User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 4

Egyptzo article

I remember giving the Kitchen's references for Siamun here [1]--the ones showing Siamun holding a unique battle axe. The Siege of Gezer article is related to an unidentified Egyptian king and Kitchen's evidence does suggest Siamun did conduct some kind of campaign in Canaan. The article itself looks OK--from my perspective. As for taking the Bible literally, basically the Bible is the only historical source we have for the Egyptian sack of Gezer. Kitchen defends its basic historicity and I think it is generally reliable--except for certain portions such as the fall of the walls of Jericho which Kenyon argued was uninhabited at the time of the Ancient Israelites conquest of Canaan. Some parts of the Book of Judges may be mythology (Samson & Delilah, etc) but I don't think, personally, that adding a tag on the Bible's historicity for the Battle of Gezer is really needed. But, its your call. Leoboudv (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to 'rehabilitate' Iuput II and slim down its size down to remove the copyright violations. I think its salvageable. Egyptzo even copied the wrong web link: Iuput II was never attested in Wadi Gasus; he was just a minor 'petty' Lower Egyptian king. Leoboudv (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Provided 3 sourced info. from Beckerath and Grimal's books. This is the last time I will try to rehabilitate a work by Egyptzo. I think Iuput II can pass muster now. I got involved becasue I want to keep that image of Iuput II and had some relevant info here. Regards from a very tired Leoboudv (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I hope you have the time to read through Miller's paper. I thought it was balanced overall and of the highest scholarship anyone could expect. Anyway, I have provided a total of 7 footnotes for the article on Iuput II including this final edit [2] which features 3 sourced info. from Kitchen's TIPE book. I have his 3rd edition 1996 TIPE publication. I trust that the quality of the Iuput II article is...acceptable? The image of the Brooklyn museum plague of the king refers to him and would be a good reference point for this otherwise obscure king. This is my final edit on Iuput II or any other Egyptzo created article. Thank you, Leoboudv (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced message

You left the following message on my user talk page:

I've never spammed in my life. In my opinion, the only way you can make a mention of Mullis commenting on the Urantia book NPOV is to make it clear what some of his other opinions are (I withheld from pointing out that he's wrong about his statements on the Urantia book). Exactly what is spam about what I wrote? He's not a reliable source, so either it needs to be pointed out or removed if it is going to look as though he might be.Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to this edit, so the person you should have left that message for is User:Majeston, who made that edit, and not myself, especially as I am not in agreement with Majeston. I think it is very clear that the reason he is saying "rev blatant spam pov" is not because your edits reflect in any way a "spam pov", whatever the hell a "spam pov" is, but simply because he knows that marking his edits honestly as "restoring to the article a bias towards my own views" will be more likely to attract correction. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarkar on Atlantis

Please explain your claim of non-notability. Sarkar was a giant of thought and his insights quite amazing, ranging from dynamics of human society to dark matter in the universe to Atlantis, often decades ahead of his time.Odin 85th gen (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you read this first, it's his views on Atlantis that aren't notable (plus you added your opinions).--Doug Weller (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but simple claims are no substitute for an explanation. Allow me to add that the late P.R. Sarkar made his caim about Atlantis having been an island off the coast of the Netherlands several decades before the Doggerland discoveries. And, yes, that is a direct confirmation of his claim, which is also notable and not my OR. The way he arrived at this insight is also notable, but his psychic powers are well documented. If Edgar Casey is notable in this regard, so is Sarkar. The fact that Sarkar made the claim with reference to the Netherlands, and not the UK, may be purposeful. The British discoverers link the find to Britain. It is possible life on Atlantis had a closer link with the mainland than the British isles. In any event, I think this information should be reinserted in the article.Odin 85th gen (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, show us some sources that talk about Sarkar's claims about Atlantis, that might help show that they are notable. Also show us some sources about Doggerland that say Sarkar was right. If you can't, that makes it your opinion/original research. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try to locate Sarkar's book where the statment was published that Atlantis had been off the coast of the Netherlands. It's been over two decades since I read it. It's mention in the article is warranted as it is notable. I have not seen a published reference to Sarkars' statement and the Doggerland discovery. That part of the entry can therefore be dropped as you suggest. People can draw their own conclusions. Odin 85th gen (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for corrections...

Dear Mr. Dougweller:

Thank you for correcting that link to the theories of Plato's Atlantis Iberian-Mauretanean, and Gibraltar, was written in Spanish. In fact, within the site had a link that showed numerous articles in English. Anyway, I placed a link to my Official Website that everything is written in English (although it has some defects logical translation, because we are Hispanic) ... Once again, I sincerely thank your help.

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please could better explain....

Dear Mr. Dougweller:

You said: "we really can't have one author coming on and removing another author's website. Talk about COI!"

I do not understand what it says... Please could better explain why you do not want to admit any link to my theories, when my theories have always been imperfect for years?

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanations...

Dear Mr Dougweller:

I have never removed any link to a site of another author. I think someone made a mistake. Please check yourself my contributions, or my number ip, and you will see that I never removed any link from another author, or another website.

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and thanks ...

Dear Dougweller:

Please, I am absolutely honest: I have never removed! (not even for a simple error or carelessness) any link to another website from another author, or another theory. Please, it's easy to check my contributions and editions, and anyone can confirm that I have never! removed any link to another website.

I am very grateful because you have decided to allow the link to my Official Website.

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahmose I

Hi Doug, Actually, that particular footnote contained this message "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Gordon_297 ref " The in-text citation did not name the precise resource given for the book by 'Gordon' on Ahmose I; this was stated at the very bottom of the page (where the footnotes are located) So, I thought it was problematic. Personally, no Egyptologist today accept the theory of a co-regency between Ahmose I with Amenhotep. The co-regency theory seems to have gone out of fashion in the 1990's--even the article by Miller I gave you states that it was based on an assumption of NO coregency between Amenhotep III with Akhenaten. Murnane long ago rejected a formal coregency between Seti I and Ramesses II in Ancient Egyptian coregencies (1977). Academic citations are fine. Anyway, I'll fix that lack of enough precise citation text on the Ahmose I article permanently and give Gordon's exact source.

FYI, I suspect most objects which associate a ruling king with his predecessor were probably an attempt to honor the memory of a recently deceased king in the reign of his son. Cheers, Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, now I understand a lot. I'm reading the article right now. --Doug Weller (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, You do a lot of monitoring on the Wikipedia pages--like an Admin--and yet you don't seem to be an Admin. Perhaps a promotion is in order? Thank you very much for your approval of the new remodelled Iuput II article. If it wasn't for the image of the plague of Iuput II, I wouldn't have bothered to preserve it. Personally, I didn't even know that an image of him existed on Wikicommons...until now. BTW, I've created many articles on Wikipedia but this is one of the best in my opinion: Neferneferuaten. Its properly referenced and of the highest quality. She is one of the most recent New Kingdom pharaohs to be attested and most people don't know about her. And yes, Ayko does a good job on EEF. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Pasebakhaenniut (what a mouthful!) is Psusennes II's true Egyptian name--the name he was called in his lifetime. I'll see if I can find a source. The problem Doug is some of the pharaohs names come down to us through Manetho who wrote in the Ptolemaic Greek era--or his work was excerpted in Greek. Thus, the founder of Dynasty 21 is called Smendes to us--which I freely accept to clear up any confusion--(the Greek form of his name) rather than Nesbanebdjed, which was his real Egyptian name. It is mentioned in the Smendes article. We have so little reliable info on Dynasty 21 sadly that Egyptologists are today arguing whether Herihor preceded Piankh or Piankh preceded Herihor! Thanks for your comments on Tutankhamun. The late Amarna era is another veritable minefield now that we have 2 separate Amarna era kings who ruled between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun (the male king Smenkhkare who is attested by a Year 1 graffito with his wife Meritaten) and now the female pharaoh Neferneferuaten who is well known from a Year 3 graffito and Manetho's rather crystal clear comment that a king's daughter Akenkeres ruled at this time. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a short but clear commentary on 'Psusennes' I by University College London. [3] The name of the king is similar to Psusennes II and the High Priest Psusennes III. As I said, Psusennes was the Greek translation of the Egyptian name Pasebakhenniut. Since Psusennes II and the HP Psusennes III have the same form of name, it follows the Egyptian form of their name is roughly ugh! Pasebakhaenniut. Personally, I'm very happy that Egyptologists use the easier Greek form of Psusennes' name but the Egyptian form should be noted. I wouldn't want to type in Nesbanebdjed for Smendes's name either, believe me, but it is rightly offered as a legitimate variant for Smendes' nomen. Leoboudv (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is my edit with the reference for the connection between the HP Psusennes III with king Psusennes II; the name Pasebakhenniut is clearly stated (for Psusennes) in the Abydos graffito [4] I have to concentrate on my job now in the 'real world.' I hope my contribution was productive. Cheers, Leoboudv (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Madoc

Just in case you're curious! - 58.8.5.244 (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice you commented previously on Talk:List of people who have disappeared#Change to the lead: "Currently the list seems to be getting pretty aimless." Just curious - do you think Madoc should be included or not? 58.8.10.69 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "not" - thanks for you help! Cheers. 58.8.10.69 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Grobnik field

Before you simply go deleting things that are not copyvio, inform yousref - grob is a croatian word for grave, and grub or okrutan means brutal. Egyptzo (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was your responsibility as editor to explain that. When you aren't just committing copyright violations you need to provide more citations (and less personal opinion and OR).--Doug Weller (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Possible copyright infringement" tag on History of Africa

Hi. You tagged History of Africa as a copyvio. Note that both the Wikipedia and about.com [5] articles derive from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, sometimes called the 1911 Encyclopedia to avoid trademark problems. That encyclopedia is in the public domain, so it's not a violation. I'm not sure about the 2nd URL you listed though [6] as I can't see the violating text in the Wikipedia article. Thanks. Ha! (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indus valley civilization

The text I deleted from the article today was duplicate information. The section title "Historical context" contains two paragraphs. These two paragraphs each appeared twice in this same section. When I was reading the article I noticed this and thought it would be a quick fix. -ErinHowarth (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Use your sources, go ahead

I would love to see an explanation for why most researchers don't take it seriously. The problem with the previous version is that it went into too much detail as to the crank ideas. We should provide a simple explanation for the fact that Ancient Egyptians didn't have electricity and leave it at that. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit looks good. Your website is really quite nice! ScienceApologist (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RS

I'm as much a RS as you are, Doug Weller. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right, our personal opinions or even first hand experience don't belong in Wikipedia.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Or even your personal opinions about me. Just because I upset some of the scatterbrained juvenile members on your personal internet discussion list by pointing out their shortcomings.Wfgh66 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunil

Doug,

The link gives a lot of references, and of a well known text, called Anacalypsis. Then why other sites are allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilsrivastava (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref

Yes this what I meant to do. The user made a link to an article which was not accessible to the public. He/she should have just cited the article's reference and page number instead--but perhaps the person who added the note here didn't read the article at all. We don't know since no page number is cited. I have no idea who made the edit. But I preserved the remaining 2 cited web sites since they were accessible and gave a reason here. Not all URL web sites are reliable. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. Do you accept the Piankh-Herihor succession which seems to be more mainstream in Egyptology today or the traditional Herihor-Piankh succession in the Theban High Priesthood. Or are you agnostic here? It is not discussed on Wikipedia since few know about the issue. I was told by a friend that if Herihor did indeed succeed Piankh then Ramses XI would have ruled for 30 years at least (not just 28/29 yrs)--since Herihor first is attested in temple decorations with Ramses XI. In this scenario, he would have proclaimed himself king only after Ramses XI died--so he would have served under this weak monarch for c.1-2 years. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, It seems that you then prefer the newer Piankh-Herihor succession. I have seen Arno Egbert's 1998 ZAS paper on Wenamun which briefly describes his position here but not his 1997 GM paper: Piankh, Herihor, Dhutmose and Butehamun: a fresh look at O. Cairo CG 25744 and 25745. Göttinger Miszellen 160: 23-25. Was that short article convincing? I spoke to another contact who mentioned John Taylor's 1995 7th ICE paper on the situation and Taylor's evidence, while circumstantial, also suggests a Piankh-Herihor-Pinedjem succession. Leoboudv (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypothesis of Atlantis

Dear Mr Dougweller:

The last editions with ip 87.222.8.164 are mine... Sorry, I forgot login...

Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

About my User's page.

Dear Mr. Dougweller:

Thank you for your help and suggestions ...

Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing valid links

Kashmir2 (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Doug, The Suzanne Olsson page was deleted as we asked for. But why are you going through Wikipedia and deleting that name and links to the book she wrote? Can you explain your reasons? I want to make a new page for her and it will be well sourced.Kashmir2 (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Self Published Books on Wikipedia

Kashmir2 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)In today's world many valid and valuable books are self-published. This includes many books whose authors are listed on Wikipedia and cited as source material. I can find one on almost every page. This is not a valid reason to remove an author's name, books, or contributions from a relevent page and I will challenge you on this if you persist, especially after all the recent problems about editing the page I made here. It will not be hard to find many examples to support this particular case. Please stop, Thank You.Kashmir2 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:SPS}}Anyone can creae a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

This is not even a guideline, it is firm policy. Go ahead and remove any that you want to except: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: the material used is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources --Doug Weller (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir2 Doug, you say:Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: the material used is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources Thank you for clearing up the difference. In the places where Olsson books are cited they comply with these guidelines and should remain. Thank you for your help.Kashmir2 (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 20 May 2008 (UTC) Doug, you have reverted changes again. I request you stop doing this because you seem not to understand the topic at hand, nor books relevent to the topic. On same page is a link to the website of Jim Deardorf, and the topic "Jmanuel'..first, the link is to a personal webpage created by Jim Deardorf to discuss a man who had visits from flying saucers and got his information from them! Then you allow a book by Professor Hassnain that was self-published and yet you delete mention of a book jointly published by Hassnain and Olsson. I could go on but the point is you are not being balanced and fair. Perhaps we need to raise these issues with other editors for resolution, I suggest you cease editing pages of material you know nothing about and follow around simply because Olsson's name appears there.Kashmir2

I don't 'allow' anything. You, on the other hand, actually know that a book is self-published and don't remove it, you know a link is about UFOs and you don't remove it, so one might say that you are allowing them (as is every editor who edits the page and leaves them there, but you have more knowledge about them so should be more responsible). Doug Weller (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request That Dougweller remove himself as editor of Yuz Asaf

Mr. Weller, the Yuz Asaf page is now blocked from editing, I presume from the page history this was done by you because you want to prevent addition of books by Suzanne Olsson, part of an ongoing editing war that began last week. For reasons cited elsewhere on this page and on the Yuz Asaf talk page, it is obvious you are not being fair and impartial and seem to have little understanding of this topic. I request first you restore the page changes to reflect valuable contributions by Olsson directly related to topic of Yuz Asaf. Then I suggest you remove yourself from involvement in page of yuz asaf because you are not being impartial and fair. If not corrected within an hour or two, I will seek help elsewhere among Wiki peers. Thank you.NewYork10021 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NewYork10021 (talk) It appears corrected now. I will continue to closely monitor the YuzAsaf and Roza Bal pages and hope this editing war ends and we can move on to other things. Thank You.NewYork10021 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you had checked the history of the page you'd know that no one had protected it (blocked anyone from editing it). I am not an administrator in any case. What I am doing is following Wikipedia guidelines, which hardly anyone editing the page seems to understand and follow (itsmejudith being an exception). Doug Weller (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your words about me. NewYork10021 is a sockpuppet I think. Taking out a wikiquette alert against her. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My My Judith....you are worried about sock puppets now? I came here to thank Doug for telling the lie that my book was fiction, so it would be speedily removed. Very well done Doug. I think you and Paul Smith and your friend Judy here must be having a good laugh now. My family and I got the message. We understand Wiki and Paul and you much better now. Please by all means feel free to trash my book as "fiction" , not sourced, (we'll overlook that sources were replaced with bad press) and in the realm of fringe beliefs; anything you want to call it/me/us is your right to do so. Please do keep references to people boarding UFO's getting channeled information about Jesus, bloodlines, roza bal, and yuz asaf. This is just what the world needs now, and just the kind of "unbiased" "well-sourced" reliable books that Wiki should continue to keep as 'reliable well sourced' material..This kinda tells the world just what kind of "editors" Wiki attracts and how they make their decisions. I wont be posting here anymore. Just wanted to say 'Thank you" for what this has done to me and my family.We are very dissapointed in you and in WikiSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This gets more and more bizarre. I never said your book was fiction or not sourced. I was talking about the books by Patton, Leer and Haigins in the fiction section, all self-published, which you pointed out to me, which I removed, and you (who had complained they were there), restored. And, acting on your advice, I removed the external links that had UFO stuffm, etc. Then another editor removed the fiction again (which should, as the edit summary said, not have been in the references section). That other editor then did some cleaning up of the article. --Doug Weller (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Egyptzo's Edits

Egyptzo's template edits look reasonable thus far. Mentuhotep IV was a minor king of the 11th dynasty AFAIK. I don't know the edit about Menes--but I think he is actually Narmer who is attested in 1st dynasty records as the first king of this dynasty. There were many important 1st dynasty kings like Djer, Djet or Den who are not on Ancient Egyptians template...but then there is so little on them on Wikipedia. Leoboudv (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Battle of Grobnik field. However, Egyptzo might since he lives in Croatia and that would be his area of specialty. I hope he gives 1 or 2 academic sources. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I made this new edit on the Grobnik issue: [7] The Danube Valley region of Croatia which Batu Khan controlled would be Slavonia which is not even close to Grobnik/Rijeka sadly. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I only found this brief single reference to 'Grobnik' and 'Mongol' in a google search on this blog site. Not really reliable: [8] If the battle occured, it would be a minor skirmish, IMO. Perhaps you might wish to contact an Admin who knows something about Ancient European history befoe you do an AfD on Grobnik. Perhaps that Admin knows another Wikipedia contributor who is knowledgeable on medieval Central European/Croatian history and can give a book reference. If not, I think the article maybe a candidate for AfD grounds based on lack of notability. I think if Grobnik happened, it was just a skirmish; this issue seems to be a minor 'battle' Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-columbian Turkeys

Hey there, I saw a few of your edits and thought I'd drop you a line to ask you what you think about my problem concerning OR. If you have some time on your hands, why not drop in on the following notice and give us your opinion: Turkey mountain. Trigaranus (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

References

I do acknowledge my copyvio as I did not know that even if the world order is changed and different words added from the source that I used it is still regarded a violation. I very rarely, if ever did just copy-paste in articles created, but now I know that even other things are considered a copyvio. Now, about the references. I will try to make references as much as possible, but this would be hard since most of my knowledge comes from documentaries and travel (learned much about Egypt, China, Rome and other civilizations by visiting the place where they flourished).Egyptzo (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have read many, many books but there were so many that I do not know were to start and search because much time had passed and you come to think that some facts you just happen to have read somewhere in some book but you can find wich one. About Epulo, it was Livy who honoured him.Egyptzo (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the sources about the battle of Grobnik field may be a problem because they are in Croatian and a second article that will be made soon (Battle of Podgorica)is fully described in Croatian. It is quite unlikely that I have forgoten some things because I have heared them many times over and over again. For example, onely about Tutankhamun, I have 4 DvDs and 2 books, so most information I hear over and over again.Egyptzo (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

About the death of Ramesses V. Some scholars and experts that have examined his body believe that he indeed died as a result from a blow by a sharp object that made a large open wound on the left back side on his head. It is believed that the wound was pre mortem because there is a dark red substance around the wound that some experts identify as blood. Given to the fact that he was probably dethroned by his brother Ramesses VI (who later reused his tomb) the circumstances in the royal court around the time of his sudden death seem to support this theory.Egyptzo (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No Egyptzo. Ramesses V died because of smallpox. His burial was delayed until Year 2 of Ramesses VI most likely because there was great political and instability in Egypt when Ramesses VI took the throne. The Libyans were raiding Upper Egypt and the workmen from the Valley of the King's were scared to do any work. (let alone bury a king) Ramesses VI finally expelled the Libyan invaders and only managed to bury Ramesses V in his second year. The wounds to Ramesses V's head may be post-mortem damage. It is true Ramesses VI used Ramesses V's tomb--the cause could be due to Egypt's troubled situation in the late New Kingdom period. Tomb robbing was rife and Ramesses VI may have just decided to make do with his predecessors tomb. Once scholars have also suggested that Tutankhamun died from a blow to the head (ie. murder) but sophisticated CT scans of his body now show that the wound to his head was post-mortem damage. (The skull fragments were not mixed in with the embalming fluids that were placed in Tut's head). Instead, Tut died of infection from a broken leg. He probably fell of a chariot. Leoboudv (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By the Way, I found a source today which partly corroborates what Egyptzo says about the situation after Bela IV was defeated. But it does not mention a battle at Grobnik. Check here: [9] Personally, I think Grobnik was not a notable event. It is not recorded even in a Croatian history book I read. Leoboudv (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the Battle of Grobnik field was not mentioned is because we know very little about it, and there can be an influence of modern politics as well. There were no large centers around the battlefield or literate people that would record such an event. Rijeka was at that time a small unimportant settlement so most people could not record such an event but if went remembered in their memory for centuries. Most of the literate people and monks were living in Slavonia or Dalmatia, not close to Grobnik, so much about what we know about the Mongol invasion comes wrom the writings of Toma Arhiđakon, who lived in Split. This last and final defeat was just one in a serious of defeats that the Mongols were facing in Dalmatia and Kvarner, not being unique, so it was not the onely thing to talk about in that time.

The fact that Ramesses V died from smallpox is just one theory (although the most accepted one) as the scars on his mummy and face previously thought to be from this illness, can be just imbalming resin. The same thing is with Thutmose II, who is thought to have died from a skin desiese or heart calcification, but could very well have died as a result of a deep cut on the side of his neck, which he could have recieved in battle.

While talking about Tutankhamun, it seems rather odd that an 19-year old would simply die from a fall from his charriot, especially because he died in February - winter. The Ancient Egyptians did knew how to cure even infections which some ancient papyruses such as the Edwin Smith Papyrus clearly demonstrate. Anyone interested in the death of Tutankhamun should watch Assassination of king Tut of read Who Killed King Tut?: Using Modern Forensics to Solve a 3300-Year-Old Mystery (with New Data on the Egyptian CT Scan) and his view would change. It is sad that the bones inside his scull were broken before, but loosened during embalming, so that is why we can see them not mixed with the embalming fluids that were placed in Tut's head. The same thing about the fluids and bones was already noticed in the older x-rays, but this scientists had a different opinion. A blow to the back of the head (from a fall or an actual blow), caused the brain to move forward, hitting the front of the skull, breaking small pieces of the bone right above the eyes, but not loosening them. The earlier x-rays also revealed a dense spot at the lower back of the skull that was interpreted as a subdural hematoma that calcified over time and led to death. Even if you exclude the possibility that Tut was struck in the head, he could been poisoned, which is also much more likely than a death from infection.Egyptzo (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't have an article about a battle that isn't mentioned, all articles of any sort need verifiable sources.

Do I gather that you've never been to Luxor/Thebes? February would be a very good time to be out in a chariot, the weather is nice then! Death by infection was and is extremely common.

Once again, any claim needs verifiable sources. Right now I am trying to find any source for the Inarus was crucified bit. Everything I find mentions the fragment of Ctesias in Photius, yet when you actually look at the fragment it clearly says impaled.[10]. Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found how Thucydides says he died -- by impaling. So where does the crucifixion idea come from? Doug Weller (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I have been to Thebes, but according to some scolars, Tutankhamun never moved his capital back to Thebes, but to Memphis where he was crowned. Infection death was sometimes common for poor people not pharaohs(living gods). And when an infection killed those people it was mostly dental, resulting from very bad teeth. Look at the remains of the workers on the pyramids at Giza and you will fing that many had their limbs amputated, and they did not recieve infection because the wound was covered with honey. There was some ancient greek source that sad crucified, but I cant reccon where it come from.Egyptzo (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to know the source for crucified, so we can't say it until one is found. Also, I just put the fact tag back, I don't think you understood it was a request for a reference. Doug Weller (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

You beat me to it. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For Doug

• I should let you know that while I quite knowledgeable in Egyptology, I am not an Admin. So, I'm in the same boat as you. I contribute when I can. If there is a serious issue that you can't handle (like major sockpuppetry, vandalism, crackpottery, etc) you should consult an Admin (like Dbachman, or Moreschi, etc). BTW: You are 8 hours ahead of me in the UK while I on the Pacific coast of North America near Vancouver, Canada. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• This is the type of Vandalism I reverted--on Ay. It is another of A. Arev's ideas to make the Egyptians Armenians. [[11] He tried to do the same to 'Origins of the Hyksos' which you caught. I'll monitor the article to see if Arev returns. Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Did Egyptzo add copyrighted material again: [12] without attributing its source? This is not acceptable. Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep up the good work on watching out for Egyptzo's edits to Inaros and reverting them where necessary. He is certainly persistent!! --Chaleyer61 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tip on comment pages

Sorry, I usually don't split another person's comments and inline my own, I know it makes it a bit harder to follow who says what. Looks like the IP editor fixed it up anyhow. Thanks BTW for the edits and continuing to keep an eye on that article. Have thoughts on overall improvements to make? Wazronk (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Zencyclopedia Userbox

Hi - just thought I'd let you know that I've moved your recent article (Dougweller/Userboxes/Zencyclopedia) to User:Dougweller/Userboxes/Zencyclopedia. This is to move it out of the encyclopaedia domain and into your user area. Hope you're OK with that. Booglamay (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Which explains why it didn't work (not that it's very good, need to get the colours right). Thanks, but what went wrong? I used WP:Userbox Maker --Doug Weller (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Majeston

Might be a good idea to make sure Majeston is informed of the 3RR rule, and an even better idea to document that he was informed of the rule. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Urantia Book. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Majeston (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Says the editor who made it clear he didn't have time to discuss edits on the Talk page, calls other editors vandals, and marks virtually all his edits as minor. However, a look at the history of The Urantia BooK shows an edit by me at 08:22 on the 27th of May, and my previous edit at 18:03 on the 19th of May, so I fail to see how I am getting close to 3RR. --Doug Weller (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant

Thanks for your conscientiousness in striving to combat vandalism. The anonymous user's Ark of the Covenant vandalism from a couple of hours ago is not something to report at AIV now. (Please review the instructions at the top of the AIV report page.) The unsourced additions to Executive Decision do not appear to constitute vandalism, just weak content. I know the user got reported earlier for the Ark edit, but that report was premature because a current round of warnings is needed. AIV is to stop current vandalism, not punish people for vandalism that has already happened. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pin the Tail on the Donkey

I better not continue this on the ANI page or I'll get slapped (again). I especially like the part where someone tagged it wanting an "expert" to review it. It fits, in more ways than one, a bit of dialogue from Duck Soup where Groucho Marx says, "This document is so easy a 4-year-old child could understand it!" Then, in an aside to an advisor, "Go out and find me a 4-year-old child. I can't make head or tail of it!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Grobnik field

This newspaper article is speaking about history myths and reality. Words about Battle of Grobnik field are: "Historians are knowing that this battle is not in any document from that time and because of this agreement is (between historians) that this battle is myth".--Rjecina (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I wish someone could convince Egyptzo of the important of sources, he relies on his memory. I wouldn't dream of starting a new article without sources, but then I enjoy the research and like to be sure that what I am writing about is pretty accurate (one problem is when you start researching you find that things aren't simple and there isn't just one answer).--Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This newspaper is speaking about Croatian president Franjo Tuđman visit on anniversary of battle (750 years). With this I am done because there is very little internet sources which are speaking about "battle".--Rjecina (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(rm irrelevant promotion of Urantia book -- this is fringe, inappropriate here.

Mr. Weller,

The charge The Urantia Book is "fringe" and "inappropriate" is nonsense. The Urantia Book has been published since 1955 and has sold more than 500,000 copies, making it a popular and best selling book through time. It is included in Wikipedia, not as "fringe" material, or in any sense inappropriately. Giving attribution of the source is not "irrelevant promotion." To exclude the source of the reference in question reduces it to an unsupported assertion.

Since The Urantia Book's inclusion in Wikipedia, I have made it an occasional task to check the accuracy of both punctuation and content of the page. Occasionally as my use of Wikipedia may dictate, I find a topic that could benefit from information found only in The Urantia Book. Such is the case here. The vast amount of unprecedented information regarding the historical Jesus in The Urantia Book will only slowly make its way into articles like this one, and unfortunately that advent will not infrequently have to contend with attempts to exclude it from the thought stream of knowledge due to the personal prejudices of individuals.

Your comment and removal of my edit may reflect your personal opinion of The Urantia Book, but does not meet any justifiable standard regarding the information provided by the UB reference and edit. I note you've had a previous run-in with another "Urantia" editor, which makes your swift action here appear all the more personally rather than professionally motivated.

If necessary, I will continue to engage this issue with the appropriate persons. Saitia (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead. I'm not the only editor who finds your edit inappropriate. I suspect I will always have run-ins with POV editors who label things they don't like vandalism, I'm not the only one having problems with that editor. Doug Weller (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is always a problem when a POV editor thinks his edits are NPOV. I am not the only one apparently having problems with this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston (talk • contribs) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're having problems with Saitia? By the way, when are you going to apologise for issuing me with a 3RR warning when I only made one edit a week? Of course, you did get blocked because you yourself broke WP:3RR which was ironic. Meanwhile, fringe is fringe and I'm not the one defining it. I think fringe stuff like the Urantia book should definitely be on Wikipedia, in its own article, but it doesn't belong in Crucifixion as other editors have made clear. Funny neither of you have posted to User:Lima's talk page complaining, why is that? Because of the comment about that editor's great efforts at NPOV -- but as that editor said, the article is about the Crucifixion, it is not about the Urantia Book, which is not a WP:reliable source for crucifixion. Read WP:Coatrack.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion gained from regurgitated or parroted second hand knowledge. You seem to be on some crusade to prevent truth from being known, but that is something you will have to deal with on your own. I am certainly not your enemy, nor is truth, but you might concentrate on what you do know instead of what you think you know. From what I understand Wiki is about improving articles and the promulgation of truthful information, not about trying to perpetuate erroneous biased points of view. I would hope we could come to some common ground together before we take it to a higher level unnecessarily. Just out of curiosity would you explain this edit of yours? It appears to be the first Urantia edit you made. Revision as of 11:51, 5 March 2008 (edit) (undo) Dougweller (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 1 edit by 66.162.25.3 identified as vandalism to last revision by Richiar. (TW)) Majeston (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As for my edit, that was my reverting an attempt to change a passage that mentions "six bestowal incarnations of Jesus" to one that said "six bestowal incarnations of Michael", so my first edit to The Urantia Book was to fix it, a good thing, right? I probably saw that on 'recent changes' -- an IP editor, their first edit, always a warning sign.

As for trying to prevent the truth, or Wikipedia being about the promulgation of truthful information, you (and some other editors) have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's aims. Please read WP:VERIFY which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It goes on to say (under the section about Reliable sources) Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

No disrespect, I don't think that describes any word of scripture or belief. Adding the Urantia book to the Crucifixion article does not add anything to it but a mention of the Urantia book, which I can understand you would like to promote, but it's inappropriate there.

If you do treat editing as a conflict between the truth and people trying to prevent the truth, I think you will continue to have problems. Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the Urantia book is certainly a fringe production. Roger Pearse 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

After looking at the NPOV policy and the comments on the talk page, and indeed the Urantia page itself, I've marked it with the NPOV disputed tag. Frankly the article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Roger Pearse 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Doug, when you made your first edit attributing it to vandalism were you aware of http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p120.htm or aware of http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p121.htm  ? As far as the crucifixion article, I was not promoting anything. I think I made that clear on it's talk page and thought simply a ref would suffice. The Urantia book not only contains an entire account on the crucifixion but it describes in detail the method which no other source does. As far as I am aware, there is no existing remains of any cross of crucifixion anywhere from these distant times and all the information is theory.

Roger, you definitely have a personal problem. LOL but, don't let truth get in the way of your well researched verifiable deep seated opinions. Majeston (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Majeston, I was not aware of those web pages. Why should I be? The article has had that phrase for almost a year, with the exception of the edit I reverted. Maybe it wasn't vandalism, maybe it was confusion, but I checked and that was what the article had said for some time, and an IP edit with no explanation, especially a new IP, should always be checked. I would normally remove vandalism from any article no matter what it was, but I probably would be wise to make an exception here. As for the Urantia book and the crucifixion, the level of detail in it doesn't matter since it isn't sourced on historical documents. Please don't use my talk page to insult others. I've noticed that most good editors get insults, so I don't mind them aimed at me, but not others.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think an in-kind response to such a superficial assessment, "disgrace", of an article that has been edited by well over a hundred competent editors over several years can be termed insulting. In fact I would think the person in question has broadly and without regard insulted quite a few editors in one fell swoop. But, of course, that's only my opinion. Perhaps, you might ask other editors to not come to your talk page and insult the hard work of so many other "good" editors.

As far as I know there are no historical documents nor artifacts of the manner of the crucifixion relating to the way the nails were driven in nor to the support for the body weight. If there are perhaps you will be so kind as to direct me to the evidence. Until such time, I prefer truth over speculation. Majeston (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia isn't about the search for truth, and certainly isn't a place for 'revealed truth', so you have a problem there. And lots of people think they have The Truth, you are no different (except of course for your username which rather proclaims your belief).

Editors can say what they want about content on talk pages (except I guess infringements of BLP, insulting editors personally can get you into trouble. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see I'm banging my head against a brick wall. No problem, I'm done here. Bye Majeston (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fasta (Frisian)

"I see you added category Mythology to this non-existent 'Fasta'"

No worries on the cat change. I'm working the WP:UNCAT mega-list, and for max speed I often end up booting obscure articles into rather general categories for specialists to refine, so I appreciate your help narrowing the cat there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)