiki account names. Any reporter with an interest in antisemitism or Wikipedia vandals would have a field day with this joker. Rklawton (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

notice--> Thank you. —Eusebeus (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Cyrus Cylinder

Why did you revert my edit? You deleted my references and the explanation of why the Cyrus Cylinder is often called the first human rights. If you think it is not helpful fine, but I think it is helpful! This is wikipedia and even the United Nations mention the Cyrus Cylinder as human rights charter. This is a free wikipedia and if an international recognized organition like un calls it human rights charter it has to be mentioned here to. Further the sentence "though the British Museum and scholars of ancient Near Eastern history reject this view as anachronistic[9] and a misunderstanding[10] of the Cylinder's generic nature.[11]" is false because not all schoolars have this opinion. This sentence has the effect that you might think that all schoolars think so, and this is wrong There are a lot of other schoolars that say that the Cyrus Cylinder is the first human rights charter. Both sides, the defenders and the critics have to be mentioned in same weight. You complained that I have deleted the mention of the British Museum, ok you're right, this has to be added again. I hope you accept my explanation. Look at the old versions of this article, it was called a long time first human rights charter also in wikipedia. Political controversies between Iran and US shouldn't be the reason to reverse and rewrite everything that belongs to Persia. Best Regards Shah Vazraka (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The British Museum owns the Cylinder, so its view is obviously very relevant. As for the other scholars, read it carefully: it refers to "scholars of ancient Near Eastern history". Very few if any experts on the period support the "human rights charter" claim. If you look at the people who do support it, they are lawyers, politicians, social scientists etc - but not archaeologists or experts in ancient Near Eastern History. We can't and don't give equal weight to non-expert views. Prioryman (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've moved this to the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edit on the Cyrus Cylinder page was useful. Thank you for working with the talk history of the Cyrus Cylinder page (a history with which you are intimately familiar!). GoetheFromm (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Maple Syrup

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Sleddog116's talk page.
Message added 22:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed merge

Since you previously expressed interest on the talk page regarding another topic, please see Talk:Chronicles (magazine)#Proposed_merge. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

First attempts at editing the NEARA article

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the note. I've been a wikipedia user for a long time and finally made the leap to editor, but I guess I still have some things to learn! Regarding my username (magicfiddle), it refers to a tune I wrote and I've been using that for years on youtube and just borrowed it for wikipedia. If you think I should change it, let me know (I do play fiddle).

Anyway, I was prompted to edit the NEARA article because I felt it inadequately described an organization that I am a member of. I hadn't thought about conflict of interest (being a novice editor) but I would like to see a more balanced description if possible. Historically, it is true that NEARA has been associated with pre-Columbian diffusionism (going back to Goodwin's book), but the current organization is much more focused on documenting and protecting stone sites than pushing any one theory of their origin. While individual members may form (and publish) their own opinions, many current members do not subscribe to diffusionist theories and are more interested in trying to distinguish between Native American and colonial artifacts, both of which may be worth preserving. We are also making an effort to connect up with the scientific community and invite many professional archaeologists, geologists, etc. to speak at our meetings.

Per your advice, I'll post a draft of what I feel to be a more accurate description and await your feedback. Magicfiddle (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for his reply. It would be nice to think things are changing, but with all due respect, looking at the lineup for the 2012 Spring meeting, I don't see it. I can see that Ted Ballard is defending a Native American origin for some stone structures others claim to be European pre-colonial, but you still have Sue Carlson and Jim Guthrie as major influences. I won't comment on anyone else. They are major hyperdiffusionists. I'll look at your draft.Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits

I was engaged in discussion, and I try hard never to violate 3RR. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I misread your first edits, you were at 2RR, no problem. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this what you requested? I confirm that I never intended to make any legal threat, although what stated by Jeffro77 is of extreme gravity and I meant to highlight that. Do not hesitate to contact me if you think this does not clarify the matter as per your expectations. Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you, you have been kind, I appreciate it. --Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Sleddog116's talk page.
Message added 16:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 16:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus determinations

Doug, see Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_determinations. Just because I help enforce 'em doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with 'em. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: American Third Position Party

Not disputing. just that a controversial issue should be discussed for consensus to decide before restoring. Though that IP should be blocked and the page locked as well since its so unstable.Lihaas (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the IP will be blocked for edit-warring. Have you seen [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t870653/]? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I checked out the site and understand your concerns but dont agree at all. We can stop on the premise that "they wont agree" if need be take it to arbitration (which only be accepted after attemps). Nevertheless attempts at consensus discussion dont stop because of an expecgtation of a dead end. The warring IPs et al will pobs be blocked anyways and discounted from discussion. Sicne consensus doesnt ovote count there is a fair chance of getting "through" with sensible discussion ;)Lihaas (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it should be held in a fashion that reflects their pov however. Good faith editing would have involved a bold change to remove white supremacism, a revert and then discussion. The sources all support white supremacism. I think the first sentence should finish or be followed by something that says It refers to itself as white nationalist and I'm happy to add that now. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
tRUE, but an accomodation woudlnt hurt in the meantime to put the cavet of who said what. ADL/SPLC are from neutral on scuch calls.Lihaas (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It isn't just the ADL and SPLC however, so how do we do this? In any case, it's hard to edit an article while it's being reverted by IPs. Do you want to draft what you see as a suitable wording? A one-time edit is easiest to maintain. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Request a page lock
Then id suggest somethign to the effect of (and outside the first sentence of the lead): "It hs been accused of by the ADL/SPLC/XXX of being a white nationalist organization"Lihaas (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Accused is probably a word to avoid. "It has been called" would be better. As an aside, if the sources multiply/become better at some point the wording would probably change. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
And Don Black (white nationalist) needs to be made pov also. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the latter needs to with sources but the former "IT has been..." is vague and needs the caveat even if you avoid "accuseD".Lihaas (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by caveat, but how about 'Sources such as the zzzzz have called it white supremacist' or something like that. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

User:Jack Douglas123

You beat me to reverting their edits. Looking through their contribs, it looked like they were just making tiny little edits on different articles, even if the change resulted in incorrect dates, so that their contribs looked more full so that they wouldn't be tagged as an SPA on the RfC they commented on. - SudoGhost 16:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Or to get their 10 edits in to edit a semi-protected article. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The SPA thing occurred to me because of comments on that talk page about possible incoming meatpuppetry to influence an RfC, but autoconfirmed didn't occur to me. The article they commented on is currently semi-protected, perhaps that was it. It makes more sense than what I said, at any rate. :) - SudoGhost 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well spotted in any case - and you may be right. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content on Liberty Fund entry under conference program section

Hello, Dougweller,

My name is Andrew Duncan with Liberty Fund in Indianapolis, Indiana.

I was recently advised from our President of the company that there is content on the Liberty Fund Wikipedia page that is incorrect. Someone outside of the Foundation has added material about a book to our conference section. Liberty Fund does not publish the book or is affiliated with the book in any way whatsoever.

Every time I remove the material it re-appears by someone. Can you please advise as to how we can successfully update this material?

Thanks - Andrew (android1961) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Android1961 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not put extra edits to VANDALIZE . Mostly to enhance the article with extra information. My intentions are sincere and are intended to help uses of Wikipedia to enhance their knowledge, which I understood were the aims of Wikipedia. This is not the first time my sincere intentions to share knowledge 2with other users. In fact I am new to wikipedia and are not yet fully aware of what is allowed and what is not allowed. I am still learning the system. So please be patient — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperator1974 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Archaeogenics of the Near East

Hello, there appears to be a user; 67.61.94.83 (talk) who is altering the content of this page without references to support a POV. I do not know how to prevent this or protect the page, so as a more senior/experienced user, I thought I would bring this to your attention. There seems to be similar POV alterations to Population History of Egypt by the same user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
EddieDrood can you make a statement on the article talkpage about this? We can get more people to look at this if the problem is laid a little for discussion. Until now no one seems to be using talk.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for quick (and long) block

You are fast! I took time away from reverting 65.68.14.130 to request a block, and by the time I got back it was blocked. Great! Meters (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. For some reason the page is on my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Map of minority religions

The map is based on poor sources ->[46] how does one mark it for deletion, or discussion etc., I have informed the creater. Thanks in anticipation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

revision deletion

dear dougweller,

is it possible to get these edit summaries and comments removed from history? [47], [48]. i find these baseless allegations extremely offending.-- altetendekrabbe  18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise, but if you read Wikipedia:Revision deletion you'll see I can't do that. But the editor will be blocked if he repeats them, that's been made clear on his talk page. Let me know if he does it. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note. When I realized what I had done I heard Homer saying D'oh and felt a trout slap and a facepalm all at the same time. Many apologies and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Dear Doug,

I don't know if I merit a barnstar for sourcing the two images of Pedubast I and Tefnakht I's artifacts that I told Captmondo here. He had asked me on my talkpage if I wanted any pictures taken at a certain museum. But thank you anyway. I'm mostly active at Commons anyway. BTW, if Senakhtenre's nomen is revealed to be not a 'Tao', then his article's wikipedia name Here would have to be renamed. Right now, nothings published, however. Ayko said in private that CFEETK's preliminary publications is usually revealed on their web site though he might mention it on EEF. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing block settings

Hi, just a small thing, but you don't have to unblock people in order to reblock them; you can just go straight to Special:Block/ThisIsaTest and re-block. Hope that helps. It Is Me Here t / c 00:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for welcoming me! I appreciate that you took the time. AniusDaughter (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
Your work is appreciated here at Wikipedia! Thank you! AniusDaughter (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious Letters, Sura Yasin

Peace, Sir the passage was not an original research. It had the reference attached to it. May I request you to kindly restore the article or we discuss on the talk page of the article if there are any concerns.

Thank you and Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC))

I wasn't reverting you, I was rather reverting the IP - or rather editing their post, I should have reverted, which I've done now. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miloš Obilić

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Miloš Obilić. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Cross-language etymology sourcing on Paganism page

Hello Doug, Thanks for your comment. I was not aware of that particular page ({{WP:RS]]) you mentioned, but yes I am aware of this issue in general. I didn't provide anything as I didn't want to add to the page itself. I was looking for the section normally called "Discussion", but there was none. So, if I will make a contribution to this matter, I provide the citations or links, but I am not there as yet. Can I (or you) perhaps delete that section I added? Thanks for help.

Alarixus (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of recent hstiory of a contentious discussion

You are currently a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, as I recall. As such, I believe you are familiar in a way probably broader than most with relevant policies and guidelines, and what if any type of material qualifies for ArbCom consideration, or perhaps, could be addressed at noticeboards. I would very seriously request that you refer the conduct of all editors involved in the content related to the Ebionites, The Jesus Dynasty, Robert Eisenman, and his books since the first Arbitration on that subject. It should be noted that the content has already been accepted for a second appearance before the ArbCom, but that mediation was attempted, and I withdrew from it. For fear of prejudicing your review, should you decide to make it, I will refrain from making any comments about the subject beyond that. Relevant pages also include the user talk pages of relevant editors, where I believe some particularly interesting statements have been made. I believe that you are likely to have access to a variety of relevant sources, and on that basis will refrain from pointing any out. Beyond the comment below. You might be interested in knowing that there has been since the writings of H. J. Schoeps a name given to the idea of James being the early leader of the Christian Church. It is referred to by the name he gave it, "the caliphate of James". Based on a recent review of the content of this site, this is probably still the first time that phrase has appeared in wikipedia. Partially because, for what it might be worth, I never found it included in any of the reference works I consulted. After being basically accused of lying by one editor, I went so far as to reproduce them in full at User:John Carter/Ebionites. Thereafter, rather than acknowledge them, that same editor started commenting on how I had violated policy, I think perhaps as a way of refusing to deal with them in any substantive way.

Regarding my own conduct, should you believe my actions merit my de-sysoping, I think it reasonable to tell you that I am more than willing, should you believe such called for, for you to without any prior notice to me, if you wish, revoke my admin status. Alternately, if you would prefer, notify me, and I would do so myself.

I await your response, and thank you for your attention in this matter. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

link=User talk:<earlyriser10>
link=User talk:<earlyriser10>
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at [[User talk:<earlyriser10>|User talk:<earlyriser10>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am fine with that but the cult followers removed all the tags, I smell an editing dispute coming up Earlyriser10 (talk)

Article Feedback Tool newsletter

Sorry for the radio silence, guys :). I just wanted to let you know that we're planning on starting a new round of hand coding, which you can sign up for here. This will be the final round (honest!), and is basically because we found some really interesting results from the last round that blew our collective mind. It's important to check that they weren't a fluke, though, and so a bit more work is needed.

If you have any questions, drop a note on my talkpage - and if you know anyone who would be interested in participating, please tell them about it! We'll be holding an IRC training session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on the 21st of March to run through the tool and answer any questions you may have. Thanks! :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Saul Mandel

I have started to create the page for Saul Mandel, as I said I am quite busy at the moment. When I have an opportunity I will continue working on it. Bossplw (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL

Your edit summary definitely got my attention! (Good edit, too.) --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, some levity is nice at times, I feel a bit down right now after being misreprented by an editor at [49]. And I've just been counseling another Admin not to let them grind you down! Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

thanks for standing up for WP policies and guidelines In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Manipulation, pseudohistory, sockpuppetry & persistent vandalism

Please check this link because we have one serious issue. User Tirgil34 (known for pseudohistoric claims at Scythian languages) along with Maikolaser (most likely his sockpuppet) have started aggressive Turanist agenda not just on English Wikipedia but also all others, even Commons. There are two issues:

  • File:SogdiansNorthernQiStellae550CE.jpg - He/They've started to change date at commons from 550 to 700CE just to prove Heptalitian Sogdian dress is actually "Turkic". Then, he/they added false descriptions to English articles containing that picture. Photo is named after "550CE" by photographer, Northern Qi dynasty clearly ruled in second half of 6th century, and I even put reliable sources which date that stele to 560's. However, he/they are persistent to change all descriptions, despite source which he/they've used as "proof" clearly states dresses from 5th and 6th century are Heptalitian Sogdian, not Turkic.
  • File:QizilDonors.jpg - He/They've tried to remove this photo in all Tocharian-related articles claiming that it's "false" and Tocharians are actually "Turks from beginning". You can check it in most upper link I've gave you, but I hope that my comment still stands there because he/they've already tried to remove it.

I'll contact Dbachmann also because he's familiar with his earlier actions. Cheers, mr. O. --217.24.133.219 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Beside the fact that we are Germans: Again, calm down, nobody claimed that what you have mentioned. And nobody is a Turanist here.
  • File:QizilDonors.jpg - The point is that the picture has nothing to do with Tocharians, nothing more.
This is consensus in every case. Please stop vandalism, persian nationalism and using 2 IP's for it 217.24.133.219///109.165.161.93.
Tirgil34 is right. You were warned many times on the talk pages. With the next revert we will report you. Making false suspicion on Dbachmann's talk page does not help you anyway. We have warned you on the talk pages: 1, 2, 3.
Regarding the removal of a part of your comment, my answer was: "This is Talk:Tocharian languages not Talk:Sogdiana". Maikolaser (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2012 (CET)


The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Dance King 5

Dear Dougweller, I can see that you have prior experience of dealing with this user's disruptive tendencies. Can you please take a look at activity here and here. Regards. -- Semitransgenic talk. 12:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios in the CEP

Thanks for the note, Doug. The campus ambassador for that course (Neelix) is the one you'll want to contact, and I see you've left an appropriate note at the student's userpage, too. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Hi. Input would be appreciated at an RfC regarding Foley Square trial. I randomly selected you from the History section of the RfC feedback request list. Please disregard this request if you are too busy or not interested. --Noleander (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Little Green Pyramids, far away

Hi Doug. Didn't notice the e/c there, but I've cut and pasted that material into the Osmanagić section... marvellous utterance, and it speaks for itself. Haploidavey (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus

Hi Doug, I'm asking St John Chrysostom to write an op-ed for Ichthus about the rash of problems with anti-religious POV in articles. I was wondering if you would be able to write a counterpoint piece. Thanks, – Lionel (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I really don't have time. Pico? In ictu oculi? Can't you find a religious person to do this? Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A small favor to ask

Hi Doug - I wanted to ask you a small favor. I'm sure I'm probably going through the wrong channel for this; there's probably some noticeboard for it, but I've worked with you before and I don't have time to navigate the horribly disorganized maze of noticeboards at the moment. I would appreciate it if you could remove this vandalism warning from User:Orekhova's talk page, as I'm convinced (the matter has made it to DRN) that no vandalism has occurred and that the warning user just got a teency bit overzealous and forgot AGF for a bit. I'd remove it myself, but I'd feel a lot better if a sysop took care of it. Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent IP block

Hi. I'm a bit concerned about a now-expired block of an IP that you made two days ago. Looking at 46.11.7.106's contributions, I don't think they were vandalism at all. The changes to population figures for Maltese towns that you reverted (understandably, as no source or rationale was given) appear to tally exactly with this Malta Governemnt Gazette release from last year. Should we consider un-reverting them with that as a source? Alzarian16 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Go ahead, please. I've seen so much number vandalism and that looked like it, as you say. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I'll get on to it as soon as I can. It might take a while to finish it though, so any help would be much appreciated! Alzarian16 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Texas Revolution

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Texas Revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates.
Message added 05:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UtherSRG (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

sandbox

The sandbox version of the exodus article has been moved to Talk:The_Exodus/Draft.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

hello Dougweller im sorry about this whole copy right mess on the mi'kmaq, but im doing this for a class and im very sorry about this i thought i fixed up the second time. i need to edit the mi'kmaq page for my class is do you have any words of wisdom to help me.

thank you very --Ncjones61 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

i was wondering if it would be alright if i sent you my edits before posting them on the site. i would really appreciate this because i do not disrespect Wikipedia because i use it almost every day and i do not wanna disrespect the Mi'kmaq people by hurting this site?--Ncjones61 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but I may be slow this week or unable to do it at all. Do you not have a mentor or tutor? Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material

I have noticed your comment on another student page and have a few questions about copyrighted material ( i have looked over the Wiki page related to this but my questions were not clearly answered). I am currently writing an article - it is located in a user draft space, I'm not sure how to link to it (it relates to New Brunswick Environmental and Heritage Acts) - It is not finished I have not added my refrences. However, all my sources are provincial government documents (Schedual A is an entire chart which I took as there was no feasible way to rephrase all the points). Are New Brunsick provincal documents and poloicies copyrighted (and so I would not be able to use them)? Trieka Ayer (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it, but I don't have time to check now. You can ask User talk:Moonriddengirl also note I'll be busy for the next few days so she is the best person to ask. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

another Zombie move, if that's OK...

As per the move request on Talk:Zombie, do you think you could move Zombie (disambiguation) to Zombie and Zombie to Zombie (Voodoo)? Serendipodous 19:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no time to sort this one out. I am probably missing something but don't see a consensus there and would rather not get involved if there isn't one. Real life is busy for the next few days. Many apologies. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Self Explanatory quote for the language used for me on WP:RSN (For your kind record)

hindustani is disengenious. i warned hindustani about a block primarily due to this edit summary [50]. it's a clear example of a nonsensical personal attack. "inhuman and illiberal", my foot. hindustani owes me an apology.-- altetendekrabbe  16:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
So I see that this discussion board has provided a chance for you to use the expression my foot against me. fine. Thank you for the comment. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
"My foot" is a phrase meaning "no way" or "not possible". It is not a personal attack. This file is not a reliable source for anything but the website itself, and obviously the article is not about the website. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Referring somebody by region and calling me disingenuous is also no personal attack. Thank you, Dougweller. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Replied at WP:RSN. But you are right, no personal attack. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

the latest comment by HL is over the line [51]. HL is implying that his personal attacks are justified since he assumes that his fellow editors are bigots. i removed the comment, and i suggest to ban HL.-- altetendekrabbe  07:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
That was not a good idea and I've replaced it. Let his comments speak for themselves. I can't see any reason to ban him. He may be right about a growing trend to ostracize the Ahmadiyya, but he needs a reliable source. If there is such a trend it should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Dougweller, for your understanding. I am sure that you are good human being in real life. I've no illfeeling for Altetendekrabbe though he may be suggesting ban on me and even complained the same in a forum. My only submission is: Can we not work in a spirit of understanding? You and Fastily suggested not using Shadi.com file, so abandoned the idea. I posted the text that was discussed in wp:rsn. Based on consensus, I included the same on wp page. But our friend re-edited based on his ideas. Can we not discuss and work by taking each other into confidence? Perhaps, Dougweller, I am not good with words, poor in articulation, even despicable when it comes to give a serious and not sarcastic message - But I mean it. I want all of us to work in team spirit. Let us discuss before reverting others edits and, where we cannot reconcile, let us go for a third opinion and avoid editwarring and use of personalised adjectives. Regards and best wishes, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Aej

Re NPA, and now possibly NLT, could you review [52]? Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That was prompt William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Senakhtenre Ahmose

It looks like this article should be renamed to Senakhtenre Ahmose based on Ayko's new EEF post that his nomen was 'Ahmose.' This guarantees that Seqenenenre Tao was the only 'Tao' 17th dynasty king too--and not Seqenenre Tao II. Perhaps his article can be renamed to just Seqenenre Tao too?

  • Abstract:

"Publication of two elements of a granary door bearing the name of king Senakhtenre Ahmose recently discovered near the temple of Ptah at Karnak. The inscriptions allow this king of the seventeenth dynasty, previously only known through the coronation name in later king-lists, to be identified more precisely. They also finally resolve uncertainties about his birth name: Ahmose. The designations of Senakhtenre Tao I or Senakhtenre Siamun for this king must be abandoned. Suggestions for identifying the king’s tomb in the Ramesside report of investigations in the Theban necropolis recorded in Papyrus Abbott must also be rejected. Only one king bears the birth name Tao: Seqenenre. That Ahmose is the son of Re name of Senakhtenre leads to the conclusion that this king must be a member of the Ahmoside royal family of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth dynasties, of which he is to date the oldest known representative. Finally, documents that bear only the son of Re name “Ahmose” can now be attributed to either Senakhtenre Ahmose or Nebpehtyre Ahmose." (ENiM)

Source: Sébastien Biston-Moulin, "Le roi Sénakht-en-Rê Ahmès de la XVIIe dynastie" ENIM 5, p.61-71 - 22 mars 2012 OR here

  • You have to click on the down arrow key to see the 11 pages. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Udimu has now renamed Senakhtenre's article from Tao to Ahmose but there is still this issue here. There was only one Tao king and his name was Seqenenre Tao, not Seqenenre Tao II. The numeral 'II' likely has to go and thus this should be renamed, also. Best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry not to have been responded but I'm busy in real life and am in Scotland at the moment on my laptop. It's morning here, I'll see if I can get to this to night. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand as I've been busy too in real life. If you can take some action on the Seqenenre article, it would help as many people have the misconception that he was the second Taoside king with this name. If not, feel free to handle it tomorrow and thanks for any help which you can give (here). Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
sorry, I hope I was not too fast with my changes. When I started to write, nothing was done; I changed the data on the German entry and come back here and started to change the entry too. After saving it, I saw that Leoboudv started to work on it. I think the article still needs some work. In the very moment the new discovery is just part of the article, while in reality the new inscription makes all discussions History of Egyptology and are essentially no longer of big importance. bw -- Udimu (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Senaktenre's article had to be renamed as Senakhtenre Ahmose because we have confirmation that his royal name was not Tao. The name Tao was wrong--so the article had to be renamed. And we have the web link to the evidence too. Regards,Leoboudv (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I was about to rename the article when I noticed that there's no rationale on the talk page. That really needs to be done first. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The rationale is clear. From this newly published article, a limestone doorway uncovered at Karnak reveals the full titulary of king Senakhtenre--it is Senakhtenre Ahmose, not Senakhtenre Tao as Egyptologists simply assumed. So there Never was a first king Senakhtenre Tao and Seqenenre was the only king with the Tao name. Thus Seqenenre's wikipedia article ought to be just called "Seqenenre Tao". Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, done, but it's always possible someone may object. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That's OK I understand. Thanks for your help on the rename. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_22&oldid=1225697480"