User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Dispute - your guidance requested

Doug, I'm having a dispute at History of ancient Israel and Judah - a user insists that the sources don't support the article, and I believe they do. We don't seem able to talk it out, so I think the best way now is to ask for admins to check the footnotes for us. How do I do that? (Only 2 sections are involved, not the whole article). PiCo (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, WP:RSN is probably the place to start, or an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

RSN doesn't seem right - how to go about RfC? PiCo (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RFC. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As the "insist"ent user, I have mentioned the dispute at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-20/Authors of the Bible. JJB 07:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Upset IP

Am writing to request that you stop vandalising Dr Motsoko Pheko's web page. It serves no purpose and your allegations have been over -ruled by a court of law.Dr Pheko is no longer in politics so this vendetta is pointless and vindictive.It is also slanderous.Please stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.31.139.32 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, I've removed the bit about his degree from a diploma mill and some well-sourced text. His being no longer in politics doesn't mean you should be removing stuff you don't like from his biography. I've made no allegations whatsover about him. If the charges others made were over-rules by a court of law and you can source that, you should add that to the article. I hope the 'slanderous' comment wasn't a legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Doug, I'm old-fashioned, that is clear--what the hell is "skype highlighting"? You reverted it here, and I just did the same here. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See [1] and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-skype - we need to get a filter set up for this. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Parmenion

Dear Dougweller, I just created an account so I could talk with you. I made the edit to the Parmenion page, because I found an error in it. The page says that Parmenion was the father of Philotas, but then it says that Philotas was the father of Parmenion. They can't both be the father of each. Please find the mistake if you can and edit it. I don't want to get another vandalism call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzhughs (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's ok now I think. Parmenion was the father of Philotas. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

You really should not delete stuff and call it archiving, whether or not you like what's there. And I really, really like people to use edit summaries. I know some good editors who rarely use them, but that's bad practice. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First, rather than simply deleting it, I actually did archive the thread in question as you can see in Talk:Bilderberg Group/Archive 3#Use edit summaries. Second, I never archive a thread because I don't like what is being said in it. I only archive threads when I consider the issue settled or irrelevant to the talk page of an article. Third, I don't need to be lectured by Crosbiesmith , you or anyone else about what is bad practice on Wikipedia since I've been here long enough to know. --Loremaster (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologise. I didn't see that (I looked at your contributions before posting). I was actually trying to be helpful, but obviously failed. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. --Loremaster (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you got any plans for tonight? --Loremaster (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.163.129 (talk)

Not sure what time zone you're in, its 11:24 here, I'm out tonight until around 20:40, why? Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Enochian

A user you reverted [2] has posted to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#The Enochian page and a debate over LaVeyan Satanism. I don't know anything about the subject but I noticed that LaVeyan Satanism is a real term. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, replaced and I'll comment there. No edit summary and I didn't read the whole thing, so I made a wrong assumption. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

fair criticism

So it seems the arbs are beginning to find it difficult to deal with fair criticism then. Olap the Ogre (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive posting, tangential discussions, etc. simply don't belong there. New stuff directly related to the proposed decision does. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazon edit

Sorry for the mistake. I frequently do grammar and spelling sweeps of pages, but I'm somewhat handicapped in that I'm not proficient in British English and my spell-check doesn't recognize such spellings as correct, so I changed them thinking they were misspellings. Spartan198 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

January 2012, Bullfighting ends in Catalonia.

On the first day of 2012, Bullfighting will officially end in Catalonia. This is a fact, and I provided a footnote. It is also a notable event. After several centuries, a region of Spain ends the practice. I could not think of any reason, other than just plain malicious vandalism, why anyone would want to suppress the fact. Is there any valid reason for suppressing this important and well-documented fact? Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that two editors reverted you before I did, you post to me only, especially when I asked you to discuss it on the article talk page? What's the point, you have to convince the other two that reverted you. I'm not discussing an article based issue here, especially when other editors have reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see you raised it there, thanks. You might have a convincing argument, but you don't bother to use edit summaries, so don't be surprised when you're reverted. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Routerone/Why its true

Is this allowable? WP:POVFORK policy would seem to deem it not in accordance with WP's rules. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's in violation of any of our guidelines, it's in violation of WP:USERPAGES - you can take userpages to WP:MfD. I also see User:Routerone/A paradise of skepticism. I've added noindex templates to them. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not designed to be an "article" or to correct an article. Its merely my own userpage content, leave it alone because Duke53 if I so much as touch or comment on your userpage content or say its POV, you snap. You dont like it. Routerone (See here!) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

But is it there for the benefit of Wikipedia? Is it in line with our guideline on user pages? That's the issue, not if it's an article, Duke53 is wrong about POVFORK as that only applies to articles. Dougweller (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Email?

I don't usually do talkback style messages, but see User talk:Stephan_Schulz#Check_your_email. Still nothing in my mailbox I recognise as from you... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Religious categories

I see you're one of the latest people take up the gauntlet on this. These are being added by a long term vandal/sockmaster, generally using BT dynamic IPs so rangeblocks are right out, and it's that long-term you'll probably be looking at lengthy semi-protections or pending changes, but the latter will probably fail since most people don't understand the additions are BLP violations in the first place. Background is here and here, and the latest incarnation is 86.178.22.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Lists of articles affected are in the links above, they aren't comprehensive though as they don't include some articles I've just fixed now. Any ideas on how to deal with this would be welcome. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've copied most of this to Jimbo's talk page where there's a discussion. I hadn't realised that this was going on. Maybe ANI? Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Creation Museum

Just wondering why you reverted [3]. Was it a blind revert or did you just not realize that there had been a repeat? Arlen22 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

More or less blind - an IP removing text with no edit summary does look like vandalism, although I can see now there was a good reason. Last night I was finding vandalism from schools on a lot of articles on my watchlist (and that was an educational IP as well, but I didn't know that at the time. Dougweller (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Woe! Not only do we have to watch for IP vandalism, we also have to watch for blind reverts! Ok, I am just teasing. When I saw the IP edit, I was like "Finally, an IP doing something good". Seems like our attitude toward IPs is almost, to semi-quote the Bible, "Can any good thing come from an IP?". I am surprised that a mistake as bad as a repeated sentance got missed. Wouldn't be surprised if it was vandalism and someone thought it looked OK! Haha. Anyway, thanks for explaining. Arlen22 (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know we've rubbed shoulders before, not sure where. Maybe it was working on the flood articles. Arlen22 (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See [4] for our intersections. I couldn't believe last night how much IP vandalism I was finding from schools. There are some very good IP editors though. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, valuable resource. Must be that they had some kind of wednesday-night break, and that happened to be at the top of the agenda. Arlen22 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage on ANWYL of TYWYN family

You can check this yourself on their site but you will have to subscribe so I have put it here for your ease of reference.

<snip copied content; removed pending verification of compatible licensing or public domain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)>

NOTE: "WILLIAM LEWIS ANWYL" the High Sheriff of Merioneth and Caernarvon who died in 1642 is the main subject of page 69-71 of Heraldic Visitations of Wales and Part of the Marches (book 2, The Three Counties of North Wales) by Lewys Dwnn[5] and created by him and his researchers under the authority of Clarenceux King of Arms and Norroy King of Arms acted by command of Queen Elizabeth I between 1586-1613. The pages relating to William Lewis Anwyl (or "William Lewis Annwill") was recorded by William Hughes and John Davies in 1611 "this page agrees with ye. original being compared by us" on behalf of Lewys Dwnn and in the presence of William Lewis Anwyl. In 1846 Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick [6] had the book re-published. I have a copy and it shows the link between William Lewis Anwyl and Gruffydd ap Cynan.

James Frankcom (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at OlEnglish's talk page.
Message added 01:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copyvio

Hello - I'm querying a strange revert on me you did at List of Bilderberg participants. A copyvio after I removed material? [7] - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad, clicked on wrong link. Fixed it and will go do what I thought I'd done! Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edit summary

Hello Doug. In this edit summary by an anonymous IP on the New York state capitol entry, I find this a bit troubling.[8] I looked at the first edit, which appeared to remove references, and so I reverted. After the user said they were in the process of more edits, I let it be, so I could see what they were up to. Later, I found the edit summary in question. Would you kindly let this 'editor' know that such summaries are not in the interest of wikipedia civil behavior? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

AE units

You are right. My bad. I reverted my (bad) edit. Sorry about that. --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to it. I usually am very particular when writing up the material I'm editing and have several books open in front of me. Not sure what happened there :-) The actions against Milogardner were sadly enough necessary. It will make editing the articles easier without the interruptions of having to look at very badly written materials. There is still quite a bit of work to do in that general area. Cheers --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure but [9] that does sound a bit like MG? The IP doesn't exactly match other IP's he has posted from, but it's close? Maybe I'm just wrong... --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is. AT&T in Sacramento. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion on Edjohnston's talkpage with MG. I think it's best for me to stay out of this? He seems to have branded me as the head of some "conspiracy". I can contribute when necessary, but at this point that would only create more problems I think. Let me know when any comments on my part would be useful. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no need, the community has decided on a ban, his discussions with Edjohnston won't affect that. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to stay far away from this latest discussion. :) Thanks for all your help. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Are evidence pages currently allowed in the CC case? I'm working on something and thought they were allowed till the case was over, but the PD page here [10] states "Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them". I had thought "passage" took effect when the case was over, but now I'm not so sure. Did the remedy "pass" when Risker's fifth vote put it into the majority? I'm confused. I'd prefer to work on what I'm doing on a Wikipedia page rather than off because it's easier to check my work. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting is taking place on a motion to close. Once there are 4 net votes to close, one of us will close the case and the remedy has passed. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, so I take it I have seven days after that to remove the page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. Despite the wording above, it passes when the case is closed, which is when an ArbCom clerk dates it as closed. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicosia article

Dear Dougweller,

Regarding the article on Nicosia.

You have "protected" the article an action with which I could not agree more. Thank you for this. However, the version that you have reverted to is including the flag of the TRNC in the article effectively meaning that the TRNC is a separate state from the sole internationally recognised entity on the island which is the Republic of Cyprus. The TRNC is not a legal entity as far as the United Nations and all nations in the world are concerned (and according to international law). The only country that recognises the TRNC as a state is Turkey itself. Therefore, the flag of the TRNC should be removed from the article as this is in violation of international law and UN decisions. If one wishes to refer to the population statistics in the nothern part of the island he should refer to it in the following way: occupied territory/ nothern sector occupied by Turkey/ nothern sector not controlled by the sole internationally recognised government of the island which is the Republic of Cyprus.

I hope that this changes accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgoos (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV/N#Nicosia and Northern Cyprus - the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). You do need to understand that including it in our article does not violate any laws. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

One of your links is not active

One of the links you added [11] is not active,?Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link you copied above and it worked, but I thought I'd added a Wikilink. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait!

Before you begin crossposting, double check the message on last time. Tim Song just found an error in it, despite the fact that at least four of us looked it over (headdesk). NW (Talk) 15:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Too late. It's on the arb noticeboard and AN now. I'm having real trouble editing, or rather saving. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be working again, I've fixed the notice, any reason why I shouldn't start notifying people? Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

R15 (Cla68) didn't make it onto Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change despite being listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard. Can't find any other mistakes in the remedies. Didn't look at the other sections. -Atmoz (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by [12]. R15 has 4 support, 2 abstain. And is marked as passing William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed the Remedy 15 omission, but haven't seen any other major problems. Good close overall, considering the size and complexity of the thing. --TS 16:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix it. The implementation notes were not exactly right, and in any case I probably ended up on automatic pilot. I'm about to notify everyone if Wikipedia lets me, it's being sluggish for me. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, when you click on R15 it takes you to R17 (which is correct), which did pass. I don't know how to fix it. It's the numbering in the Contents section that is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The main thing to do now is get a bite to eat and come back when it's less sluggish. As long as everybody affected ends up getting notified we can take our time ironing out the details of how it looks. --TS 16:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored Cla68, I knew there was something wrong there. I'll wait to notify everyone. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A four month case does tend to give one an appreciation of the longer perspective. I guess this must have been one of the longest cases in recent years. My first case as a clerk, the pedophilia userbox war, was one of the shortest. In that case we trialed the practise of having clerks summarize evidence but it was quietly dropped after the clerks were painted as stormtroopers, and besides which everybody knew we'd always been at war with Eastasia. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a matter of clarification, was the part in F5 meant to be in bold in the final decision? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll check. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is another Wikipiping bug - what I saw on WMC's talk page was "The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator [...];" - if that's the case, the enforcement does not have any teeth ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd fixed that. Back to work, no rest for the wicked. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every six months thereafter) should read may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter). -Atmoz (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, a colleague kindly wrote it for me but I should have checked it, it's my fault. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You put ChrisO's note on his user page, not his talk page [13] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing 1Co-Co1

There are three South African locomotive types that have a 1Co-Co1 wheel arrangement, but the article they would refer to has been deleted. See:
South African Class 4E
South African Class 32-000
South African Class 32-200
André Kritzinger 20:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom/CC

Thank you for the notification. Please accept my thanks for your clerking efforts, and extend them to your colleagues as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial

Hi! I would like to be banned from editing Climate Change articles due to my tendency of struggling to deal productively with contentious topics. I would appreciate if this was applied to my account.--Novus Orator 04:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

History of ancient Israel and Judah

Doug, I'm increasingly frustrated trying to explain things to JJB - he doesn't know much about Bronze/Iron Age history and archaeology and seems unable to grasp common concepts. Is there some panel of editors who do know this subject area and might be willing to help? (I'm asking John Croft independently since he posted in the Talk page recently). PiCo (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back to this when I can. The RfC should have attracted people, there's a content noticeboard but I don't think it would attract specialists, and a history Wikiproject. Dougweller (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The RfC doesn't seem to have attracted anyone. Is it legitimate to approach people I know, like John Croft? I'm not trying to gather a gang, just a group of editors with interest in and knowledge of this subject. PiCo (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Unless you think it's a fringe issue, but I don't think that's clear. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

== Release Article ==

I recently came across a claim that once an article was over two years old it was difficult to remove or merge; I don't know whether this is true so I thought I'd ask your advice. The "Release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi" article appears to have lost its objectivity (if it had any) and displays serious bias, which seems to be directed against the Scottish justice minister. Ostensibly an article about a Scottish prisoner release, it fails to mention the release but focuses on American reactions. It glosses over media misrepresentation of the background.

It supplies a completely imbalanced oversupply of quotes, showing the split Scottish reaction; it includes 5 quotes against and 2 in favour.

It offers 8 negative quotes from the US "balanced" by 2 neutral ones plus 7 negative government ones and 4 negative newspaper ones. Like the UK quotes, this could have been summed up succinctly but instead appears to act a as a thesaurus of disapproving vocabulary.

From the released convicts homeland, there are 2 positive quotes and 1 unsourced negative. Mention -but not quotes! - are made of 2 positive foreign responses from countries of other victims (South Africa's Mandela and Germany's Merkel).

The public of the three most involved countries are evenly mixed but the (English-speaking) media reporting dominates the results and is negatively skewed to generate readership and sales, destroying all balance. You might well wonder how many of the US sources were harassed by the media to supply soundbites (more than one statement has started with "the first I knew about it was when the reporter rang to let me know..!) giving an impression of what in Britain might be described as Silly Season column-padding - meaning newspaper staff trying to generate heat and controversy during a quiet period.

This article needs serious attention if not radical changes and if you and others were planning a merger with the main article I'd fully support it.

That's before we look at the bizarre foreign comments on the Jim Swire article! Zagubov (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You could also take it to the WP:NPOV noticeboard, which might be a better idea as a merge would just bring the problems along with it, and I'm not sure yet about a merge. I'll take the Jim Swire article to WP:BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How to proceed?

Hello. If you remember, I was involved in an ArbCom case aopened by IZAK (talk · contribs) against Chabad-related editors. This editor has continued picking on edits made by me and other editors from that case, and today he has made two reverts of edits of mine that raise my suspicions about stalking, making edits just for the sake of reverting me, and going against consensus.

I'd like to ask you, what is the correct way to reopen the ArbCom case, this time in the direction of banning IZAK from Judaism-related articles. Can the case be reopened, and if so, how, or should I open a new case?

Thanks for your reply. I'll be watching this page. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What you need to do is go through the normally available procedures of conflict resolution at WP:DR (or go to ANI) before openings a new case. You can't reopen the old one (there are other things that can be done about old cases, but in this instance they aren't appropriate). Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller: Debresser asked me to take a look here, and unfortunately, he is once again personalizing routine editing. He seems to feel that he "embodies" the Chabad movement on WP and any time he's questioned he feels that it's an "attack" against Chabad. I recently reverted two of his arbitrary changes that he had made without serious discussion on talk pages, and now he feels that is somehow a "reason" for his outrageous demands. His editorial attitude and language towards me is constantly abominable as he simply violates WP:NPA and WP:E any time he sees my name or that of anyone he wishes to demolish, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs such as his "...violations of WP:NPA by repeatedly calling into question the "sanity" of the nominator: "mentally ill", [14], [15], inserts "FBI", [16], "Food for psychiatrists", [17], "insane ranting", [18], [19]" (until January 2010), see this at User talk:Debresser#AFD notification for Significance of numbers in Judaism his response is "Go fuck your righteous self" and the way he sputters again when I caution him at User talk:Debresser#Your threats are not the way to go on WP. Instead of engaging in the correct dialogue and give and take on talk pages he resorts to insults and asks to "ban" me as if he were the WP:OWNER of Jewish topics on WP. I have had a long and successful career of over 7 years on WP and have been able to resolve discussions, but with Debresser it always comes down to insults and over-reactions. He has no case and he will have to shape up himself before he preaches against others. Thanks for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mummy

Those sources do mention mummies, but more like in the context of dead bodies that didn't decay. Almost all of the sources cited for those 2 sentences are questionable or even hearsaying. None of them are backed up by science. I am going to remove them. Good call for catching spam in foreign language. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The editor is clearly interested in mummies, eg [20] where again I am suspicious of his sources. But worst of all is an article he created, Buddhist mummies - if you ever have time, could you have a look at it and see if there is something that should be done about it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this topic, but I randomly clicked on a few references and they can't be accessed (e.g. #3, 44, 60, 64), is a blog (#8, 12, 29, 36, 55, 57, 58, 84, 89) or is a forum thread (#48, 50). And mind you, I was only looking at the url without actually opening all the websites. The only reputable source is #9, which is a scholarly journal article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Then we have a problem both with the article and the editor. First question, is the subject notable? If it is, then we need to turn it into a proper article. If we have problems with the editor, then we can deal with that. Maybe we can find a reliable Buddhist editor to help. This editor uses forums a lot, something I noticed in the past (Google translate is good enough to show that). Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's notable subject for sure, just look at how many interwikis it got already. The "causes" section looks alright to me, we need to cleanup (or significantly shorten) the list of people of monks which are mummies. I think the user is merely collecting whichever he/she found on the internet and paste it here without considering the source's crediability. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We can find more reliable sources. Or you can confirm with local Buddhist societies or monastery. Some mummies you deleted are very notable. Nature following and the Tao (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't confirm with anyone, you need to follow our basic policies, in this case WP:VERIFY. If they are notable you should have no problem finding reliable sources. Blogs and forums are not acceptable as reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

Your name was mentioned in an open SPI. The primary issue has been resolved. I didn't know whether you'd care to comment briefly on the secondary issues. Specifically, you were mentioned as deleting OR by this user on a talk page, and originality comes up again here toward the end of the post. This is simply to alert you that I named you in connection to this issue. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Cunninghamhead Estate

Hello. I wonder if you can help with an editing wars problem here. I have no idea how to deal with this issue. Essentially I wrote an article about the place some years back and now the owner of 'The Stables' is trying to sell up whilst a neighbour is writing personal comments about the person and his stables. I updated and improved the factual aspects of the aerticle and removed the personal comments - now editing wars. Any help appreciated. Thanks. Rosser Gruffydd 07:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

You're right. I will refrain from expressing frustration, no matter how justified :) Hxseek (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know how hard it can be. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert vs. Orijentolog (& 300,000 collaterals)

Hey Doug, as you noticed I wrote to Georgewilliamherbert last time when he blocked me, and he didn't answer to me so I reposted my message with full explanation again (including your answer) but he ignored me again. I don't understand why does he accuse me for "very persistent abusive edits" since there was no any for more then six months and since I've explained him issue four times, but the main problem is that he wittingly blocked whole my network for one month so it hurts 300,000 people. Some people from Croatia already complained about it. What should I do now?

Inform you when I see some huge mistake?

Use only discussion pages?

Report whole case to Arbitration Committee?

It would be good to convince him my intentions aren't to vandalize Wikipedia (I'm not talking about me, but because of whole network). By the way, more then one year passed since I was blocked, so is it right time to write appeal for re-blocking? --93.142.156.57 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

You said you'd inform me, but then you went ahead later and edited without informing me. You can appeal to the Appeals Subcommittee via email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org - I'm not around that much for the next week, real life commitments. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Doug meant to write arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what you get when you copy and paste from Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Odd. And thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

What are your thoughts on this. From what I can remember on the subject of genetics and race, modern geneticists and others, including anthropologists, discount race as have a genetic determinitive. Basically the same edit was made the other day, and this was the second insertion of this. The editor left a message at my talk here. I've reverted] for now, but was wondering if you'd mind weighing in. Heiro 00:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't what the source says. The author is S.O.Y. Keita who is a biological anthropologist, and his specialty, evolutionary biology, is not a social science. The concept of 'clines' which is used by geneticists is not race. But it is contested by some geneticists, who do talk about race. I'm on the move today so won't be online for many hours soon. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Lewontin's Fallacy before making such claims. Modern geneticists are split on the subject, so perhaps we replace "most" with "many" as a compromise and avoid a long argument? Ronk01 talk 05:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 05:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help required

Hi Dougweller. I require assisstance/ feedback in regard to issues on the Scythians article- which you were briefly involved with. Basically, an editor, HonestopL is making POV edits, blindly reverting, and falsifying sources just to so to the opening sentnce in the 'Origins' section read that Scythians came from 'Greater Iran'. Despite the fact that I have numerous times repeated that such a term is vague, and has political connotation, he had disregarded this. Moreover, the actual sources never mention anything about Greater Iran- as I have pointed out in the discussion page. The various sources suggest variuos origins, including the Volga - Ural region, southern Siberia, northern Siberia. All these regions fall outside what is considered Greater Iran.

What's more, user Ian.Thomson appears to have a personal vandetta against me under the cloak that he is upholding WP: AFG and WP:CIVIL. But his carry on [21] plainy exposes his hypocrisy. he has taken it upon bimself to support HonestopL by randomly googling things about Scythians - and showing to me that they were indeed Iranian. they both appear unable to grasp that speaking an Iranic language doesn;t mean that a people come from the geographic region of Iran, greater or not. The Scythians were various groups sharing a similar, nomadic culture from the Eurasian steppe, well north of Iran, with a way of life which was foreign to the type of civilizations in the Iran/ Afghan region, such as the Achemenids and their successors. It's like hitting one's head against a brick wall with these two. i'd really appreciate your advice against what I think is unfair behaviour on their part. Hxseek (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Content/ethnic issue made worse by lack of patience. We have the content RfC process, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, the RS and NPOV boards, etc - ONE (only one at a time) would be a better idea than breaking 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Please be aware that I consider your actions (reactions) on the Cyrus Cylinder and Jona Lendering page to be a form of edit warring.

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned from editing. In particular, the three-revert rule prohibits any editor from performing more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period (note that this does not necessarily mean exact reverts, and that there are certain exemptions, like reverting vandalism—for details see below). Breaking this rule is sufficient—but not necessary—to warrant a block for edit warring. 75.82.13.51 (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider your edits to be a BLP violation (which is the bit of 3RR you didn't mention). I made it clear that I'd brought the issue up at WP:BLPN. Reverting potential BLP violations is not edit warring and I only reverted twice. Rather than keep re-adding it you should have engaged in discussion at BLPN. You were reverted by 2 editors, I mentioned BLP violation, all of this should have been a clue not to revert a 3rd time. BLP violations are taken very seriously by most Wikipedia editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, DougWeller, I really don't think that you are up to par as an editor as you seem to be unaware of the discussion on Lendering's page. I did engage in discussion. Pay attention and stop being a lazy editor. 75.82.13.51 (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

agreed...I don't see any reason for the hoopla.ArdeshirBozorg (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A pathetic attempt at sock puppetry, don't give up your day job. I noted that your IP address has been blocked for "disruptive editing: BLP violations, edit-warring, sockpuppetry"

Hoax

Hi, not a hoax, I started a lot of the pharaohs as a newbie form a list. Actually I believe the list was something like this. However, that list no longer exists on english wikipedia and the 16 dynasty now has a different list I have as feeling it may refer to Anat-her to I've redirected. Some of the entries in that list on Serbian wikipedia is it, like Aahotepre were indeed rulers of Hykkos but in the 14th dynasty. Check out the other names like Pepi III, according to German wiki this is confirmed in those book references as being 16th dynasty. I think if you found a reliable source to list the Hykkos rulers you may spot a User-anat but I can't see any in google books.

There is a mention of User-anat on German wiki at the bottom of here. Google translate it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I could only find 2 names, Anather or Anat-her, and Yakobaam (I'm a bit unsure about that one). The redirect makes sense. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to comment?

Hi. I can't recall if we've had any interactions in the past, and I don't know if you're "uninvolved" in the matter, but I've seen you around the noticeboards and my impresssion is that your judgment is generally quite good. Would you take a look at this please, and, if you think you fit the bill, and are interested in doing so, comment there? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. I'd like to second the request. A completely uninvolved opinion could be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Astrid Bryan deleted article

Hi Dougweller (talk)

I created a new article and used part of a previously deleted article Astrid Bryan. The reason this article was deleted is because it was not notable enough. Astrid Bryan is a Belgian reality television personality who is the star of the VTM reality show Vlaamse Hollywood Vrouwen . The show is a huge success in Belgium. It aired on Oktober 13. Below you can find the links and references :

• http://vtm.be/videozone/programma/de-maandagshow/id/17629/vlaamse-hollywoodvrouw-astrid-bryan-even-in-belgie
• http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=GO930OFKB
• http://q-music.be/node/41729
• http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=GJ42GIIMD
• http://www.hbvl.be/nieuws/media-en-cultuur/aid982656/voormalig-antwerps-model-te-zien-in-vlaamse-hollywoodvrouwen-2.aspx
• http://www.hbvl.be/krantenkoppen/zoeken/astrid-bryan.aspx?q=en_2bsW007zI81kf2OIxJFnEg==&g=astrid+bryan

Thank you. MESKREM308 (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I want your advice

Hello there. We may not always agree, but I trust your judgment in most things. What should I do about an editor who attacked me again (and not veiled at all) at the Battle of the Persian Gate article? He said he would never "relent". I guess that means he won't stop and admits to (present and future) edit warring. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate&diff=prev&oldid=392589059 and following edits. Thanks Simanos (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Warned and asked to remove the insults. You might want to go to WP:WQA. I'm not commenting at the moment on the actual content issue of course. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, let's just how he reacts to this for now, no need to take it further. I have a thick skin anyway. Simanos (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

Thanks for responding to the discussion (14:47, 25 Oct). Could you make it clearer what you're quoting vs your own comments? --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Student Editors at KU Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay

Hi Doug! Once again, I've given my students specific assignments to create or improve Wikipedia entries in the context of a course at KU. (You can follow the information I've provided them on my talk page.) One of them just contacted me about reverts to her additions on the entry Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay. While I will try to address the issue myself, I would appreciate your patience and willingness to communicate more specifically via the student's talk page about the rationale behind the reverts. If you have any recommendations for my students, please don't hesitate to add them to the relevant section on my own talk page. Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm afraid that I'd assumed that it was just yet another editor giving a pov slant on the issue, rather than awkard wording. I'm not sure why it was changed in any case. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that a geologist who has worked on this quite a bit has also been reverting your student. I'll talk to him, but there is a bit of a problem here. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem may be with quality of sources. Constructive criticism on the student's talk page might be better than quick reversion. Hoopes (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just before I saw this I emailed him suggesting that he look at your posts here and advise the student. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

USER:IZAK has been edit warring with me on the Yitzchok Hutner page, and I believe protecting the page for a while would be in order while the applicability of Wiki rules to the page in question can be hashed out. Thanks in advance. Winchester2313 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted

Doug, per this, I went ahead and deleted the reference. The editor who added this was not the article creator but someone who I think was trying to help but in a bit of a misguided fashion IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I meant to get back to it but you know how it is. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Psychic archaeology

If you get a chance, you might look at how one of my students' draft entries is shaping up. I think it's getting close to being ready, though I've recommended a few changes. I'll be interested to know what you think. The draft entry (still a subpage on his User page) is Psychic archaeology. Hoopes (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but still a few problems. Starting with the lead, I suggest the student look at WP:LEAD. The title of the article needs to be bolded, but the main problem is that as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, it has too much material not in the article. Generally speaking the lead doesn't need citations, but as it stands it makes statements that aren't cited but presumably would be if they were in the body of the article. It probably needs a referenced criticism section.

Stephen Williams name should be written out in full (although if used again, his surname alone should be used unless it's confusing).

Citation style - is that one of our recommended ones? I always use ISBN numbers and usually a citation tool I set in preferences.

Stefan Ossowieck should be wikilinked, Goodman should have his full name and maybe something descriptive about him.

" he proved the accuracy of Cpt." - proved not a good word, and Cpt should be spelled out in full.

Although a personal website, [22] should be an acceptable source, at least in my opinion, for a fringe article like this.

There's probably quite a bit of copy-editing but I'm sure other editors will do it. I suspect it will look very different in a few months, and hope its creator won't be too bothered by that, but it is the sort of article that attracts editors who are either skeptics or believers. Still, a good start so long as your student doesn't feel a lot of ownership about it. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This student-authored entry on Psychic archaeology was put in the main Wikipedia today. If you get a chance, check it out and offer some constructive feedback. The author doesn't feel a strong ownership (so he says...) and is interested in seeing how the entry evolves. Thanks! (BTW, I hope you had a happy birthday!) Hoopes (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FTN

Hi Doug. I agree with you on the oddness of Terra Novus' editing patterns. He was already criticized by an editor from WikiProject Physics for making undue links to Heim theory in physics articles. At the moment he seems to have taken a break. Even if he is editing in a way that he perceives as justified, it still seems to be the case that almost all his edits need to be checked. The best bet at the moment is just to watch and wait.

On a separate note, is it possible to create a subpage for the Weston Price section of FTN? The material there seems to be taking up too much space on the page and seems no longer to be of general interest. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it's over now, and could be hatted. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus has just returned, repeating some of his edits on Heim theory and the template of Beyond the Standard model. I have warned him and left a new warning on his talk page. I have left another message at FTN. Since he has not appear to have heeded any of the warnings from multiple editors, now seems to be the right time for him to be discussed once more at WP:ANI. As I write this, this user has posted their own request at ANI. Mathsci (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My side of the history is that none of the editors involved seem willing to discuss the issue. Instead we have this silly pattern of contentious editing with no constructive work getting done. I suggest that this discussion is continued at the relevant ANI section.--Novus Orator 06:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory and Terra Novus at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hyksos capital

I noticed in the article about the Hyksos that someone inserted something about Memphis being the capital and Avaris a summer residence? All the literature I know - including Bietak who is the leading scholar for that time period - say that Avaris was the capital of the Hyksos. At some point in ca 1680 BC or so Memphis was captured by the Hyksos I think, but I do not think they moved the capital there. At some point during the early eighteenth dynasty Avaris may have become a summer residence, but I don't think it was during the Hyksos period. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I use popups to read diffs and read that wrong - I can see why someone may have changed it given the Manetho quote, but sources say Avaris (and that tradition says Salitis government from Avaris, but the Manetho quote does say Memphis). Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not know Manetho said that. That's interesting. I was just curious, one never knows if recent excavations and/or discoveries might have changed things. I didn't want to just change it, as I wondered if I might have missed some recent development or just happened to be wrong. Cheers --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thilo Sarrazin

if this is wiki policy then i accpet it without argument. i just thought that the quote "He has explained that his name means saracen (i.e. Muslim) and is common in Southern France: "It is derived from the Arab pirates that were called “Saracens” in the Middle Ages"." was so evidently suggestive of muslim and arab ancestry that a clear and specific statement ffrom thilo was not required. i mean what could have been any other reason for such a surname?!would a person of christian and european ancestry name such a name if otherwise?! but ok i will no longer edit it as before.Artefactual (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because he has a name that indicates such a connection in the Middle Ages doesn't mean it makes sense to mention this as his ancestry. Several factors come together here: (1) A single Sarecen great-great-great-great-... grandfather doesn't amount to much, especially when you consider that Europeans and Asians have a significant share of Neanderthal genes. (2) A lot of people are not even biologically related to their great-great-great-great-great grandfather – this would require an unusual degree of faithfulness of wives in the official paternal line. (Not to mention other complications such as homosexual great grandfathers.) (3) The name could easily originate with a house that displayed a Saracen head at a time before the invention of house numbers. (The formerly widespread practice of such signs is now restricted to pubs.) Hans Adler 08:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm not quite sure what actual message you are trying to bring across with the iamge of saracen head displays and all. also i was not concerned about the fact that "his" saracen ancestry may be so insignificant and down-the-line as to not warrant mention.for example, its one thing for a person to have 0.001% asian ancestry. but its another thing to have 0.001% asian ancestry and also have the surname "asian" or "chinese" or "confusionist" etc etc. for example, perhaps with a name like hans adler you may consider your ethnicity to be germaan. since you have a german surname i would not bother mentioning you have african ancestry from humans who migrated out of that continent ages ago. however if your name was "hans african" and on top of that you told me you have such a ssurname because centuries ago enemy africans invaders had colonised parts of germany then i would be very curious as to why you would have such a surname in honour of antagonistic invaders and enemies. so please do not try and explain away a certain position through diversionary and misleading arguments.Artefactual (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RGriff1935

Hi Dougweller, given your notice to this account a few days ago [23], I wanted to drop you a note re: [24], [25] before I request a block at WP:AIV. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I like to keep my promises. :-) - if he/she wants to edit again, all they have to do is convince an Administrator they will start communicating. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of promise kept. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Urgent: Time Sensitve CSD

You are the first admin I could find that is online. Can you please delete the page Wikipedia:WikiProject East Asia. I need the entire space to be empty so that I can put the correct page in. The correct page is waiting in AfC. Please do not move the correct page to Wikipedia:WikiProject East Asia, as it will confuse EarwigBot, the AfC bot. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've left the talk page, is that ok? Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if it works. Thanks. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

It works. Everything works. Thanks! Sven Manguard _Talk 21:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

IP hopper-need advise

I noticed you hit at least of their edits and reverted it, so am asking you about this before I take it to ANI. This is a serial IP hopper, whose addresses are all over the place but they all seem to geolocate to Pennsylvania. I have left them messages at the talk pages of these IP addresses:

• 66.71.47.124
• 66.71.56.84
• 67.22.22.119
• 67.22.22.140
• 67.22.26.43
• 68.232.115.58
• 68.232.117.96
• 68.232.118.69
• 68.232.121.1
• 68.232.124.144
• 71.58.77.149
• 74.97.108.99
• 74.111.178.141
• 98.235.88.218
• 134.198.251.117
• 146.186.44.193
• 151.197.230.5
• 174.49.132.149

I have yet to see them use a citation. The majority of their edits seem to be information already in article or irrelevant or just plain inaccurate. I'm personally getting sick of having to revert and leave messages, that have yet to get a response, if they even see them considering how often they hop from IP to IP. What are your thoughts on this matter? Is it worth going to ANI? Should I just revert and warn as I have been doing? Heiro 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about IP ranges, but I'd go to ANI for advice/help. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Right on, just figured I'd come here and ask you about it first. I hate having to go to ANI, but if their edits continue in this vein and with no response on a talk page, I will more than likely have to. I'll be busy for the rest of the day, and they seem to be busy mostly in the evening/night US time, so if they start up again tonight I'll go to ANI. Thanks, Heiro 13:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanos

I don't understand why we're going out of our way to accomodate this guy. He's assumed bad faith since the start not only on our part but on the part of every critic we've cited. He clearly believes Sitchin is inerrant, which, given some of Sitchin's claims, places him on level with a creationist. That means he can't be reasoned with. No matter what we do to bend to his desires, he won't think it enough until we rewrite this article entirely in Sitchin's favour. Serendi^podous 06:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Raelism articles

I think that there is some good reason to believe the content related to Raelism may be at least a bit excessive. Raëlian Church membership estimates strikes me as being at least one of the articles which is probably questionable. I believe it would make sense to perhaps have as many interested parties discuss any questions they have as want to, and that WT:NRM would probably be the best central location for such discussion. I am on that basis starting a discussion there. Please feel free to take part. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

As promised, I have just reverted all of the edits I made, to which you objected. This includes restoring 714-X, Acupuncture, Age regression in therapy, AIDS denialism, Alternative medicine, American College of Orgonomy, Ancient astronauts, Anti-racist mathematics, Antineoplaston, Applied kinesiology, Aromatherapy, Astrological age, Astrology, Attachment therapy, Antigen leukocyte cellular antibody test, Atomidine, Aura (paranormal), Japhetic theory, Moon landing conspiracy theories, and Young Earth creationism to the "Pseudoscience" category. For the record, I never removed them from the "Pseudoscience" category in the first place. I simply transferred them into their appropriate subcategories. All of these articles do indeed fall squarely into the realm of pseudoscience. I hope you understand the rationale for these edits, which were made in good faith, and that it was not my intention to stir up any controversy. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand that and have always assumed that your reason must have been something like that. I appreciate it and if I have time I will look into this further. Dougweller (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating seeing acupuncture in this list since it probably (another word for "opinion") pre-dates science and folks who actually use it believe in it while those who just read about it don't, but that's not why I'm here. I noticed that you are having issues with User:$1LENCE D00600D. He (another assumption on my part) is a re-surfaced "problem editor" (yet another opinion) from the past - problems involving copyright, sources, calling "majors" "minors" and lack of communication in general. Good luck, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Last chance

Last chance for what exactly? I do a whole lot of minor edits, whether it making corrections to spelling, adding links or adding pictures. I do it so often that checking the "minor edit" box has become a habit. Good or bad, it happens, what can I say? If I remember your message correctly, you did not ask me a question and therefore you get no response.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The attitude of this editor is obvious in the prior message. He continues to readd the category 'Wars fought in Arizona' to the American Civil War entry. As I've tried pointing out to him, adding that narrow category for such a wide-ranging conflict is a bit silly, as it means, presumably, that each state where Civil War battles were fought should be appended to the category list, which is unwieldy. I would leave this message on his talk page, but from all appearances he's not interested in communicating, so instead I'm leaving it here. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping he's improving. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, No, not at all

I am not a salesman. I am not trying to promote any kind of product or forward any kind of new idea. I am just trying to make the article, Genealogy of Jesus, a little bit more broad. I just thought it would make more sense to give a complete list of Patriarchs, one on top of each other. The whole Good Things Company thing is just my way of getting a reference to my list. If you still think I sound promoting, I'll gladly alter the wording, if really feel it necessary.--Nate5713 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd figured that - if you were I'd expect you to have spammed it (and not to have made any constructive edits, which is not the case), but I also said it isn't a reliable source. Have you read WP:RS yet? But you've started a discussion at the article talk page, which is where it should stay.

New Bedford

With respect sir, all of the incidents were nationally notable when they happened. I grew up there but left before any of these incidents took place and I heard about them on the other side of the country. They might have only garnered a quick 1 minute mention so granted, none of them were the "crimes of the century". But they had all had a significant impact on the community afterwards.

Cherry-picking, no offense intended, is really off the mark. These, to the best that I can figure out from relatives, are the most significant criminal episodes over the last 10 years. I mean, Goodness Gracious, the one incident you deleted involved a man who shot some people there in the town, traveled to another state, murdered a state patrol office there and was finally shot to death by a SWAT team. It was not one that I added, it had been there for some time. Mostly, I am just adding citations as to improve the article.

You seem to be a pretty big cheese around here and I am a nobody newbie, so I guess that you will have your way no matter what. But if I may dare to disagree, if you are not from the town, perhaps you don't have the best sense regarding what is significant and what isn't? To my mind, there is a lot of stuff that could be added in many different categories but is not already. I'm not quite sure what to do here, so I will abstain.4.252.209.251 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

But can you see the problem that anyone could decide to use incidents to either make the town sound great or terrible? Believe me, I've seen that done. I'm not sure what the best way is to fix the problem - use those reported in the national media or major large city newspapers? It's a shame the talk page of the article is inactive. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You certainly have a point sir. And I wish there was a way to prove to you my good intentions. I mean, as a former resident, there is a lot more ugly stuff that could be added. Such things would include the race riots during the 1960's, the police corruption that got so bad the chief was fired and they brought in former NYC chief Bratton to evaluate the department, a few more of the many incidents of stabbing and shooting deaths, the drama over the black superintendent of schools' abrupt departure, a McDonald's shooting / hostage / fugitive situation that actually made it on America's Most Wanted while I was still living there.

I, out of fears that it would look to bad, resolved to mostly just add citations. To clarify but not really add or remove. In contrast, one of your deletions involved an incident where the principal character actually has his own Wikipedia page. I'm not sure where the happy medium is but I think "New Beige" residents might feel that some of your deletions removed relavent stuff.4.252.209.251 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which one has his own page? Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:$1LENCE D00600D

Since you've been monitoring the edits of this user, would you mind taking a look at this talk page comment, which seems somewhat uncollegial and combatitive. It's true that this editor and I have had issues before, but even in the SPI I filed about him, I thought I avoided being judgmental and was clear about his value to the project. It doesn't seem to me that an annoucement that he plans on reverting any edits I make to "his" articles is in the proper spirit of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he finally saw the apology I posted to him 4 months ago, and he has apologized in turn, so I believe the incident is closed. Sorry to have bothered you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I didn't have time to do anything myself. That real life thing does get in the way at times! Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't I know it! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm humoring you for now

I have made the appropriate Section at WP:RSN, but I think it should be unnecessary. My source for The Adam and Eve Family Tree is obviously appropriate, so it is only you who are acting so cynical. Could you give me one good reason why or how The Good Thing Company can not possibly be considered as reliable? In other words, do you have any compacts to my proofs in the discussion page?--Nate2357 (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because a reliable source needs to be one other editors would have access to to check your additions and make sure they were contained in the source, exactly how many of us do you think have a copy of your poster to look at. Plus, who knows how well the "Good Thing Company" researched or put together their poster, since they're not a scholarly publishing source, how can we consider them accurate? It would be best to use a reliable history book by a reliable author for such a source. Although, I think the real problem with your addition, is we a not a "List of Indiscriminate Information", so a genealogy list on that page was unnecessary and irrelevant as 2 others were already on page and yours would have been removed anyway. Heiro 02:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

my 27th century BC edit

Hi Doug, the reason I deleted the line: "Germination of the Bristlecone pine tree "Methuselah" about 2700 BC, the oldest tree still living now." from the events section of that page, is that on the actual page for the tree, there is a different date that is referenced with a credible source, and the above statement is already in the events section of the correct page. douts (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, but please understand that it looked like the sort of vandalism I run into all the time. Just revert my reverts with an explanation, and thanks for the speedy reply. 21:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Columbus Origins Theories

I don't use blogs as sources. I was merely fixing the link somebody else put in. I'm a peer-reviewed journal fancier myself. Innapoy (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. More haste less speed, eh? Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Qumran article

Hi Doug.

I'm in an editing conflict over the Qumran^(Talk) article which needs some way of being resolved. The article, as I understand it, is about the site, its archaeology and the various physical issues related to it. I'm in conflict with Coralapus (talk, [Stephen Goranson] who 1) wants to place his own materials dealing with scrolls matters in the External Links section of the article (articles that already appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls article); and 2) wants to place the following text in the Qumran article:

Rengstorf (p. 15) asked: "What is the explanation of the fact that the Essenes, who, it is claimed, speak, among other things, precisely about themselves and their views and customs in the Dead Sea texts, but always use other names for themselves?" In fact, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrew origin of the name Essenes indeed appears as a self-designation in some Qumran scrolls.

This seems to be provocative to me, as it has nothing directly to do with the site of Qumran and I have tried to explain the fact. I have tried to talk the matters over on the discussion page, but I'm mainly being accused of censoring and being tendentious. I certainly have views on the scrolls, but I have tried to keep them out of this matter. I feel, as long as I don't let--what I consider--gratuitous references, on Essenes or whatever else, enter the article, I will be accused of censoring and being tendentious.

Should I give up on the struggle to keep the article on topic as I see it? -- Ihutchesson (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You could try WP:COI, Goranson really shouldn't be adding his own material this way. The article shouldn't be a fork of the DSS article, that's for sure, it should just be a short summary of it with a link to the main article. But this will always be a mess, as I'm sure you know. There's also a content noticeboard, but you don't want to get involved in forum shopping. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, but thanks for your response. The war goes on. I'll give the content noticeboard a try. Cheers. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian and the gospels

A few weeks ago, RomanHistorian led a campaign to reduce the academic, critical content on the gospel pages and to replace it with sectarian, minority-view material. This behavior is not uncommon for new, enthusiastic editors. I've been slow to correct the changes, hoping to make progress on the talk pages, but it's about time to fix those pages, so that's what I'm doing. I know that you're busy, but any time you could spend watching these controversial pages would be appreciated, and please let me know if I got to far. Leadwind (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug, take a look at all of the citations he deleted on Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John. It seems he is just deciding that these sources are illegitimate and deleting them. Is it appropriate to delete so much cited material?RomanHistorian (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly these pages feel lawless. Editors can come in and define what the "mainstream" view is without providing evidence, and then just delete everything (including a great number of citations) that doesn't correspond to what they say this view is.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you have a chance, please take a look at this reversion and the discussion on this (Talk:Gospel_of_John#Reverted_edit). I don't think it should have been deleted. Do you think it should have been?RomanHistorian (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug, please take a look at Leadwind's reversions here, here and here and the discussion here. I think his reversions were inapporipriate for the reasons I gave. Please let me know what you think. He restored a claim that is clearly wrong (the author of Acts didn't think Paul was an apostle) as well as my and tags. He is also claiming the views of one author represents the "consensus" even though that author makes no such claim, in addition to his wholesale deletions of my other sources. Oh and he is also taking several claims from his sources out of context. Being outnumbered there is little I can do, and clearly I am not going to risk an edit war so I would appreciate your input.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug, he did it again. Again, the source is "sectarian" even though the scholar is a widely published one, making an objective statement about the range of scholarly opinion. I am not going to edit war as he seems more than willing to do. He even restored an out-of-context quote from the online Encyclopedia Britannica. Also please tell him to quit with the condescending attitude towards me.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug, Leadwind is on the verge of edit warring. Another editor restored the edit I made (which Leadwind had reverted) and Leadwind reverted this here. Also note the comment of that editor whom Leadwind reverted "I don't think any of these edits are actually legit, but I'm willing to continue to be patient." It is obvious that Leadwind has a view on what "truth" is and is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of views that don't agree with his version of "truth".RomanHistorian (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Irfaankhanabadosh

Hey Doug. So you know, this user was found to have been sockpuppeting; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irfaankhanabadosh. That certainly explains why the editor stopped responding to talk page messages about their editing. I've indeffed the sock and warned the editor, but if you think other action should be taken, that's cool too. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that he was blocked for copyvio and non-communication, I've blocked his main account indefinitely, and deleted a new upload and article he created while blocked. I don't see him as anything but a detriment. He can always appeal. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry of Jesus

Would you take a look at what's happening here. NateXXXX (he uses two different user IDs) is using the redirect as a base in which to build a POV fork article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug, you actually accused me of not using the discussions page before the edit-war? That's Crazy! When did Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) EVER open a discussion before he started, yes started and finished the edit-war. If dispute continues without discussing what his problem is with my article, then it is he who should be blocked.--Nate5713 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What bit of " both Beyond My Ken and I gave edit summaries explaining our reverts, Nate did not." are you having problems with? I didn't say anything about discussions page. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye to 93.14X.XXX.XXX

Hi Doug! Today I've changed network so my (in)famous IP address "93.14X.XXX.XXX" has gone to the past. Since new network is still ADSL-based so I guess this new IP will also change time after time, but it's sure that it would start with "94.***". So, to get no suspicious, just remember "+1" for first numbers of my IP and that's it.
Talking about last answer - I'll contact George one more time and then I'll see my next move, and talking about "unreported" changes I remember that you saw it before I even contacted you (I spent hours for rewriting, researching and understanding extremely complicated way of citation on CC article) - in meantime you've already left message on talkpage. See you, --94.253.252.110 (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

P.S. I edited few cats with this IP.--94.253.252.110 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

Leadwind now disrupting other articles

Leadwind is now introducing his POV into Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew, using the same destructive edit warring method he used on Gospel of Luke. Yet again, he deletes a lot of sources from scholars who are personally religious. Not only that, but he adds liberal scholars and then suggests they represent the mainstream. One of his changes modified a sentence that stated liberal scholar Bart Ehrman's opinion and restated it as though it represented consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,yes it was my intention to remove those bits,because they do not really add anything to the article and in regards to a so called "Pure-blooded Ainu's(in fact the Ainu People came about from the mixture of two racially different types of people the Jomon,dark-skinned people,who originated in southern Asia and Mongoloid,light skinned people from north-east Asia) skin being any lighter then their Japanese neighbors,it is also stated in many places that the original Ainu were darker skinned then the Japanese and you can actually see this if you look at the early drawings and early photographs of these people(and if one looks at the DNA data used in the article one can also draw this conclusion).

                                                                               sincerely,
                                                                               Jomonjin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomonjin (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC) 

Hello again Doug.

Yes,in the future I shall.But I did notice others have made the case there already though.

                                                                   sincerely,
                                                                     Jomonjin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomonjin (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 

Blocking or eliminating user name

Hello Doug, I don't know the protocol for this, but I wanted to bring this new user name to your attention: ARYANLISTWRITER. The name is new, and obviously created for the purpose of harrassment. See this diff [26]. Can this user be permanently blocked, or the user name eliminated, as it's obviously basically a name only used to make a racial point. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All done. JamesBWatson took care of it right away. No worries. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good. Recovering from day surgery and was sitting in front of the tv set. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope the surgery went well, and that your recovery will proceed apace. Best wishes, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Uí Ímair, original research

Hi, I noticed you just tagged this article with {{original research}}. If you could add {{fact}} to claims you believe need reference and/or explain on the article talk page which sections seem problematic, I may be able to help adding references. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, I was planning to do that but after dinner. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You could have just asked on the talk page of the article. For the disputed ancestry section? Follow the links and the information is right there. I have been careful not to say "these are the ancestors of the Uí Ímair". There is no "original" research elsewhere in the article, if you know your sources. However, I will certainly concede there is no need for that section in the article, since it is already in Ivar the Boneless. Do you want to make an argument for its removal?

But I do suspect, knowing your history elsewhere, that the target is in fact their alleged descendants... none of whom have claimed to belong to the dynasty themselves but have occasionally had claims made for them (like mine, in part), which they then have to address somehow. The 1910 Encyclopedia Brittanica said that some O'Donovans are the descendants of Ivar of Waterford (bottom of page).[27] And the Clann Somhairle have been accused of being Uí Ímair for decades now, and also of the Waterford branch curiously. Sir Iain Moncreiffe even reconstructed a paternal line pedigree for them back to Ivar of Waterford, although this is very problematic. Perhaps I should not have added the MacLeods but it was not really OR to do so. DinDraithou (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We should allow Dougweller to finish his dinner, and then address any particular concerns when pointed out. I'm pretty sure there are relevant references for most of the content, and if some stuff needs rephrasing (or even removal) so much the better if fresh eyes can help us idetify them. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the alleged descendants may be a problem, that wasn't what hit my eye first. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section and the tag. Both are in the wrong article. Please repost in the right article, which is linked above. As far the alleged descendants of the Uí Ímair, there's not much of a case for a tag up top now. Maybe one in the MacLeod section but I actually have some sources I've thought of which will keep them in the article. The section on the disputed ancestry of Ivar Beinlaus is not so much OR as me just "repeating" this and that I have come across without adding citations. Not my best work and I usually do much better. There may be a little a borderline synth or proper OR in how I wrote about Valdar, or I have forgotten my source now. I'm not sure. The section needs sourcing and editing, yes, very much. DinDraithou (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug, I apologize. I was very wrong to suggest the problem might be your intentions. Between you and me (and everyone watching), I do drink and sometimes act like it here. That section is now gone, as it should be, from the other article. DinDraithou (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I wish James Frankcom would realise that my intentions concern original research and not him. I really don't care that much about who is descended from whom, although it can be interesting. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

suspected sockpuppet

User:Oconnor2, some of who's edits you have reverted, appears to be yet another sock of User:Lalora6. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalora6. If possible this user should also be blocked, pending the result of the SPI, to prevent further disruption. Best regards Jdrewitt (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Through the Jade Gate to Rome

Dear Dougweller:

Thanks for briniging up this issue - one I was not aware of previously. In my defence I would like to discuss a few issues. First of all, my book was originally due to be published by Binghampton Univeristy in New York State but I voluntarily chose to self-publish because they wanted to bring it out as a 2-volume set and I wanted it in one volume and at an affordable price. They expressed great dissapointment when I decided not to publish with them - so, the book would have been published by a university press, if I had not withdrawn it myself.

Secondly, it has been cited in numerous works by well-known scholars (I can supply at least some of these when I return to Austalia later this week - I am presently in Chennai, India and don't have everything at my fingertips). It has also been favourably reviewed in the Silkroad Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 127-128, by Professor Daniel Waugh of the University of Washington (you can download a copy of the pdf of this journal at: http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol8/), and there are several other reviews due to appear soon in other journals. Finally, there are five completely unsolicited "5-star" reviews of the book on Amazon.com - several of them written by well-recognised authorities. (To see these reviews, please click on: http://www.amazon.com/Through-Jade-Gate-Rome-Centuries/product-reviews/1439221340/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending).

If you still need more information - please let me know and I will see what I can do after I return home.

Yours sincerely,

John Hill (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cadwaladr article

Hello Doug and Cuchullain, if either of you has a few spare minutes, could you have a quick look at a newly occurring issue with Cadwaladr? The recent history gives a flavor of the problem, and the "Citation" section of the talk page hashes things over (I tried to get a discussion going, no luck). The editor objects to Haddan and Stubbs as "outdated scholarship" and has a definite opinion as to what is and what is not a reliably cited and reliable source, and I can't seem to get him/her to talk it over (just repeats the same thing; erasing material without discussion; etc, etc; and very emphatic that he/she is correct). Thanks. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oo Yun

This user was a sockpuppet of Mikemikev. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I was pretty sure he was a sock but didn't know how to figure out who the puppetmaster was. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, does this affect the length of his ban? Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What is longer than indefinite? Should we ban him for over 9000 years? ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The ban is only for a year though. I guess this gets taken into account if he asks for his block to be lifted after that. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

He was indefinitely banned at first because of vicious personal attacks during arbitration. Why did it change to 1 year?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The committee statement on his talk page says he " was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community." Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an indefinite ban. Indefinitely banned users are allowed to appeal to the community.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Bilderberg participants

Why you keep removing Jens? He is a memeber. Check Norwegian version of the wiki http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_Bilderberg-konferansenes_deltakere#Stat_og_byr.C3.A5krati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.67.43 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a terrible article, it claims Obama attended. Find a reliable source, not some trash webpage. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Norwegian source lists a one of the largest natinal news papers in Norway..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.67.43 (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it actually list him though? I'm not sure I trust the article at all, it claims Obama attended, citing "Svein Egil Omdal (14. juni 2008): «Medieblikk: Hva gjorde Kristin Clemet i Virginia»(Norsk) – Stavanger Aftenblad (og flere andre aviser), s. 3 [Papirutgaven].." But he didn't. And that sounds like a reliable source, but it couldn't be if it really said Obama attended. Alternatively, someone might be misusing sources. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I never argued about Obama. This is about "Jens" with sourced to one of the most respected news paper in Norway. Id call that a reliable source about Jens's attendance. And yes the paper version did indeed list him. He did attend in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.104.245.14 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Through the Jade Gate to Rome

I just got your message. Does it not help that the book was accepted for publication by a respected US University and that three of my 5-star Amazon reviews were written by leading historians and that I also have at least one review by another leading historian in a respected journal, as well as numerous citations and quotations - and even, thanks for my assistance (which are certainly not meant to show that the material is untrustworthy)?

In any case, I am leaving Chennai by plane for Singapore this morning and won't be home in Australia for a couple of days. As I have been away for 3 and a half months it will take me some time to get things back into order and find the time to deal with the issue.

If you still really think it is necessary I will go through the process as you suggest - but it does seem to me to be nitpicking and is a real nuisance and waste of time and effort on my part as I am desperately trying to get my second book ready for publication before I go in for a major back operation. Please have another think about it and let me know if I really have to go through with all this. I do understand the reasons Wikipedia tries to ensure all information comes from reliable sources - but sometimes the process seems to go too far and is discouraging to anyone trying to write for it. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want others removing it, you probably will have to. You can wait until you get your other problems under control, I'm not going to push you, but no one individual, even an Administrator, can say 'yes, that book can be used'. You need some sort of consensus or anyone can remove it. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your good advice and warning. I do really appreciate it - though I must admit I was taken a bit aback at first as I did not realise this could happen. Will try for consensus as you suggest as soon as I can find the time and some energy. Cheers and best wishes and thanks again, John Hill (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Turtles all the way down

Hello. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Turtles all the way down, and were nice enough to give a short description - "i think only really notable instances should be here, a 2 month old game aimed it seems at children doesn't qualify in my opinion". I was wondering if you'd be willing to explain your reasoning a bit more. The game may not be as popular as Diskworld, It, or The Office, but it makes a very clear allusion to the concept in the end of the game, and I don't see why it can't be included in the list on that page. Thanks, Kevin (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically because I don't think it's a significant use of the phrase in popular culture. I'm not convinced some of the others are also, by the way, but the fact that this is so recent, and aimed at children, reinforces my belief. Now if the game brings the phrase into playground conversation, that would be a clear influence on popular culture and should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As I carefully explained to Kevin before - the point is that when you edit article "A" and insert a link pointing to article "B" the objective of doing that is to make article "A" clearer - there is no other reason. There is no possible way that an allusion to "Turtles all the way down" in some crappy little video game makes the concept of "Turtles all the way down" any clearer. Particularly because the reader of the article would have to get a copy and play it (almost to the end - as you claim) in order to discover whatever nugget of information might be present there. Readers who are interested in the concept of Turtles all the way down will gain ZERO insight into that topic by following a link so some game that they are never likely to play. Encyclopedias are not generally expected to tell the reader he has to play all the way through some half-assed Katamari Damacy knock-off just to find out something they need to know about unmoved mover paradoxes!

Worse still - if by some strange quirk, the game DID contain some vital information about the turtle thing that is not already contained in the article - it still wouldn't be an appropriate source for that information because video games are not recognized by Wikipedia as valid information sources about anything other than the game itself.

BUT the reverse is not the case. If you link to "Turtles all the way down" from within the article about the game - then people who are curious about the game and it's allusion to the turtles might well gain some enlightenment from also reading the turtles page. Hence a link from the game to the turtles page makes a whole lot of sense and would be entirely appropriate. But the link in the opposite direction is a useless one. Worse than useless: it actually distracts from the turtles article because it directs people to read about a game that has utterly zero information content for them.

That's why I initially removed the link. SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Way to butt in on a post unrelated to you, SteveBaker. Are you a sock puppet, a white knight, or just that lonely? Anyway, thank you for your response, Dougweller. Kevin (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, he's an experienced editor. Please read User:Jehochman/Talk page watcher. I've added a banner to the top of my talk page. This sort of behavior is quite normal and acceptable in most cases. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Kevin:

1. I did not butt in on a post unrelated to me - you were discussing your addition to Turtles all the way down - which I initially reverted, you replaced and Dougweller re-reverted. Any further discussion of this change to the article involves me just as much as it does you and him. You started that discussion on my talk page - then it moved here. I merely followed the discussion where it lead. Splitting up those who have a contrary view to your own and attempting to debate them individually is strongly antithetical to the Wikipedia concept of 'consensus'.
2. Accusing me of being a sock puppet (and all of those other things) with no evidence whatever is contrary to the core principles of WP:AGF and WP:NPA and deeply offends me. That kind of thing is quite enough to get you blocked from the site for a while if anyone chose to pursue it (I do not choose to do so - but Dougweller is an admin charged with keeping order around here, so he just might). I am not, nor ever have been a sock puppet account - I've never created or used one - my account is 5 years old and has performed 22,000 edits - that's hardly the kind of thing you expect from a sock! Indeed both Doug and I edit using our real-world names and allow people to email us directly - which is about as clear-cut and open as it's possible to be around here. We're just nice people, trying to help. I think you should apologize for that remark.
3. Because I posted to your talk page about the original edit, I was informed via my watchlist that Dougweller had added a comment to it via the talkback template. Since I knew that Doug had been one of the people who supported my reversion of your various link additions - it made sense to come here and see what else was being said on the subject. I'm glad I did.
4. No communication on Wikipedia is ever private. Pretty much anyone can chime in on any subject in any place. Openness is another core principle.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Are you part of a school/university project?

Hi Doug,

Yes, I am actually. Did I do something wrong with how I added my articles/references? If yes, would you mind to let me know if Wikipedia have a preferred way of adding articles/references and how it is done? Thanks. Jay.vista2 (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has spoken to your teacher. This will help: Template:Invitation to edit/tutorial and the project will hopefully be discussed here Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit - at the bottom once your teacher responds. WP:CITE also has a lot of advice. Your references should end up looking like others on the page - this is for consistency within the article. Of course, that depends upon other editors having done their references properly. Thanks for responding, I've left a lot of notices and had no responses, and there has been some concern that this might be vandalism, which comes in all shapes and sizes. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I've sent you an email. Anthony (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) Anthony (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality edits

This user keeps making good faith edits that are of very poor quality. I have tried to engage him/her and explain that conjectures should not be presented as fact. This diff [28] is an example. The translation of the name was likely made up without understanding the hieroglyphs, changing niswt to nesu now misquotes the source, and all that Dodson/Hilton say is that Nikaure may be a son of this Queen. In other posts there is a problem with verifiability. In Kanefer there is a reference to a work by Reisner, but no indication which publication. See [29]. I once in a while check the edits made by this user because they are adding a lot of mistakes, and at times it looks like original research. I have tried to explain these issues on User talk:Mychele Trempetich, but it doesn't really seem to go anywhere. I don't know if there is a way to flag users whose work needs to be fact checked or what to do, but I thought it was worth mentioning. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U? I agree, Mychele is a problem - and discussing it doesn't seem to help. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input both here: User talk:Mychele Trempetich and on my talkpage. She is seeing this as me just being angry. I'm apparently not getting through at all. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Cathbhadh III

Hi Doug -- You ask about my moving some Sandbox copy, and if I was using two names. I felt the first user ID I picked, User: Timothy Hawkins-Heathco, was too long. I read the article on changing names, and starting a second name seemed the suggested course, since I had done some stuff with the "Timothy" id. I am still pretty new to Wiki, and I am anxious to do things right, so please let me know if there is anything I should change, redo, undo, etc. My plan is to use the "Timothy" id for anything in Archeology, as that is were I have done some stuff, and anything else under the "Cathbhadh" id. I have now put a comment on the discussion page where the copy was removed. Cathbhadh III (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SOCK. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doug -- I read it. My reasons for a alternative user name were not any of the "Inappropriate uses." Under "Legitimate uses" the "Privacy" is close, but not precise; likewise the "Clean start." I have some questions. 1) Should I put in a redirect from User Timothy to User Cathbhadh? Or 2) should I go the "retire" tag and Arbitration Committee route? Or 3) something else? And finally 4) if the redirect route, then could I use Timothy user-id for archeology only and the other for other; and if so how would it be documented? Please advise. Cathbhadh III (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to think about it. Using two accounts doesn't sound a very good idea, to be honest, but it's done. 2 is not the way to go at all. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The nice thing about being new, I'm not locked into any ideas. I put a "forwarding address" on the Tim page and emailed the Arbitration Committee. Okay? Cathbhadh III (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Brews

Would it be possible to relax the block on Brews so that he can edit his own user and talk space? That way he can still contribute diagrams - which everyone agrees are a considerable asset to the project. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a site ban, and that includes his user and talk pages I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that was the decision, but would it not make sense to allow Brews to demonstrate/develop good faith and collaborative editing techniques in the intervening year? Otherwise there will just be a succession of increasing longer site bans ad infinitum. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

An alternative is that he can contribute on the Commons, the central repository for media. There, he can contribute diagrams and demonstrate capacity for working collaboratively. — Coren ^(talk) 03:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Otherwise there will just be a succession of increasing longer site bans ad infinitum." -- that sounds great to me. Look, Brews has had _OVER A YEAR_ to demonstrate that he's capable of collaborating. He has not done so. This action is long, long overdue. 71.139.17.73 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

IP Threatener

In regards to the AN/I thread: I would personally toss a custom block template on the IPs talk page. There is no talk page currently, and it's got a 2 week block. Jus' sayin'. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So would I - but RL distracted me and I forgot, I've just returned from small Christmas food show, will do it now.Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mughal Tribe

I dont understand why you removed "" and is mostly unaware of her husband's royal descent. After the death of her husband Prince Mirza Bedar Bukht, the last remaining heir to the erstwhile Mughal dynasty; it's a struggle for existence in the Howrah slums for the mother of five daughters (four of them married) and a son. She recently came in news because of her multiple appeals to the central government to finance the dowry of her daughters. Eventually she was offered Rs 2 lakhs and undisclosed amounts later by a pharma company owner Mr Madhusudan Aggrawal and an NGO by Shivanath Jha. Her benefactor, Vijay Darda, is a Rajya Sabha MP from Maharashtra. The organisation supporting her is “Bismillah: The Beginning Foundation”. It was originally started to mitigate the economic problems face by famed late Ustad Bismillah Khan. A Delhi-based couple, Shivnath Jha, a journalist, and Neena Jha, a teacher had founded this organisation and a part of the aids collected by the organisation was donated to Sultana Begum as the last living memeber of erstwhile Mughal dynasty. Later Coal India Chairman Partha Bhattacharyya offered employment to her remaining unmarried daughter Madhu to run errands.""

while you kept "The organisation supporting her is “Bismillah: The Beginning Foundation”."

man , you people in the west are master of prejudiced writing... anyways I have already supported my write-up with many links. I am gonna add atleast 3 more links if you want.. This story is very important for this article because it concerns with Mughal tribe and Sultana can be considered the main family of sorts! Just now I realized you have reverted/edited many of my justified edits without warning , explanation or anything. If abusing your administrative powers is what you have in mind; then I am done with you!! Islamisgr88 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. I don't guess it occurred to you that I was just implementing our policies and guidelines at WP:BLP? You need to read WP:AGF as well. I may have missed removing something but the information I removed was not sourced, and some was copied directly from the source. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt intend it to be personal.. But it's true that most admins in wikipedia use their powers a bit too much. Anyway I have added a lot more links and still if it doesnt satisfy you , I can add tens of reliable links from BBC and others. Bon Homie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamisgr88 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. You must admit it's ironic to compare you comment about lack of bias on your user page and your statement about "you people" (try substituting something else for 'in the west'). Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the objections you had! But no article can be completely objective!! we are human beings. not computer bots !!Islamisgr88 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

I have e-mailed you about some action on my talk page. I think that I may have found the answer to my question (identifying data proffered by an editor) but would appreciate confirmation by e-mail. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sent you 3 emails. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Answered privately.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 post

Re: Colca Canyon: Hi there. Firstly, apologies. However, I think you mistake my motive. The website I linked to is actually an information store, much like Wiki itself, but with a bent towards walking. It has a host of information, but doesn't sell anything: unlike the first External Link; unlike the "Colca Canyon Travel Guide" from the Attractions section in the main article. Currently, there is nothing on the page about walking the Colca Canyon, for which it is actually (justifiably) famous. P.S. This is really not meant to sound confrontational! I am honestly new to this, and realise I may have overstepped my remit? (Thoughts, pls?) Best, Billjohnsonwalko (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you aren't being confrontational at all. We'll continue this at your talk page or the EL Noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Prophecy

Perhaps, but my intent was merely to suggest additional avenues of investigation and perspective as others continue to research the matter. I have heard for many years that Pinckney kept a journal, and I was rather surprised to read the statement that the journal had not been found. Also, even if Franklin made the statement, the conditions under which he made it should also be taken into account in evaluating it.John Paul Parks (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But that's not appropriate here, where we rely only on reliable sources. Now if you have sources connecting the prophecy, Franklin and his environment (I mean all in the same source, not separate sources), mention them on the talk page. The research that we as editors do is finding useful sources that discuss the subject directly. Those sources will usually have worked in a different fashion, taking various other sources and connecting them. But that's not our role. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look

You may wish to have a look at the unilateral action taken by User:Nick Graves to rename all the list articles just now. See Special:Contributions/Nick_Graves. Is there a consensus to do this that I missed? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Pyramid

Hi Dougweller. According to the article:

"The volume, including an internal hillock, is roughly 2,500,000 cubic metres.[6] Based on these estimates, building this in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Similarly, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night."

Since we can assume that the volume is correct, this paragraph makes me curious where they got the figure 20 years from. Were there historical records to indicate that figure? If it's an estimate, it seems like a bold one. While it's certainly possible that they put up 12 blocks an hour, every hour, for 20 years, as a reader it made me curious why we don't grant that it took longer. That's something I think would be helpful to add to the text, if I could find it. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

the article on theGreat Pyramid of Giza uses the 20 year figure in it. Excuse me for butting in, Carptrash (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Raciology

I just finished writing an explanation for the edit. Let me know when it is ok to change the name if that is agreed upon. EgalitarianJay (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Vinland

Hello i have made a little response here. I was just in the middle of adding {{fact}} to many many statements when you did the revert and got a conflict edit. This article is very very poorly cited and in fact was just think of tagging the article as a whole. But will hold off and see what i can fix. The article realy needs help with exprecing other POV's.Moxy (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me another chance. I promiss I will now write better and I will respect rules here.--Mychele (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bread categories

In answer to your question, I removed the bread categories from Johny cakes article because it is closer to a pancake than a bread. The pancake category was already there as well. As to why there was only a minimal summary, I used HotCat which does not give you the option to leave a summary. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that

I overstepped the guidelines of discussion pages. By the way do attacks also include telling someone to "get a clue"? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't terribly nice, but no one would be blocked for it. A pattern of such edits, maybe, but I doubt it. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I went ahead and nominated this article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remove outing

[30] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, could you do the same at shukis talkpage? [31] and please tell Jiujitsuguy and shuki not to out me again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not outing when you put the information on Wikipedia. The information that you want deleted shows that you engaged in aggressive canvassing efforts, contacting at least 22 editors who you believed shared your POV, asking them to skew an article in a manner that was consistent with your POV and now you want that information buried.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have already said, I regret revealing that personal information and that's why I didn't want it revealed. I never said I "want that information buried", I have explained under what circumstances I made those posts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages proposed for deletion

I had proposed to delete the pages Minkhaf II and Rawer because there is nothing known about these boys/men besides a mention on the wall of their father's tomb. The request was denied on the basis that (supposedly) the page was notable. I think it was checked by a bot? I think these pages do not belong on Wikipedia. Nothing is known about these people besides their name and parentage. I won't redirect in this case because I suspect that would be in violation of etiquette? Did I use the wrong criteria for speedy deletion? Or am I just wrong :-) --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a bot, just an experienced editor. I can see why he declined it. Go ahead and redirect, make sure the information is in the article you redirect it to. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out the source. Was Minkhaf actually called Minkhaf II? Don't redirect yet. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is actually the page about G 7660 (not 7550). The boys are mentioned in the tomb of their father Kaemsekhem. And the name "Minkhaf II" is a modern construction to differentiate him from Minkhaf I (who was a more notable person). For my personal education can you explain why the deletion was declined? You mention that you can see why, but I'm not clear on that. I would like to understand how to do these things correctly. Cheers --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it was on the grounds that a prince must be notable, but I'll ask. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the admin's page and I think I understand where he is coming from. He states (and this is me paraphrasing mightily) that he is very conservative when it comes to deleting articles. Sorry to have bugged you, but I was curious. The admin was very clear in his explanation and upon reading it I understand (and respect) his decision. I still think a redirect is the way to go though. Thanks for your input and help. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Matriarchy

If you consider authors who don´t agree that Yangshao was a matriarchy, then I could cite dozens of sources which don´t agree that there are/were not matriarchal cultures; the fact that Cambridge cites Elam, that Yangshao is considered so by some authors is worth mentioning. If some believe there was a matriarchal others don´t believe matriarchal didn´t. So we should mention both sides of the coin: but the first paragraph is denied by the rest of the text. Elam was yes a matriarchy as much as all others..... Lorynote (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear that there are authors who consider Yangshao a matriarchy, the difference between you and me is that you used a self-published book by someone not an expert stating with certainty it was a matriarcy, while I used reliable sources explaining that there was a dispute. Take it to the talk page of the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I offered new ones, new sources; you yourself mentioned the dispute (see Yangshao article), although also poiting the fact that the majority believes they were a matriarchal system. As I said if you started the article with by stating there is/was no whatsoever a matriarchal system, this is denied by the sources (Elam has a Cambridge source!!; I added two other sources for Yangshao, although chinese museums, historians dont´t dispute. A Cambridge source for Elam suffices to deny the first paragraph. And besides pre historians dind´t have a society like ours, and we can´t take computers to Greece and say they were not whatsoever smart or educated because computers didn´t exist; as much as we can´t say they were not whatsoever a matriarchy because women didn´t rule their society the way we today (nowadays) define ruling, leadership or patriarchy. How can you maintain within an article two oposite claims whicc, even worse, diminishes a such an important civilization such as Elam? Lorynote (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I said take it to the talk page of the article. Dougweller (talk)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

• News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

• In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

• Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

• WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Voting in full swing

• Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Serpents, etc

A message so good it had to be sent twice! :)

Our paths seem to be crossing a lot recently, though if I remember correctly, they did on Usenet from time to time as well.... Ergative rlt (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a loss of session message and resent. And sorry again, don't recall you on Usenet, but then probably there's a reason for that. Off to bed now. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ochre?

Oh, it's not the Great Ochre Goddess queen back again is it? Paul B (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick read through the mother goddess and matriarchal religions pages. Jeez, they sure are a mess. I think there was quite a lot of speculation in the 60s and 70s about matriarchal cultures, which seems to be being reproduced here (eg the Minoan stuff), but mostly it just seems to be a jumble of material about goddesses who happen to be mothers, or associated with motherhood in some way, as if they are all part of 'the same' identity. I don't even know what a "matriarchal religion" means. Is that the religious beliefs of a matriarchal society, or a religion that validates matriarchy, or any religion with mother goddesses? Paul B (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mother goddesses do not make a matriarchal society. I'm pretty convinced that you could have a matriarchal society without anthropomorphic goddesses or gods (and that those are probably a late development for HHSap. A matriarchal religion would have a mother goddess. But the biggest problem is Lorynote's lack of understanding of English and poor sourcing - basically, as we've experienced before, any source will do if it supports her.

See [32] and [33] and Talk:Matriarchy - her etymologies. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources for the "matriarchal religion" article are very poor. It seems to have had two authors. One who created it in 2008 and the recent additions by Lorynote. Of course you could have a matriarchal society without deities as such. In theory at least you could have a matriarchal society which worshipped male deities. That seems to be part of the problem with this whole concept. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

page about albert stubblebine

Hi Doughweller

maybe not so much did you something wrong by cancelling my additional reference (although the same as ref.2.), but the requested reference for his statement that a plane would not fit the hole is also in Ref.2. at 00.45 seconds. Would you be so kind to add that and so making the request for a needed reference obsolete ?!

Thanks in advance.

H. de Jong visitor -at- wxs -dot- nl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.145.83.162 (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless we can be certain a YouTube video is not a copyright violation, we shouldn't use it. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But the same videofragment is listed under Ref.2. already !!!! see at 45-50 seconds and see that the statement for which a reference is asked already is there ! Ref.2. is the reference that is asked for about the statement that a plane does not fit the hole. The marker "reference needed" can be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.145.83.162 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Using Minor edit box on Megatrend University

I haven't check minor box on purpose. Lately I'm mostly doing minor edits so I used it lots of time and sometimes I check it by mistake. Also I don't know why do you think that I'm trying to hide something by checking this on some edits and leaving it unchecked on others??? If I was about to hide something I would use it on all edits... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanb (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If I was you I'd worry more about the copyvios issue, that will get you blocked fast if you continue to add copyrighted material. Heiro 03:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I offered high quality sources on Serpent (symbolism): Stone, Newadvent, Erich Neuman, you didn´t accept not a single. I offered my paperback and p.52, you didn´t accept it. I offered a review which you ignored... Lorynote (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For the simple reason that none of them actually backed the statement for which they were supposed to be the source. As for p.52, I asked what it said that might back the claim, and you didn't answer that, which seems telling. And a source discussing our alleged alien ancestors isn't useful for anything about symbolism. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did yes answer you: p. 52 mentions serpents; would you a like a quote? Lorynote (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What about this source: http://www.thehappyheretic.com/11-09.htm? Lorynote (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

At Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Woman-Merlin-Stone/dp/015696158X; many pages available mentioning serpents. There is a search (with or withouct registration); page 201: "The abundant evidence of the sacred nature of serpent"; p. 204: serpents associated with "wisdom and prophecy"; p. 211: serpent and oracles relations; Melampus after serpent lick could read the language of the birds; p. 214: serpents adorned, kept and fed the oracles shrines.... Lorynote (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please copy this all to the article's talk page, and follow the advice I just gave you on your page. Yes, I'd like a quote. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, quotes above from online source. Lorynote (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Centroatlantico removals

Dear Dougweller, I notice you have removed some, what are in my view, rather nice references with the claim they are "self published". What is the status of Centro Atlantico? Do you have some evidence or more info. in support of these removals. I don't know about this my self and am not making any claims about this publisher - but my recollection was the books seemed to have been reviewed in reliable sources and have made some impact. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)) PS the articles Cantino planisphere, Suleiman (elephant)‎ and Tessaleno Devezas‎

It must have been the link I found, which definitely looked as though this book was the only one they published. But I'm wrong. I'll revert myself, but isn't this guy a management journalist? [34]

Block of Ckruschke text on The Exodus, Moses, Joseph, etc

Sorry about using unpublished texts from websites. I had assumed that any scholarly information was fair game and if one reads the entire text of the article on "Arkdiscovery.com", beyond the somewhat inflamatory beginning paragraphs, it is obvious that the author's stance is more than merely his personal opinion and is instead based upon in-depth investigation of Egyptian history and archeological evidence. Bottomline was that nothing personal was meant and there was no malace intended. I know better than to do wholesale deletions. I merely was hoping to inject thought from the other side of the aisle in order to lessen the bias of some of Wikipedia's pages in which the Bible, Biblical history, and scholars of Christian background are blanketly refuted as "myths" or "naive" while blatantly atheistic opinions are treated as fact or "prevaling opinion" simply because they end up in print. I assumed when I read this snippet on "The Exodus" Wikipedia page - "An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (November 2010)" - that that was what the site was striving for. Again, I'm not looking to make work for anyone and I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckruschke (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed that warning. Funny, most of our biblical articles are mainly retelling of the biblical story, with very little actually that might not take the stories literally. And I really think that if you look you will find many Christian scholars who don't think the Bible is literally true, or that belief in the Exodus is required to be a Christian. Gotta go now for real life stuff, or I'd say more. I'll add that if you do think the Bible is literally true, you need to realise that our articles should neither say that nor that it is false, but follow our policy as WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-lblock

Hi! When you use TW (Twinkle) to put the {{uw-lblock}} template on a user's talk page when you block them, can you modify the settings in the TW window for a time-limited block length before you put the template on that user's talk page? Or is indef the only thing possible? HeyMid (contribs) 22:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, but ask at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

your remark on copyrighted content in Vegoia

hi; well, actually not all, I did not know the source you point to; the excerpt was taken up from another Wiki article : "Etruscan mythology", § "Prophets and prophesy-Etrusca disciplina" the which did not refer to any copyright use (no note whatsoever); I took that for self writing by one of the contributors to the article this obviously sheds light on the difficulty of mastering eventual copyrighted content throughout the Wiki process itself; as for myself I keep a copy of what I wrote (when significant), with (most of the time) a tracking of the source I took that from; and I certainly am not wont in copying full sentences wording from non-wiki sources without tracking, through a note or reference; hope this clarifies a bit regards Robiquetgobley (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

only that, because it was really concise, to the point ,and complete; sounded really good Robiquetgobley (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

another question: the following between brackets in the article "“ a prophesy vows utter woes unto whomsoever would displace landmarking stones” is an actual quote from J.R.Jannot's translation; it is not necessary to the statement as such (it just words it); should that be taken out? thanks in advance for the advice and sorry for the step-by-step tutorial for proper wiki writing regards Robiquetgobley (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove it, I'm not sure it adds anything. I've put a copyedit tag on the article, hoping that someone will see it and do some rewriting for better English - no insult to you, I wish I could write in another language that well, but it needs some work and I don't have time. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Imperialist competitive algorithm

Hi, Doug. The contributor has rewritten this one, and since you're already familiar with it, I wondered if you would mind taking a look at his rewrite at Talk:Imperialist competitive algorithm/Temp to see if it is satisfactory. I really hate dealing with computer related articles as the jargon is so unfamiliar to me. It makes it harder for me to determine when language is formulaic for the field. If you're not up for it, please let me know, so I can either have a slog through myself or find somebody else with a more techy background. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, but all I did was to some searches. But it looks like a much better and heavily rewritten article. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Maybe today I'll finally catch up on the copyright backlog we've been carrying since Thanksgiving. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Venus figurines

This was not a constructive edit. If you think galleries like this are "deprecated" you have probably not read WP:IG for some years. It was especially inappropriate given that the main body of the article, on a highly visual subject, was clearly under-illustrated. I have reverted you and improved the article in various ways. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I was basing it on what I saw as GF actions elsewhere, the lack of citations, and what I saw as something not aesthetically pleasing. I should have said that, as you note, we need some of them, but used more appropriately. But I'm not sure your sharp tone is warranted here, as IG says "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.". I believe that individual images appropriately placed would be better. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As in very many visual arts articles, the text does not give enough room for all the useful images. Certainly that should be filled up first, but then galleries are very often appropriate, as in most recent art FAs. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit to not watching FA at all. But why did you also replaced the 'see also' added by a block evader to Potnia Theron? Why is that appropriate? Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And you removed the fact tags, why was that? Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Placing citation needed tags on images is problemmatic - the information should normally be on the image file not in the article. I referenced several to plates in Sandars, who mentions other sites with images in the article, but one can't of course cite an image except to an image. The tags seem to have been placed at random - some of the tagged redlink Venuses have their own articles in other WPs. I wasn't aware I had replaced the see also, which should go. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Random Hacks

Hi, Doug. Someone else tagged the original as a hoax because the content was patently untrue. I simply deleted it based on the hoax claim. I've gone ahead and unblocked the title if someone wants to take a legit whack at creating an article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, please do. There was a lot of sock/meatpuppetry going on, but if he's willing to do the right thing, I'm OK with that. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Doug, if you would like assistance with factual links, articles, and other pieces of reference, I'd gladly provide them to you directly. I never was pushing to be "the editor" writing the post, I was actually disputing the heavy handed bite from PMDrive1061 towards others (and later including myself too). Dismissing the derogatory nature of calling someone a "meat puppet" at all, even based on the Wikipedia definition of that I would not hold up in court.207.126.238.24 (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please never mention 'court' - it could be taken as a legal threat, which I don't think you meant. Everyone made mistakes here, but it's sorted now. You were editing while blocked, that's sock puppetry. You're unblocked now, let's go forward. I've also posted to the original editor who thought it was a hoax (we get a lot of those). Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I definitely wasn't a "legal threat" or even implying that. What I was saying is that based on the definition of a "meat puppet" in your policies and procedures, I don't meat that criteria and as such, his actions don't hold up to the policies and practices on the site. Anyway.... that's all water under the bridge... ---- The real issue is #1) I'm not the original author nor do I want to be. I can't be in fact, per my readings of the COI page. My goal in coming here is that every line, every source, every picture is factually correct and accurate without bias or judgment. I'm happy to help edit someone else's work and/or provide them resources they need, but in the end, this story is not one I can write. As to being "unblocked", the previous IP as well as the User account I was using to comment from is still blocked. Since there was someone else who was originally editing the page (apologize, no clue who it was, all I knew is when I did a wikipedia search for RHOK this evening I got a "Blantant Hoax" page. The fact this escalated the way it did was because the policies and procedures on this site were not followed. Let's fix that now and get back to a happy normal state.

ah dear...

So... am I socking or is that you? :P man... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost here, nothing to do with me, is it? Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He refers to a "sock-puppet of one the other users seeking to censor this article." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's referring to me or Dougweller, but it's probably fine to ignore it for now. He's here pushing an agenda, and will likely figure out that this may not be the best place for him to edit AniMate 06:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Random Hacks of Kindness

In the interest of civility. Would the more senior editors be ok with the following:

    1) The COI people commenting on the action instead turn their course towards helping you have a well written article on the topic.

    2) These said people commit to:
         a) no more sarcasm towards the senior editors
         b) provide at minimum 15 sources showing the involvement of the corp, gov, and non-gov entities involved are valid and not a hoax.
         c) Provide at least 5 images from each of the three successfully hosted events in the past in a creativeCommons licensed form.
         d) Provide independent analysis / commentary from participants at the events

    3) Once the above is provided, the senior editors agree to help assist with actually formulating a post which meets Wikipedia standards.

If not, please provide the steps in a clear concise manner all in one place detailing what needs to happen for this story to be allowed in normal form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.238.24 (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you Patrick? Obviously we have editors who are more senior than others, but these restrictions on numbers of sources and images are not at all in line with our policies and guidelines. The article is restored although it is a WP:STUB and needs a lot of work. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not Patrick, but I know him. These "restrictions" are my offering to you as providing sufficient numbers of sources and photos to prove this isn't a hoax. It's not a requirement on you, it's a requirement on the team writing the post. on PMDrive1061's talk page I posted nearly 10 sources already, so digging up 5 more should be a cake walk. I've personally shot hundreds of photos and hours of videos at the three different global events on virtually every continent in the world, so having photos won't be a problem either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.238.24 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If I may chime in here -- the article Random Hacks of Kindness is currently "live". There's no need for any restrictions, as notability has now been established. Expansion and improvment of the article can now continue on as normal.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     07:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to assist with that, but unfortunately I am blocked from doing so because of a misunderstanding between myself and PMDrive1061 and his inability to have a calm conversation as normal human beings.66.94.253.64 (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And suggestions for the article such as those posted to PMDrive1061's page should not be posted to editors but to Talk:Random Hacks of Kindness. Thanks, and thanks Eto Eclipsed. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What suggestions are you referring to here? I've not been able to (or wanted to) post on his talk page in a long time. I would post more information on the Talk page for RHoK, but I am banned from doing so because PMDrive1061 can't cool off and have a conversation discussing specifically what I did wrong, my acknowledgments to not do them again, and then my addressing the issues of him towards me, and him accepting and acknowledging he won't treat new people in that manner again.66.94.253.64 (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now seen that they were posted before I restored the article, I was under the mistaken impression they were posted there after it was restored. There's no point in posting to his page again - please let's just move on. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

• News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive

• In the news: Amazon "shopping-enabling" Wikipedia; Al Jazeera interview; be like Wikipedia

• GLAM-WIKI London: British Museum hosts two days of talks between Wikimedia and the cultural sector

• WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak

• WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

• Features and admins: Birds and insects

• Arbitration report: New case: World War II

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Puntland

OK, I hear you. Will try and figure out exactly what I need to do with this. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Filipa Moniz

Question entered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Filipa_Moniz_Perestrelo Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Modern Geocentrism blog

Sorry, but what do you mean by deleting the blog ?! there is another one just above it !! http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html It is catholic, so I put a link to Muslim's POV.. maybe you should delete this one first :) Mando Salama (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In a rush, you do it. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message.

• Manuel Rosa is not a historian [ works for the Information Technology support help desk at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center ].

Attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus [bad faith, vandalism, fantasy, etc.]--Davide41 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but 'you're wrong' 'no, you're wrong' arguments don't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry. --Davide41 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:LORD

Hi again. Thought you might be interested in these: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:LORD and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:GOD. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RE:CC

your very sentence "I can see no positive purpose in it, and as an experienced editor you should know better. You should also know that 'currently' isn't often useful in an encyclopedia." shows your complete lack of understanding of wikipedia as a "free ONLINE encyclopaedia". And It is important to know who is saying what. Is he a BBC show man? Yes he is. Why "hide" it by claiming "irrelevancy"? And as your edit summary suggest you could have corrected the sentence like this "[] who is, as of 2020, a BBC radio presenter but also appointed to the Order of Merit by Queen Elizabeth II". What is wrong with that? And please do use the talk page of the article for discussion. Regards. Xashaiar (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I know we don't use 'currently' except perhaps in rare circumstances, and that he is not a 'BBC show man'. Your suggestion is nonsense, neither fact is relevant to this article. Ironic that you want me to use the talk page, something you didn't do but I have. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Banpo symbols

Man I'm replacing the fairly used image by an image on Common, plz don't simply revert my work. Now I've already added the source to the article, but, is there a ref for that pic you reverted to? Is there a ref for the entire article before my edit? Don't be so WP:POINT. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Since when is expecting references being pointy? Sure, the article needed referencing, but adding more unreferenced material wasn't the way to go, especially when you were naming someone. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Than a WP:GOODFAITH should be assumed. If I were you, I would search the name "于省吾" in google and I would get 111,000 results. If you are actually expecting references, than feel free to use something like {{unreferenced}} and {{cn}}, but not a simple revert.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your contribution to the Nortel article

Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Chaldeanss

Chaldean ethnic group, not religion Ibrahim was born in Uor of the Chaldeans

But the category is specifically for Chaldean Christians, 'Babylonian' is the category you want. Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus again

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

Hello. This user is back, again leaving messages about Heim theory.[35] He put in a suggestion for a new WikiProject and, before approval had been given, started WP:WikiProject Jupiter, appointing himself as the coordinator.Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jupiter/Members He has tagged Hafnium controversy. [36] This is one of his latest messages on WikiProject Physics where he is apparently threatening another user. [37] This is not good news. Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that User:MathSci is mistaken on my supposed "bad behavior". The Heim theory message involved a request for outside help on an otherwise problematic article (one which I personally do not edit anymore). WikiProject Jupiter was a page that was accidentally created (and blanked by me when I discovered the mistake) during the actual development proposal (If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Jupiter the proposal page you will see that it is all above-board). The message in regards to the Physics editor is advice to an IP editor. What MathSci is unaware of is that I notified the user in question here and the issue is being solved at the article.--Novus Orator 08:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I requested speedy deletion for the page in question, if that helps...--Novus Orator 08:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You have promised before to stay away from Heim theory, so please do it. Please don't discuss it on wikipedia. As for the WikiProject, you have had feedback about the possible creation of WikiProject Jupiter. [38] which seems not to have reigistered with you. Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I never promised to refrain from editing talk pages (please be reminded of WP:TALK). I believe my response to that critical comment in regards to WikiProject Jupiter was appropriate, because it managed to convince that cautious editor to jump on-board...--Novus Orator 04:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

M.I.T. and the Orthodox Union are not reliable sources?

Could you please explain why M.I.T. and the Orthodox Union are not reliable sources. אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)אֶפְרָתָה

Since I didn't comment on them, no, I can't. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment no, but you put up the refimproveBLP tag with those sources.

Since you think M.I.T. is not reliable, who might be? If not, why did you put up the refimproveBLP tag?

The OU was founded in 1898, and serves about 1,000 synagogues and congregations of varying sizes.

Why are they not reliable ? Are they affiliated with the subject ? If not, why did you put up primarysources tag?

I am confused as why you put tags but have "no comment"

If you put up tags, is it not commenting?

אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)אֶפְרָתָה

I see the problem now, I think. MIT wasn't used as a source, it was twice in different ways as a convenience link for the same article from Technology Review. You need to cite properly. I don't see an OU cite, only a link to an article by him at OU. And I know the comic strip Sullivan County, but who is Brian Sacks and what makes him a reliable source? Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Need moar semi

All the pages this IP user has been editing are:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:98.122.103.183 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)(in case they use another IP to sock)

Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 13:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

re SPLC, accusations

Hi. I want to follow-up on this issue that you presented at Talk:SPLC -- Accusations made .... It seems like it stalled after Kim requested that we focus on the article. However, LAEC did not answer your question, nor did Badmintonhist who made similar accusations against current editors there, and neither has made any acknowledgement of wrong-doing with these and other allegations. Normally I would let it go, but I see that they both seem emboldened in their aggression and justified in their past actions because of what they now see as progress, instead of being conciliatory and collaborative. So there are larger issues than just the copyvio accusations.

• Some recent diffs, in case you're not following the talkpage lately: Badmintonhist's diatribe about the article on whole, encouraged by another editor's request for a list of his problems: [39] and then his response to several editors' feedback [40]
• LAEC responding to fair questions about his 'antics': [41] and later equivocating at FRC talkpage [42] in response to my comment to others there [43](which itself was a reply to his latest exhortation of WP:AGF.

I'm inclined to take this to WQA (or ANI because of the pattern continued from the FRC article), but I thought I'd ask you about it first. By the way, I'm also posting a version of this comment/request at Kim's talkpage (so you could reply there, if you so choose). Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been distracted and keep forgetting to look at this. I'll have a look. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Book of Exodus

You and another user noted that my contribution was fringe material. Where would this material go within Wikipedia? Does Wiki not allow for non-mainstream, alternative viewpoints within the Exodus section? I'm not saying I agree, but I don't see why dismissing an afro-centric source entirely is ok. --User:Hillis3000 —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Cyrus Cylinder Article

Would like your editing assistance and mediation on the Cyrus Cylinder article...You seem to be active on Iranian history and on the page in general. I'm concerned that the article doesn't read well, too long and drawling, and also might be placing undue weight on certain issues. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that active. I've got a huge number of other articles I'm interested in, and trying to see if I can find time to do some unblocking on our mailing list, so I'm afraid I've got to decline. I'm just interested in keeping a balance there (there's been a large problem with Persian nationalists on the article). Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Large problem with Persian nationalists on the article? What does that mean? GoetheFromm (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Do you not understand what 'nationalism' means, or that nationalism is a problem with many articles? The whole issue over propaganda is in part a nationalistic argument. But I'm not going to get into another discussion about nationalism here. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, I understand what 'nationalism' means.

What I am asking you to do is to expound on what you mean when you write "there's been a large problem with Persian nationalists on the article." Can you cite some examples?

Also, I'd like for you to expound on what you mean when you write: "The whole issue over propaganda is in part a nationalistic argument." Examples?

GoetheFromm (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to discuss it I'd do it where it was appropriate, the talk page of the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Bell

Hi, you recently reverted my addition to Nazi Bell but having read the guidelines I'm still not sure why. You made a comment about requiring a reliable source. However firstly the addition was in a section headed "speculation". I would have thought that speculation means precisely that it is not a reliable source. Having said that, the URL I cited gives a whole list of sources if you scroll down to the bottom which I am sure are just as reliable if not more so that the other sources cited. The Nazi Bell was an interesting project and so far this is the only rational explanation of it I have seen. It would be a shame if it got relegated to the realms of anti-gravity/time machines because you ignore this well-argued conventional explanation. Bin sammler (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't speculate in articles, that's core policy. And we can't use someone's personal website as a source for that speculation. I think you were misled by the section heading - it's about speculation in the major sources that we can use. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

IMediaObserver (talk · contribs) looks like it's the same person as ArdeshirBozorg (talk · contribs), who was blocked earlier for sockpuppeting. Check their contributions and the user page message. As you're an administrator, is there anything you can do? Prioryman (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Prioryman: accussing others of sockpuppetry without evidence violates wiki's quidelines. You have only been on wiki for a month. Yet lo and behold you are this experienced editor who seems to be very savvy. maybe u and DougWeller are sockpuppets? you two seem to agree on almost every edit.

i would not consider my accusations evidence. i don't think that u should consider yours either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.33.220 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Yongle the Great...again

Check out User:Zhang Wuji. Although this user uses edit summaries and diverts away slightly from the usual scope of articles that Yongle the Great touches on, the articles that he edits are somewhat linked to the Ming Dynasty. And there's his usual section blanking style, without any explanation in the edit summary. This time, he's using Zhang Wuji as his username. Zhang Wuji is a fictional character from a wuxia novel, The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber. If you remember, Yongle the Great previously used Tie Mole, also a character from another wuxia novel (Datang Youxia Zhuan), as his username. What do you think? Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 14:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about that editor. The differences though make it a bit harder to say WP:DUCK, maybe a few more edits? Although again, the blanking... I'll think about it. Although if you want, go to SPI. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you have, well done. The name thing clinched it. I caught one a few days ago I forgot to tell you about. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

See Colon-el-Nuevo --Davide41 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --Davide41 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

is there some hidden exemption for Davide41 on the WP:3RR?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What bit of my post to his talk page, which says "You're both at WP:3RR I think. Maybe you'd better take it to the talk page", prompted this question? Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, I am still not understanding where my latest edits are contrary to Wikipedia policies. I added two sources that were relevant to the article on origins. Why were they removed? ? I reverted the changes and they were removed again. Why? This is very familiar to the pages on Filipa Moniz that I begun years ago. The page kept being removed, Finally we have a page on Filipa Moniz thansk to me. Should that page be removed also? Why do you insist on removing information that is based on 500 year old documents and are written about by various historians, whose sources I have provided.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dublin City Univrtsity student

Hi Doug. One of the students blocked during this SPI discussion has emailed saying he wasn't unblocked when the others were. I'm assuming it was an oversight. If so, would you mind unblocking User:Rasa_ponomarenko? Anthony (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Anthony (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edits?

Hello User talk:Doug Weller, I fail to understand why you think the changes that I made were inappropriate. Did you not understand/read the reasons that I gave? If you had read the rest of the articles that I edited, you would have seen that B.C was used for the whole of the rest of the articles. I was editing the articles to give them coherence. Im sure you well know that it is not appropriate to use both terms in the same article. It's sloppy. You should change it back, or, if you'd prefer, change the rest of the articles to conform to BCE.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.8.211 (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they were. I did say your reasons weren't appropriate, and they weren't. Nor was your blanking cited text at Common Era. My preferences don't come into it. You were right in the two articles, but only because they started with BC. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the reasons I gave could have been worded more appropriately. Although, Im sure you'll notice that its unlikely the original author/authors of the article used both BCE and BC. What I mean't to say was that someone with a political motive went into these articles and changes them. And as for the cited text at "common era", it really reads like political/racial rhetoric. "we do not believe Jesus is the L-rd. Instead, we use the abbreviations C.E. " If you believe that these words ARE appropriate, given the "inappropriateness" of the reason that I cited for the change, I'll respect that. But it seems, strange.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.8.211 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Arlen22 (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a quote, and Arlen22 has clarified that (thanks for that). I don't understand the racial point at all, and I don't agree with the political comment. BCE is used by respected Christian theologians in academic publications. It's also used a lot by archaeologists. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of Guide99

Greetings, the one article that Guide99 was fixed upon, and was blocked for edit warring on and ignoring all others' input, has again been reverted to Guide99's version, maintenance tags removed, and the summary "Shaikh Quadri's Article is perfectly alright from Wiki standards. I hope all of us will agree. This is as per discussion page of this Article" (note similarities of style) by a brand-new editor: Special:Contributions/Mikebauer. Looks like a probable sockpuppet or parachute accout. I'd really been hoping that Guide99 would stop beating his head against the wall and get on-board with playing by WP rules, but this appears to be another sign he's adamant about writing and running the article his way. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. In fact, I was editing the version you reverted, glad I stopped. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxer you blocked is back

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_creating_apparent_hoax_articles. Fences&Windows 01:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic

Hi Doug. Are you confident that you are not putting too much emphasis on one primary source here? I would think removing China and putting in India would be giving a big emphasis on what is still a minority or even fringe position?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh hell, I got distracted. I was actually going to change the sentence to match the source. I'll do that now. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, although I'm not sure about using a quote in the lead. I remember, Chrome crashed after I'd downloaded the pdf. Thanks for catching that. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. But I notice that this use of this one recent source still seems to exclude China. I am not sure that would be mainstream.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It explicitly includes China, but I see what you mean about the abstract, I could add (including China). Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I leave it to you but I guess that although there are variations in what individual papers might say the Fertile Crescent and China are still normally considered the two earliest places?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Please see my response to comment on 3RR on talk page. I don't see a violation and I've requested Swarm for assistance: User_talk:Swarm GoetheFromm (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you had violated it, I said you'd reached it. I'd also appreciate it if when you quote me on other talk pages you'd inform me that you've quoted me. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that I did not violate 3RR, it makes me feel much better that when I am not accused for things that I am careful not do.

Regarding quoting you on other talk pages. I will be sure to inform you, each and every time, I quote you. GoetheFromm (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, DougWeller, based on the talks that we've had before and to prevent a misunderstanding. Given your experience, I'd like to ask what your position is on Prioryman's revision history on December 15 and today. My reasoning is this: his edits on the 15 of December were largely manual reverts of others' edit. Next, his edit summaries acknowledge that his edits were reverts. Last, his reverts totaled more than 3. Ergo: Prioryman has 3RR violation. Please tell me if I missing something, I'd like to learn.

Given that everyone misses things. I am asking to reiterate points you've made elsewhere. Thanks a bunch GoetheFromm (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do is read WP:3RR yourself, but basically for 3RR, you could do 10 edits in a row, all reverts, and they would count as one. A sequence of edits count as one for 3RR purposes. He didn't hit 3RR. And again, the violation is when you go over 3RR. Now please carefully note that no one is actually entitled to do 3 reverts a day, anyone doing that would get blocked for edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read WP:3RR numerous times before and after your guidance and still think that his actions were 3RR. I know that you are an active admin, so I'm definitely confused. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, give me the 3 diffs that are reverts within the 24 hours - but only one from any uninterrupted sequence of edits, and I'll look at them. Maybe I missed one. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, sorry, I totally missed that you asked me to do this. Thanks anyway. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mu-Lan-Pi and the Sung Document

Hi, I noticed your recent edit to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact concerning Mu-Lan-Pi and Spain. Do you think something similar should be added to the article on the Sung Document? I'm not as familiar with the sources (or the "controversy") so I was hoping you could do it. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Remind me if I don't get around to it. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers - Though I don't know why I didn't just do that myself. ClovisPt (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

His Majesty again

Hey Dougweller, please help me keep an eye on User:Yangjia Jiang. I suspect it's another sockpuppet of His Majesty (I believe you know who I'm referring to) even though it's not ducky enough, with one edit on Hongwu Emperor so far. Now he's using the Chinese term for the Generals of the Yang Clan as his username. Thanks. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 07:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Taken the case to SPI. Remember the communism userpage of User:How the Steel Was Tempered? Now look at his. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 09:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please help to keep a lookout, as I may not be around for the next two days. I believe there're more sockpuppets out there (see my additional comments on the SPI page). Thanks. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 15:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Hi, I do not see why you have reverted my edit. Ahmadiyya is not a abrahamic religion. It is a sect of Islam. Please read the article to find out. Otherwise we could be adding dozens of Islamic sects as Abrahmic religions.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You also removed the monotheistic category - was that for the same reason? I take your point about it being a sect of Islam, but that's what edit summaries are for, to explain/justify edits and make it less likely they'll be reverted. I keep seeing others saying Ahmadiyya is not Islamic, it looked like part of that pov, ie it looked like an attack. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry for not editing a summary, but again same reason - Ahmadiyya is not a monotheistic religion. Again what about other denominations in Islam, christianity etc. Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Zafrulla Khan

One of the recent editors changed it to Muhammad Zafrullah Khan Sahi, whereas there is no reference provided to support this view and secondly a quick google search reveals that he is best known as 'Muahmmad Zafrullah Khan'. I can't revert back the move.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, take it to the article talk page. 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Masreliez’s theorem

Hello Doug, first thank you for your sensible recommendations on my talk page on minor edits. For years I have just followed the practise of fellow users, as you noted, without knowing there were any rules set. As for your recent two reverts on Masreliez’s theorem, now in a state of siege as is my person by actions of user jps/SA. The first revert should not need any ref, since it is what the entire article is about. Maybe "key" could be replaced by something milder that a native speaker can find more proper? The second one I have supported before with 50 third party relevant references from Academic Search, which I reckon a reliable source, at least when it comes to just support a number, four of which are mentioned in the following text. Kurtan (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some vs. Many

There are editors on the History of Human Rights page indicating that the word "some" is weasel? Many is a judgment of quantity, which is not appropriate for encyclopedic material. Moreover, "some" entails "many" and where as "many" does not entail "some." Thus the word "some" is more appropriate in article. In addition, on this specific issue regarding the human rights questions, some has been advocated as the correct usage by editors. The talk and edit record indicates this. Lastly, wouldn't a reference be needed to indicate from a reliable source that "many" believe in order for the word "many" to be included. Can I get your feedback on this issue? Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

'Some' can be a weasel word, but usually that's when there are no sources, not the case here I believe. I'd have to think about the rest and I'm too tired to do that. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, DougWeller, I know that you are busy, (thank for all your hard work, truly) but I wanted to get your feedback on this question whenever you get a chance. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not straightforward. Thinking again about 'some', and not necessarily in the cylinder context, 'some' can also imply 'only a few', eg 'some biologists believe in the theory of evolution'. Context is key. And normally yes, you'd want 'many' to have a source, but there would probably be exceptions where it wouldn't be controversial. 'Many Republicans don't like Obama' probably doesn't need a citation, right? Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not straitforward. With regards to the Republican example: one could say that given the fact that Obama is a democrat and that republicans are the opposing party to the democrats that it follows that many republicans don't like Obama the democrat. Thus, that example passes the stringency of the word "Many" (and by default "Some"). In the context of the human rights page, the issue as to who or how many are in support of the Cyrus Cylinder being a a declaration of human rights, is up for debate (as evidenced by the continual talks regarding it). As "Many" requires a gerater burden of evidence to be utilized, the word "some" with all its limitations, seems to be the right choice on the issue. Tell me your thoughts on my argument. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

General Sanctions issue

Hello Doug, I am requesting that you apply the General Sanctions template ({{sanctions}}) on the Cryptozoology talk page due to the recent edit warring that has been occurring there. You probably remember that I was sent to an ANI in relation to my editing on that article, where the general suggestion of the committee was that I refrain from editing the topic. I have done so, but I still remain a part of the related WikiProject, and have an interest in keeping the members from violating Wikipedia policy. I think that by having this template applied it would remind the involved editors to work more collaboratively.--Novus Orator 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:General sanctions. You can ask at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--Novus Orator 02:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh oh

I can feel an edit war brewing on the Achaemenid Empire page, check it out please, if you get a chance. Editor seems to removing sourced material with no relevant rationale. GoetheFromm (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

He's giving a rationale and you definitely need to read WP:VANDAL, that's not vandalism. I will say that the Zorastrianism website isn't a reliable source for this, and the comment from the Brooklyn College professor definitely doesn't belong there. He was a very minor academic in an education department: "Dr. Philip L. Groisser was a Brooklyn College Assistant Professor in the Education Department from 1960 through 1974 in its School of General Studies." He wrote textbooks for highschool students.[44] Surely you don't think it belongs in the article? Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

could you indicate whether

your might be interested in what looks like an attack on an ed - I dont want to go to noticeboard - as it looks like a direct hit might be needed? SatuSuro 07:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

wheesh fixed already - sorry to have bothered - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Supreme_Deliciousness_is_from_Syria_and_lives_in_Sweden.SatuSuro 07:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw the edit at damascus - and it looked like one of those dont bother me with warnings - I am on a mission type eds - cheers - happy christmas anyways SatuSuro 07:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Cyrus Article

Hi Dougweller, your comment on Cyrus Cylinder [45] was presumably meant for Cyrus the Great. I've take the liberty of moving it manually. Hope that's ok. shellac (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Yes, thanks. I wish I'd never heard of these two articles sometimes. Your action is very much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up!

Thanks Dougweller and others for improving the ACIM article. ThePlanter (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up!

Thanks Dougweller and others for improving the ACIM article. ThePlanter (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo in unblock review

I stated that it was never intended to be infinite, not indefinite. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Opps, what a difference two letters make. Fixed. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

• Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

• News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

• In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok , Sir, let it be there in History, but dont give your message on my page. I request. I have understood my mistake sorry (talk)

Fine. --Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Infinite

What's the difference between infinite and indefinite in wiki? Someone65 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Infinite is forever, indefinite can be between seconds and forever. Indefinite blocks are often used where the hope is that there will be a quick response from both the blocked and of course from a reviewing Administrator. SarekOfVulcan's point was that he'd hoped your unblock request would have received attention earlier than it did, and when it didn't he asked for someone to review it. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

Re: Uri(m), not "Uru"

In the article I edited the name for Ur in Akkadian cuneiform to Uri(m), providing six separate references on the matter, including Akkadian glossaries, cuneiform transcriptions, etc. and I can provide more. The source used for "Uru" only cites this as a speculative Akkadian pronunciation (not as a bona-fide cuneiform transcription), as a sort of "bridging proposal", between "Urim" and "Ur", but this speculative pronunciation is overruled by all transcriptions from Akkadian cuneiform, which indicate that it was Urim in classical Akkadian (old Babylonian), and "Uri" in late Akkadian (e.g. neo-Assyrian, early Persian era). The evidence is overwhelming. One source I cited explicitly contradicted the notion that "Urim" would have been reduced to a "Semitic nominative form" ending in -u or -um, stating that the name is invariable in Akkadian. The pronunciation "Uru" is simply not supported by the facts and hard evidence. If you want to mention it within the text as a speculative pronunciation that may have been used, then put it inside the article text, but not in the headline. Someone has even tried to ban me from making edits on the "Ur" article. I am changing it back to Uri(m), and I hope this won't be reverted again.205.68.95.65 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)J.D.

Hey

Could you notify user:אֶפְרָתָה of the ARBPIA sanction and log it here?

Based on this comment where he calls User:Asad "Ass-ad" [46] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that per WP policy on personal attacks, I notified the user and asked he/she to remove that insult and warned further action would lead to me reporting. The user, instead, removed my comment from their user page. -asad (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ass'ad, Ass-ad, Ass ad is the proper pronunciation in Arabic It is the way it it spelled, although not by everyone.

• http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/19/sports/sp-55635
• http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/specialseries/barriervoices/sami-redirected
• http://www.jawegypt.com/weather/Bur_Said/%60A%C5%9F%C5%9F_ad_Dan%C4%ABs — Preceding unsigned comment added by אֶפְרָתָה (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

--אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny you would you would offer such a ridiculous explanation here instead of at the comment I left for you at your talk page, which you deleted. And note that asad means lion in Arabic. -asad (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not

I did not vandalize Jonah. I removed a islam template which did not beling there. I also restructed it in line with other headings. I would appreciate if you revert yourself. 84.13.59.23 (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You've removed section headings on a number of articles with no explanation. That looks like vandalism. If you've got a reason for doing that, use the edit summary. You also changed cited text with no explanation at Abrahamic religions. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston

EdJohnston just notified the guy that was called "Ass-ad" instead of the guy that called him that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of them in fact. Probably worthwhile as notification can prevent problems later on. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I undid the notification of Asad112 because I couldn't see any problems with his editing. He was previously warned for 1RR but it seems he didn't break that. (I didn't know that reverting an IP did not count under the I/P regime! What an idea.. So two IPs could war with each other on I/P and they face no 1RR restriction.) EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd, where is that documented? Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Achaemenid Empire?

Hi DougWeller, can I get your assistance? New user, Peskypix, is 'editing' the Achaemenid Empire and switching out the country of Israel with Palestine (in reference to the modern countries that currently exist in the lands of the former Achaemenid Empire). I've reverted his changes explaining that his edits are 1) tendentious, 2) subtractive, 3) and may be considered disruptive editing. I think that his reaction to my comments also indicate that other editors may need to get involved. Can you check it this issue out and provide your feedback?[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Achaemenid_Empire&action=history]], User_talk:Peskypix, User_talk:GoetheFromm. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re

The only Arab-Israeli naming guideline I am aware of is for the West bank:[47], which would not help in that dispute.

I would say that it would be wrong to only use "Israel" without adding the "Palestinian territories" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello Doug, just wanted to wish you and yours a very happy new year. All the best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you and yours. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Need advice

Hi, I picked your name off the history of the Notability noticeboard as an experienced user in this sort of matter who I could ask for advice. Here's what's happening. I keep coming across hundreds of articles on toys, kid movies, books, etc. which have -to my way of thinking- insufficient notability for Wikipedia. I don't always know for sure this is the case, but I have a strong hunch. I've been first putting the notability and unsourced or refimprove templates on them, then coming back a while later (days, weeks) and proposing them for deletion. See my recent edits, and of course I made a mistake see this. So my question is, what do I do about these articles, or ones like this?. Am I merely being disruptive (as the authors/fans seem to think), or am I right to question whether these subjects should be in WP and use templates and propose deletion? I do know one thing: my questioning of Pucca resulted in vast improvements of the article by another editor [48] (: But the fan who originally responded said I was questioning the obvious and proposed unreliable sources to prove his point. If you don't want to deal with this, can you refer me to someone else who might? Thanks much. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Still pondering about this. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, just to summarize better, 1) am I right that many of these articles aren't notable and 2) what should I do about it if they aren't? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate these. :-) Rare Beasts should just be a redirect, it's already covered in the author's article. No one seems interested in the article so I'd just turn it into a redirect. These have to be taken one at a time. Some will be notable but unreferenced, some not notable but maybe referenced, some should be redirects, etc. What you are doing seems ok if you do it carefully, but if you are too casual you'll probably run into problems. Why not ask Silver siren, who is more involved with that sort of article than I am? Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :D Okay, I'll ask Silver siren for further discussion. What I gave you was more of an open and shut case, and I'm also thinking of articles like these, which I think aren't notable relative to Wikipedia:Notability (films): [49] [50] [51] and maybe even this one, in spite of the character itself being notable. Thanks for your input and referring me to Silver. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of data, without thinking

Thanks for deleting everything !

I improved the Deva Victrix page by adding a separate section for the elliptical building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription. The former had one reference to Ellis, the latter none.

And then along comes the mighty Dougweller and deletes the whole lot. Had you even heard of the Deva fortress before now? No, I thought not. So Wiki readers are denied any knowledge of the Market Hall inscription and Elliptical Building, and because of what? Because of Dougweller's encyclopaedic knowledge? The update had little or nothing to do with that Ellis book at all - it all came from Chester Archaeology. Did you even bother to read the update?

Ditto the other pages I added to. Had you even heard of the Elagabal of Elagabalus before today?? I doubt it.

I have written to the archaeologists at Chester to complain about your actions (I live there). They may well be too busy to improve the site, and so it is often up to those with and interest in the locale to assist. It is not your job to demolish every improvement that is made to the Chester sites.

I shall also be making a formal complaint to site administrators at Wiki.

Narwhal2 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That was an error. I've restored it, except of course the COI bit. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Turned out this was one of several sock puppets of a fringe writer, Ralph Ellis, all now blocked by another editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Archaeology

May I ask, is your training in archaeology in Britain, the U.S. or elsewhere? While you are correct that the term archeology is sometimes used, it is about as appropriate as spelling chemistry as 'kemistry.' I would suggest that you include a link to justify the incorrect spelling since there are some who have advocated its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixtheBear (talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? My training is in Britain, but my Oxford English Dictionary gives both spellings, and our article should also. If you continue to do this you will end up blocked from editing, are you aware of that? I've already given you the link to WP:ENGVAR. You will find many American publications, organisations, etc. using 'archeology'. Both are correct. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Doug, heres a link for dictionary definitions, which I also left at the posters talk, cheers and Happy New Year. Heiro 07:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. He's put back 'archeology' in Archaeology but asked for a citation, which is ridiculous, it isn't controversial (except to the extent that absolutely anything can be) as it's in the dictionaries already and clearly used in American scholarly journals and books. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I already removed the citations needed tag, as it clearly doesn't need to be cited. Heiro 07:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just don't understand this kind of editing. A spelling can't be wrong if it's used as widely as 'archeology'. It's just an alternative, spelling changes. It's a bit odd that the French 'ou' in honour is considered correct in Britain but not in America, but both are correct, even if the American one is older than the British one. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It gets a bit redickerous after awhile, lol. Personally I prefer the aeo to the eo spelling, but that doesnt mean it isnt correct. Anyho, signing off for night, later man. Heiro 07:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered

I answered your inquiry 78.146.98.167 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Old SPI

Re: your comment on Moreschi's talk page. Don't worry about it, Doug. All the clown ultimately succeeded in doing was getting the disputed page protected for a month in the Wrong Version (from his perspective). Heh. By the time the protection expired, he had obviously got bored and was socking elsewhere. He was an Afghan Pashtun POV-pusher BTW, in case he crops up again in any more SPIs. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mapuche and Talk:Mapuche#Mapuche and the Spartans

Mind dropping an opinion about this whenever you get the chance, I have a feeling this will not be the end of this little bit o'weirdness. Heiro 01:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you get the feeling we may have found the Greek version of Madoc or the Olmecs? Heiro 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It goes back to the 19th century at least - 1833 [52] --Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

re: Akhenaten edits

Hi Dougweller

I made some additions to the Akenaten page in the form of adding a play and an album, both of which were removed for being promotional.

Obviously I am new at this (and yes, the entries were written by the play's author). I would like to re-add the information. Below are amended entries--are they acceptable in this form?

Clarinda Karpov: play, Ankhst, University of Nebraska, 1987. (Productions 1989, 1994, 2005, 2011).

Ankhst: Music and Meditations. Music and Meditations from the play ANKHST by Clarinda Karpov, inspired by the Pharaoh Akhnaton. 2005 CD by "The Akhnatones." Includes original music by Phyllis Dunne and Mark Nelson; Dunne's setting of Akhnaton's "Hymn to the Sun;" and work shanties by Bahit and the Akhenaten Temple Project dig workers, recorded live at the Temple of Karnak, Egypt. Music copyright 1989; released on cassette, 1990.

• Thank you for your help!*

Aliathabit (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to leave another message on your talk page. Not really, see WP:MUSN - we have to have some criteria for anything on a page or we'd be overwhelmed. I'm sorry about this, it's probably very good. The shanties sound fascinating. I've been to Karnak. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So basically, she has to get famous first, then post these things. I will pass on the word. Thank you, and I look forward to being a part of Wikipedia!

Aliathabit (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 16:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• An interesting accusation was made recently, in that same section, of socking. Please have a look--there's a technical bit in there that I am not equipped to address. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

12th Planet Disambiguation

Hi Doug-

As a way of meeting in the middle, may I suggest adding 12th Planet (DJ) as a link on the 12th Planet Disambiguation page? I have found that he as a DJ/producer meets your notability criteria as a musician under the following. 1. 12th Planet mentions in Big Up Magazine, Music Video play through Scion A/V and MTV2, and on wikipedia pages such as HARD (music festival), Electric Daisy Carnival, and on GetDarker.com, a dubstep centralized website used as a major reference for the dubstep wikipedia page. 5. Released songs through record labels such as Dim Mak, Mad Decent, Trouble & Bass, Scion A/V, and more. 7. 12th Planet has often been referenced as one of the major contributors of dubstep in the Los Angeles area.

Apart from the notability criteria, 12th Planet has produced remixes and tracks for/with the likes of Rusko, Villains (Electronic Music Group), Le Castle Vania, MSTRKRFT, and Skrillex, all of whom have wikipedia pages. He has performed at Fabric in London, toured in Australia and New Zealand, and played American music festivals such as Together As One, Electric Daisy Carnival, SXSW, and more. This is apart from the hundreds of tour dates at various nightclubs across the US (Avalon in Los Angeles, Webster Hall in NYC, to name a few). He is also represented by AM Only, one of the largest electronic music agencies.

I have now completed a mockup of a new page for him, which includes all of this information and a complete discography in a true and unbiased format. I have removed any and all previous information that could be considered soapboxing. All of the information used has valid references all of which I have marked down. If I can email this to you or you can create a disambiguation page where I can place it that would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dambuleff (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, busy yesterday and today. Could you ask at WP:HELPDESK or Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests where you are more likely to get the appropriate expertise. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Up To Now

I have read the page you directed me to. p[lease explain in what way exactly a section headed Source is an inappropriate section. Also, I didn't put the Worldcat reference there. It was put there by ErrantX. I have not heard of the book reference you include. i doubt very much if Up To Now by Martin Shaw is referenced in a contemporary work on. Also, I just added a source and you removed it saying inappropriate section. This is ridiculous. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What you call sources are what we call references and we use inline citations for them. The book is mentioned twice already in the article, putting it under source doesn't add to the article. I didn't say you put Worldcat there. Please calm down, I just spent some time looking for sources but although I could see some I couldn't access them to use them. And don't add your own understanding of the book to the article, find sources that comment on the book and use them as references. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The League of The South

Hello,

I am new having just performed ny first edit, so hope I am responding at the right place. I did several edits to the page on The League of The South. The page contained some false information, out dated information and so forth. For example the list of Board of Directors was out of date. I thank Wikipedia for accepting most of the edits I did. A couple were removed and would like to know how I go about discussing the merits. For example I removed the reference to the The League of the South being a white supremist group. The reference to justify this incorrect classification is predominately the SPLC which is known for one sided reporting and recently has raised similar claims against both groups that oppose current immigration policy and more recently Tea Parties. These broad claims do not comply with a policy of being neutral - they represent a conflict of interest with the SPLC's very extensive fund raising efforts and are done with very poor investigative methods.

Any way, how do I go about addressing this.

Thanks, Mike Crane — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCrane30560 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The best place is on the article's talk page. You need to get consensus there, see WP:CONSENSUS. But the SPLC is not used as a source for 'white supremacist', see the appropriate footnotes. Note that we would not simply accept a group's description of itself as accurate, for what I hope are obvious reasons. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, not to be argumentative but the first white supremist issue is in the head section attributed to the SPLC. I didnt ask anyone to accept my opinion of what the League of The South is, but only edited an entry that is contary to what I know to be true. There is a difference. Anyway thanks for your reply.

(MichaelCrane30560 04:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCrane30560 (talk • contribs)

Roman Empire edits

Hi,

I edited the section on the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. I did not cite a source or sources for my theories. I should have. Your administrator objected. For the record I have 3 degrees in Classics, one of which is from Cambridge University, England. The late A.H.M. Jones, the foremost authority on the Later Empire was my tutor...he could be wrong sometimes. The articles in Wikipedia about the Roman Empire frequently givde false information, give outdated or reductionist theories and simplifcations.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Domanda (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 January 2011

Yes, your edits needed inline citations. Statements such as ". It's a matter of amazement that tribesmen who were outnumbered 50 to 1 could have brought down a much more sophisticated society." appear to be your opinion. If you can cite a noted historian saying it's a matter of amazement, that's fine, but otherwise this didn't belong in the article at all. It might be possible to use this " Had the Romans been able to destroy the tribes which invaded in 406 they may have been able to preserve the West." but only if again you attribute it to someone. This isn't at all like writing a thesis or a PhD, our articles should reflect the views of reliable sources - see WP:RS - and if there are conflicting views, reflect the dispute but not try to resolve it. You can't use sources to make an argument, you can only describe what the sources are saying. Have you read WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ray Stedman -- Prophecy Page

Hey Doug,

I see you removed an external link that I recently placed on the "Prophecy" page. The external link was to: http://www.raystedman.org/thematic-studies/prophecy . Your comment at the time of the removal was, "his article doesn't mention prophecies, why is this here?". Perhaps I typed the link incorrectly or something?? I am doing my best to help the community here -- please help me understand what I am doing incorrectly -- or perhaps just a typo on my part.

Thanks in advance for your help Doug! Greg GregSims (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you were. Have you read WP:EL? There should be only a few links and those should be very general, and I probably should have put this in the edit summary instead of what I did. Otherwise our articles could be mainly links. In this case I was wondering why that particular person should be linked and looked to see what it said about prophecies in his article, which was nothing. But the main reason is that no particular person should be linked. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This page http://www.raystedman.org/thematic-studies/prophecy contains a collection of references to works that are all on Prophecy -- 14 articles, three books and seven related landing pages with addition references. This page is rich with resource on the subject of Prophecy as you can see. I read WP:EL again this evening -- it seems like this is exactly the kind of page you are looking for. I see the comment in WP:EL relative to "personal webpages". Please know Ray Stedman Ministries is a non-profit corporation with 1,000s of webpages. The site is not a personal blog. We are trying to post a EL to a highly relavent landing page of our website that will be of value to your readers. Are we getting closer here Doug? Thanks for the conversation! GregSims (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree, but you can discuss this at WP:ELN and see if you get some support. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It would help me to know what you disagree with Doug with respect to WP:EL. Can you please be more specific? Thanks, GregSims (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What I see is basically Stedman's own intepretations. I see nothing that fits the criteria of what should be linked or considered. It fails WP:ELNO 1. And WP:ADV of course. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Quack

This and this are rather transparent. Note that the IP replaced this reference with an advertising blurb, for what are probably obvious reasons. Voceditenore (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Who;da thunk it? SPI I guess, I'm having breakfast soon though. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

protect

protect this please Howard Webb Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Liverpool fans just getting home, webb gave a penalty today. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/8248883/Manchester-United-v-Liverpool-live.html - Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I assumed it must be something like that when I saw the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Black Legend

An editing dispute at Talk:Black Legend (in which I am involved) requires extra eyes form people who know Spanish history and colonial history in general.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Warnborough College

Hello Dougweller,

As you protected the Warnborough College page, would you be able revert back to unprotected, or tend to the "edit request" I have posted? There is a comment that we believe is unverifiable and defamatory. We appreciate that Wikipedia seeks a neutral point of view, but we currently feel there is an excessively negative slant. Jon-mingle (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Responded on article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

need a second opinion

We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably best raised at WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN (probably the former). I don't think I'm the best person to deal with this one. I guess I'm not surprised though, I thought this would happen. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 DoneMoxy (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

your league of the south update

that is a much more satisfying edit. thank you! much less is offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthronAnalyst (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

• WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

• Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

• Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

I have responded on the Warnborough College talk page. I also notified User:Orlady of the discussion[53], as she is another editor who regularly contributed to that article in the past. Fladrif (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DocHyp and Genesis Creation narrative

You asked me to look at this:

"In modern times the two names, plus differences in the styles of the two chapters and a number of discrepancies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, were instrumental in the development of source criticism and the documentary hypothesis, although this argument for the redaction of multiple sources has fallen out of favor with ANE scholars."

The part in bold is an addition-edit. It's pretty accurate - ever since Whybray and Van Seters in the 1970s it's been pretty common to ask why the two names should necessarily mean two documents. Nevertheless, I don't think it belongs in this article - it's raising the question of the validity of the DH, which is fine for the DH article but not really relevant here. (If you go to the article Authorship of the Bible and look at the bibliography for the section on Torah, there's a good book listed with a title something like Current Issues - it has an article by Van Seters, rather long-winded, but a good overview of the current position. Also, I'm pretty sure our editor put this in because he thinks that the DH is the only alternative to Mosaic authorship - he's wrong if he does think this). PiCo (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my assumption is that was the reason but I wasn't sure what to do about it. I'm still not. Thanks for the quick reply. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, should have looked at the article first, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the Edinburgh Academy access and page

Doug, please restore the ability to edit the EA pages from our IP address range ASAP.

I, the Rector of the school, the head of Accies and the Deputy Rector all edit and monitor the page ourselves.

You've also removed a section of how we performed in 2009 - we'd like it restored. It is very important in the Scottish private school market to know how we performed. The 2010 stats are not out yet so we can't update the page. - Oops, looks as if the 2010 stats are out so my apologies for this. If this is the reason it was deleted could you have not said so on the revision page for EA?

Please restore our access and restore the paragraph you've removed.

Thanks, William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzhund (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't unblock the IP address because of a long history of vandalism, which you can see at [54]. As it says there, anyone can create an account and edit using that account, as you have done. We discourage organisations from editing their own pages except for minor things (eg the name of the Rector) - see WP:COI. I removed the paragraph because it was felt by me and other editors that the source didn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. I can understand why you think this is important, but there are tables provided by for instance the Sunday Times that can be used. If you think this source meets our criteria, you can raise a discussion at WP:RSN. Your school isn't the only school where this source has been removed, by the way - the removal was in no way aimed at your school and it is a coincidence that I am the Administrator who blocked the IP address. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)