User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

question

Sorry for being dense on this. But I can't seem to find the archive to which http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&curid=22747419&diff=331642728&oldid=331601810 this was moved... might you be able to point me to it? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Perfect. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew motion

Hi. I see you archived this; [1] [2]. Putting the motion at:

seems wrong to me; that whole subpage is about the mentor-review and the proper place for the new motion would be:

This would seem to have been FloNight's intent when she skipped this level in the page hierarchy and it would allow the other discussion and the individual votes to be archived on the talk page as was done with the prior motion:

The Jack Merridew one year unban review page should also offer a link to the mentors page.

An even cleaner approach would have the page at:

... with the others tagging along or involve moving the prior motion to:

I made a few tweaks to the motion text adding wiki-links to the prior motion and to the bot account I had already created. I have also posted the new motion on my user page and on my history subpage. I would like this nice and tidy because it's part of my formal record. Thanks. Jack Merridew 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked where it should go - I wanted to put it somewhere but I'm happy to move it, I'll pass your suggestions along. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I looked further and see this, which is giving last year's motion that's been superseded, not this new motion. This is a more verbose version of the entry down in the 2008 section. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Really always best to put this sort of thing on the Clerks page so everyone can see it. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I see; continuing thread there. Thanks. Jack Merridew 21:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Leeman/Queensland University Press

Doug, I saw that you removed a reference to a work by Bernard Leeman from the Queensland Academic Press because of the lack of evidence that such a publisher exists. I agree: there isn't a single applicable Google hit for "Queensland Academic Press" -sheba -leeman. I started removing references to this work from other articles. A user named User:Ntsukunyane Mphanya has gone around adding references to this book in a number of places, both in the text and as a non-footnoted item in the References section. But some of the text additions mention a Kamal Salibi and an "Arabian Judah" theory, and I don't know anything about them or whether they are valid additions, so I'm not going to continue this exercise on my own. But I thought you might be interested in seeking out Wikipedia references to Bernard Leeman or Leeman, Bernard or Queensland Academic Press, or seeing what else Ntsukunyane Mphanya has been up to. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if you've seen the thread Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Kamal Salibi has his own article but I don't know more than that. I am slowly doing as you've suggested. I've found at least two examples of sources not backing the statement being sourced. And some OR. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, wow. Drama and intrigue. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I did find that the book exists and is available, for example, at the Lauinger Library at Georgetown University, and at the Smithsonian. I don't know whether the fact that these collections chose to include this book implies anything about the book's standing as a reliable source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be available at a few libraries that probably buy everything they can find (and may have been fooled by the name of the 'publisher' in any case. It doesn't speak to the use as an RS. I can still only find it cited in a couple of footnotes which themselves include several publications. That's important, it shows it isn't taken seriously and isn't a significant view. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The article has also been nominated for AFD, [3].Teeninvestor (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Re the Miami.. arbcom case

Could you look at these pages? [4], [5]. The comments at Talk:Comparison_of_video_player_software date back to 11 December, they are not recent; the AFD comments are from today, and seem to be more germane to me. In any case, some sort of action from the case's clerk would be helpful. It's never good when participants in a case begin to edit each others' comments. I don't think a block would be worthwhile (or I would have done it); as the clerk, you could set out some ground rules until the case it over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

He already did set out ground rules and told Tothwolf he would be blocked for continuing that behavior. The personal attacks and outing attempt on the video player article were removed several days ago and were re-inserted today. Tothwolf is making new attacks on the AfD. Tothwolf moving the personal attacks from the arbcom evidence page and re-inserting them into the article talk page (which is not what talk pages are for) is restoring a personal attack. Sceptre putting them back is contributing to the personal attack. Miami33139 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence#Personal_attacks_made_while_arbitration_is_underway was after the comments on Talk:Comparison_of_video_player_software from December 11. The comments on the AFD do not appear to be personal attacks to me. But in any case, you should let Dougweller remove any future comments you find inappropriate, rather than removing them yourself, until the arbitration case is closed. I trust Doug's judgment in the matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I've posted on the comparison talk page saying that the page is not an appropriate place to discuss matters that are at ArbCom. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
CBM, dig deeper into the history. The commentary was removed from the article talk page to the arbcom evidence talk page. Moving it back to the article talk page is a new action today. The AfD may not be direct, obvious personal attacks, but are part of the pattern in this case that Tothwolf cannot comment on the issues without also commenting on me and disparaging my motives with untruthful accusations. I do not need to put up with this and do not need to wait for someone else. Further, Sceptre turning it into an edit war to maintain personal attacks is pure contributory harassment. Why am I putting up with this? Why is it even being allowed? Tothwolf should have been banned weeks ago. The arbcom case acts like a shield, allowing him to continue his behavior until they act. Sceptre's contributing behavior is reprehensible. Miami33139 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
As I was saying, I trust Doug's judgment here and am not planning to involve myself further than bringing his attention to the matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Miami33139, it's almost always best to use Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks for this sort of thing in case the specific clerk you post to isn't around. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Doug, You still have not responded or explained how anything I've said could be construed as "outing". [6] [7] [8] [9] Theserialcomma took offense to my comparison of Theserialcomma's remarks to that of an Elvis isn't dead conspiracy theory but that could hardly be considered "outing". If you are going to make such warnings and log them then you need to explain how Theserialcomma's claims [10] [11] [12] [13] are anything other than more of the continued pattern of harassment and trolling. While my Elvis comments were certainly not "friendly", they aren't "uncivil" and certainly aren't "outing", although since Theserialcomma could not claim I was being "uncivil" they seem to have tried the "outing" angle instead. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please bring this back to the workshop talk page, this isn't the right place for this. MBisanz talk 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

question

why did you change 'provocateur' to 'prolteur'[14]]? Theserialcomma (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it, no idea how that happened but my PC crashed shortly after I did those edits. All I was trying to do was move text to the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Kings of Cornwall

You have said that "Early British Kingdoms" is not a reliable source: what would you recommend should used instead? Would printed books referring to saints and kings be generally more reliable? --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Felix. Doug has asked me to consider your question. There have been several discussions about David Nash Ford's Early British Kingdoms site and similar ones, (here, here, and especially here) and the general consensus has been that they are not reliable sources. Among the problems with "EBK" are that the author(s?) does not indicate where material in the articles is coming from. As such material taken from historical sources is syncretized with stuff taken from literature or folklore and presented as if it were all true. I would not say that printed books are inherently any better; as with anything you really have judge whether they're "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Depending on what you're writing about, John Edward Lloyd's History of Wales, John Davies' A History of Wales, and John Koch's Celtic Encyclopedia are good sources, and will include some good stuff on early Cornish history.--Cúchullain t/c 20:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Which Edits Should I Not Be Marking as Minor?

Hello, I got your message. Thanks for the heads- up. Which edits am I making this mistake on? Is adding a new thread to a discussion a minor edit? Is responding to someone's comment on a discussion page minor? It is mostly force of habit since that box is automatically checked. In any case, I apologize if I am not following proper protocol. Cheers. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless most of your edits are copy-edits, I'd advise unchecking the preference for that. None of your examples are minor edits, which is what led me to mention this to you. Don't worry but do change it as it can upset people who automatically assume that a minor edit won't be an addition to an article page or a comment on a talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your endorsement

Thinking about your comments. In principle I like the idea of mentorships, but this year they seem to be getting overused in situations where mentorship isn't appropriate. You've interacted with Logicus longer than I have: have you seen any interaction where he acknowledges his behavior is problematic and shows real interest in adapting to site norms?

If an editor is really disruptive, that editor may occasionally concede a point as they tactically switch to a new argument toward the same tendentious goal. That kind of person burns out mentors without useful progress. If you think this instance would fare better, I'm all ears. Durova386 19:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall any such interactions, and if there were any I think your second paragraph covered them. I agree, I'm sure he would burn out a mentor. I'd support a community ban. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI Reply....`

Re [15]: You have a single word? It's probably a good thing that Leviathan, Talk:Young Earth creationism, Plato, and Talk:Free will are all climate articles. Otherwise one would be strongly pushed towards either "unbelievably stupid and irresponsible", or "unscrupulous dishonest shill". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Or two words, 'blatant lie(s)'. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry

Hello Doug, I've been on something of a mini-hiatus from wikipedia, but just wanted to drop by and wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas. Take care and best in the new year. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why you delete Eurasia (the Thai power metal page)

They are famouse in Thailand but They are not known in world wide so I wrote thier page to support them and let other people in the world know them. Metal band here is great but most of people in Thailand not much support them and thier it's not hae other way to introduce them because Myspace just put out Thailand music charts and if there is no page to introduce them how can people in other country know them and search for them in youtube.

Please help them and other band in these undevelop country around this area by let me write information about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motellaman (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.


In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.


Best, Risker (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

HIV - Cyrus Sullivan

Doug:

I've tried to gently explain to User:Cyrussullivan that the site he's linking to does not conform to WP:BLP(See both our talk pages for our dialogue). His response, on my talk page:

"Manway, in order for a website to be an attack site it must contain malicious software. Did you receive a malicious software notice from that site? You are citing policies about the content of Wikipedia articles, not pages linked to from those articles. Placing a link to a list is not the same as writing a biography about a living person or altering a biography already written. I feel that you are letting your are letting your philosophical objections to the websites fraud policy govern your decision making. You seem more concerned with hurting the website than whether or not the link is relevant to the article. I am going to air on the side of public safety and restore my edit. I can guarantee you that every HIV/AIDS criminal arrest record on that website is accurate and that the list is the most comprehensive list of AIDS criminals that can be found in one place. The fraud policy for user reports is for another section and is completely irrelevant. Do us both a favor and don't waste time by perpetuating a game of back and forth editing."

As you are an administrator, could you please help our friend out? He seems sincere, but misguided. Thanks and Merry Christmas.

ETA: I have a strange feeling he may be a sock of Takashihirohito, who is using the same site in his one edit so far.

Regards, --Manway (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Gave him a final warning (too many ads also on that site). I'll keep an eye on the other account. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you allow the 2-6-2009 revert on early crops in Africa?

Do you no longer believe your comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neolithic#Africa_.26_pdf_on_AMS_dating (Your pdf link does not seem to work at the above link by the way)

This is the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#Africa

Full Shunyata gives no reason for his reverts and his latest footnote contains no source material. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090207025755&target=Full+Shunyata

I'll look at this tonight or tomorrow, busy today. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In Shunta's user talk 2/5/09 in his lowest entry the bottom line he does list a source but it contradicts the early early cultivation dates Shunta gives. P. 70-71 "The Cambridge History of Africa", http://books.google.com/books?id=JAca1F3qG34C&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=Africa,+neolithic&source=web&ots=wWVGAvbwDC&sig=oLsfZADAq2fplcionxe5hXjBgXw&hl=en&ei=V8GKSaSbO9eitge6-eibBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Africa%2C%20neolithic&f=false

I am now thinking the section should begin:

Africa

In the upper Nile Valley Africans begun raising and domesticating crops and cattle about 7,000 years ago....


In sub Saharan Africa the cultivation begins about 80BC


Given that you had said Van Sertima was unreliable the early 15,000 BCE pottery date supported in footnote 7 may be inaccurate as well. 

7^ (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 20)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#Periods_by_pottery_phase

Footnote 8 - African Science in School Curriculum also supporting the same pottery date is based entirely on the oral tradition which naturally would be less likely to preserve well over time than pottery itself. A search on "pottery" leads to the following paragraph:

Alic (1986, p. 15) bases her claims on the assumption that "...evidence from the early scientific work of women can be traced..." from "oral traditions." Alic (1986, p. 15) goes on to say that Neolithic women were often thought to be possessed of magical powers, not only because of their ability to give birth, but also because of their skills in the domestic sciences - manufacturing, pottery, agriculture, the domestication of animals and healing. It was these achievements that early cultures personified in their goddesses.

Sorry to be so slow - thanks very much in bringing this to my attention and I hope the article is a bit better now. And apologies for missing what happened earlier this year. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the article is much improved. Thanks. Finding reliable sources is a lot more time consuming than spotting errors. Merry Christmas.

Can you stop User:Pmanderson's personal attacks?

see here. and here. There are also earlier examples, but this one is over the edge. He has no respect for his fellow editors.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You reported it at elsewhere, that's enough and after a report at the appropriate noticeboard I wouldn't normally get involved directly, and I agree with the comments. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of the Criminal HIV Transmission Section of STD Carriers

I posted a response to the debate regarding the reliability of my list of People Arrested for Criminal HIV/AIDS Transmission Crimes. My argument basically boils down to the fact that I compiled that sub list myself from media research and can vouch for it's accuracy. I also sited sources in the reports linked to from that page. I believe that a link to it belongs in Criminal transmission of HIV because my list is 10 times larger than the list currently on Wikipedia at List of HIV Positive People.

No one has brought up the issue of conflict of interest, but I don't see one since as of now I have a monopoly in the area of comprehensive lists of people arrested for HIV/AIDS transmission crimes. I also never intended to vandalize Wikipedia, if that were the case I probably would have posted dozens of links all over the place.

I also don't recall ever seeing a set limit on the amount of advertising that a page being linked to can have. Please specify a maximum number of ads preferably by type (banner, inline, etc.), maximum number per type, and the maximum of all types combined.

See the debate in Reliable Sources

You also deleted my link in the Jakes Booty Call Article to my collection of Jakes Booty Call games that like the other sites in the external links section contain the same games and include advertising, but are inferior to mine because I provide embed code for webmasters that is compatible with Myspace and other social networking sites.--Cyrussullivan (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

None of this overrides WP:BLP. And if it is your site, as you say, you shouldn't be adding it anyway. I don't think you are trying to vandalise. As for ads, all I can do is point you to WP:EL. We don't have that sort of detail, but it is clearly ad heavy. As this is primarily a BLP issue I'm bringing it up there - I didn't want to as we really try not to encourage issues being brought up at multiple boards, but since you are pushing it... . I'll put a link on your page. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the multiple boards, I am also an efficiency enthusiast. I also agree with you about some parts of the site being ad heavy, but a lot of that comes with the fact that the site is not finished yet and I am testing out different ad networks. This became necessary after Google AdSense terminated my account (a long story, but basically they had approved the site with the issues surrounding the BLP debate, changed their mind later, and after a lot of badgering finally paid me for earned clicks). The Google experience gave me the idea of trying out competing networks and then writing reviews at some point. One thing I do plan on is making the presence of skyscrapers on the bottom half of search grids dependent on row count and in the case of the carrier report profiles dependent on text length in relation to the explanation and other fields combined with the presence of pictures, video and comments.

In the interest of efficiency I will focus my reliability arguments on the section you started about the reliability my website as a source, but first I have some general questions:

1. In the case of Jake's Booty Call you are applying the WP:BLP Policy to a part of the website that has nothing to do with living persons. Like any site with a diverse variety of content (like You Tube that you allow) I don't believe that one section should apply to the site as a whole. My site is segregated into many different areas. For instance my video section features the largest collection of STD videos online (that I know of) compiled from video sharing sites using the source URL of each stream allowing any online flash video to be added. I don't think you will find a larger selection of Herpes and HIV/AIDS videos anywhere. My question is that if You Tube pages can be added as external links and You Tube videos can and frequently contain content that violates WP:BLP why can't my gaming, video, and in the case of Rick Rolling my 9 videos starting at once with a full page ad Rick Roll be added?

2. Surely my Rick Roll is the most annoying of all Rick Rolls. Is it not also relevant to your Annoying, Nuisance, and Abomination articles regardless of what site created it?

3. Joking aside RipOffReport.com and DontDateHimGirl.com as well as the now offline RottenNeighbor.com have articles. My website has received a great deal of publicity including a very misleading and censored story available at CNN.com as well as additional stories from various local news organizations across the country including KVAL 13 in Eugene Oregon, Illinois Home Page, NBC 4 in Columbus, Ohio, CBS 5 in Phoenix, and others. Why not have an article about STDCarriers.com?

In closing I respect as well as like Wikipedia. I use it as a starting point for a lot research that I do. It obviously has a much better arrangement then I do for regulating user created content that can change at any time. If you object to my linking to the STD Videos and Rick Roll pages I apologize. They are there for your convenience and I am well aware that they don't influence page rank. I use “rel no follow” on some of my pages although I prefer to use the AJAX ConfirmButtonExtender for user created links to discourage search engine spamming.

P.S. I believe that without the outer ring of letters and my biohazard symbol in the middle that I may have recently created the most historically inclusive National Symbol/Emblem of France with this image [16]. If it were up to me it would be on Wikipedia already, but I think I already know the answer to the question I want to ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrussullivan (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing Richard Isaac Fine

Thanks for your comments.
On dishonesty - it was possibly an uncool comment, but it was truthful. When a person is charged with a crime, or in this case violation of a code of conduct, there are sections, and they have names to them. When an editor first removes the true name of the code section, and then enters instead words that may have appeared somewhere, but were not the name of any code section, or for that matter any part of any code, that is dishonest.
However, as stated in the discussion page, I had the "moment of clarity" today, when I saw that Montclair Plaza is going to be probably kept as an entry in wikipedia, while any mention of human rights atrocities in Katrina were censored out, and now Richard Fine information is dishonestly changed... There were other similar changes today, so in total the dishonest editing count is four:
(a) The charge claimed by the state bar - which indeed was the grounds for his false disbarment - of "Moral Turpitude" was replaced by words that do not conform to any section of the code;
(b)The fact that he was a former US prosecutor was deleted as insignificant;
(c) The fact that the payments to ALL Los Angeles judges which he uncovered required the convoluted "retroactive immunities" to be issued by enacting a dubious law...was deleted
(d) The fact that in jail he was denied access to pen and paper, so that he could not write, and he could not sign either the habeas corpus or 9th circuit court petition- was deleted.
What could I say - since the Age of Enlightenment and the French Encyclopedists, such projects defined their time and place. There is no doubt that wikipedia defines our times in the USA. Diderot would role in his grave...:) InproperinLA (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the majority of the stuff you mentioned above was "deleted" because it was not supported by reliable, third-party sources. That's all, there's no big conspiracy here, I swear. 98.233.249.17 (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That ANI post

Is it proper for the subject of this ANI post to place a {{resolved}} template in the reply posting before any other admin has gotten a chance to look at it? Just asking because it looked weird (and disruptive) to me. Moogwrench (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, that was a bad idea of his. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I am going on my wikibreak, but before I go I would like to apologize for some of my behaviour, which I regret. When I return, I will not edit the article incubator.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm impressed by the maturity of your decision (and hope that doesn't sound too patronising). Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pre-Siberian American Aborigines

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pre-Siberian American Aborigines. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


FUCK YOU TOO!!!! u all are the same fucking christians!!!! u dont decide my countrys name!!!! This is Turkish Republic of Northern CYPRUS.... FUCK YOU!!!! Now do your fucking job and block me u fucking christian!Sultaniman (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? No, I said I'd block you if you continued attacking other editors - you've got it all wrong. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How nigh is the end exactly?

[17] ;) --Cúchullain t/c 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. A snowball's chance, I'd say, looking at the first votes. He doesn't seem to know what being an Admin even means. I was wondering if you'd noticed it and was thinking about mentioning it to you. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Expanding Earth

I don't contest your revert/removal of advocate Shehu, though as a field geologist, his work is relevant to the article. It wasn't clear to me that the book was self-published. I see that now. About the external links: there exists an extensive array of divergent material at many web sites and much of it carries relevant information not covered in the article. I accompanied the EE entry since its early days and abandoned it because I saw its encyclopedic value being undermined by mainstream science considerations, as it is a discredited theory. I know Wiki guidelines advise against such bias but it is visible in the article. There exists a growing popular resurgence of Expanding Earth theory and it would be good encyclopedic form to inform about it. Opposition to doing so, due to scientific considerations overriding encyclopedic value, conceals an important popular and notable contemporary aspect of Expanding Earth. The additional external links help to inform about it. I understand that too many are not desirable, so perhaps we might consider allowing at least one more, perhaps the best of the three: Expanding Earth Knowledge Co. I will not press the issue but rather leave it to your evident good judgement. MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you read WP:EL? One thing I did was look at Alexa to get some idea of how popular the sites were (Wikipedia always runs the risk of people using it to drive traffic to their sites, popular sites don't need it). Google Books and Scholar also gives you an idea if it's been referenced. Note that we shouldn't include "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies". EEK is either a personal website or a commercial one selling globes, etc. But looking again, the main problem is that even without these 3 there are 4 links all arguing for the hypothesis, which is clearly overkill. And one of them is yours. One of them is to a subscription newsletter, and that should go. So should the self-published pdf. And Neal Adams. I could point out that yours is also a personal website, but the difference is that it is more eclectic, and includes the links I don't think belong on the page. My suggestion is only have your link and try to find one that comments on the hypothesis from a mainstream viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
There's much to tell about this page that I don't have the time to immerse myself into again. The entire page is heavily edited from a mainstream viewpoint which discredits the theory. The external links in support don't really approach striking a necessary balance of unbiased content. If you're at all interested or inclined there are several behind the scenes links on my user page that show this and explain the importance of the Neal Adams video links - and how his notable derivative Growing Earth Theory, which gained a Keep decision in a deletion attempt, Growing Earth Theory deletion-debate:Keep, was later effectively removed by mainstream advocate editors who merged it into Expanding Earth by reducing it to 2 lines. In light of this history and my present time constraints, I prefer to refrain from further editing at this time. Many thanks for taking the time to respond. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sultaniman

Never mind being "the virus of the world", since I have a terrible cold at the moment I feel like the world's given me its virus. :-( Anyway, thanks for dealing with that pest. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not contagious (I hope), but my thanks to you as well. (Taivo (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

RfA again

Hi Doug. It's a year since my RfA and I'm thinking of having another go. Would you want to nom again? (A rather hair-raising process last time, so if not, will understand). Moreschi seems to be away for a couple of weeks otherwise I would ask him too. All the best. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read through the last couple of months of RfAs to see the sorts of questions asked, expectations, etc? Some things have changed in the last year. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Will do that now, thanks Doug. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scandals of Najib Tun Razak

Seeing that you have taken an interest in this article. I would like to bring to your attention a pattern of abuse whereby a serial vandal who continually whitewashes articles, Monkeyassault such as Najib Tun Razak and Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, it would be better for you to look at this discussion topic Talk:Najib_Tun_Razak#Over-protectionism_though_abuse_of_COATRACK.2FWP:BLP_claims. There were no particular instant that this individual made an effort to seek consensus. He continued to whitewash and conduct edit-warring at the Najib Tun Razak article, which let to the article being frozen for a few weeks. The Scandals of Najib Tun Razak article was created in the interim to put all the whitewashed information done by this individual that would later be reinstated in the main article. It would be a better solution to freeze the main article Najib Tun Razak from further edits until consensus has been achieved, provided if you have admin priveleges. Roman888 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I do, but this should be discussed at ANI where I brought it up, not here. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have already put my comments on the ANI topic and would appreciate your kind action. I also would like to bring to your attention a transgression that took place in my talk page whereby the individual mentioned threaten me - User_talk:Roman888#ANI_discussion_about_the_article_you_recently_created Roman888 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has threatened you. When an incident is reported in ANI all parties involved should be notified. Monkeyassault (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits that make you go "huh?"

Maybe you can explain this one to me. Was the Quran ever written in Elizabethan English? That's a new one on me. Actually, maybe this is a recreation of that old Quaker thing, using the antiquated singular pronouns instead of the "uppity" plural ones.

Of course, the reasoning behind the usage in the fundamentalist church I attended as a youth was that the Bible (KJV of course) was written with those old pronouns so they were a part of "God's language." So I don't know what this fellow's thinking. What's your opinion? Auntie E. 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people just think it sounds good. Probably an American (like me). Right now I'm trying to revert a lot of edits adding categories 'American Jew' or 'American Jewish politician', and may go after the cats themselves - see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Tsm2009 (talk · contribs) seems here only to add these categories. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pie

Thank you for the cookies. Have some pie!

JB50000 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for offending your sensibilities

I seem to have also violated WP:POINT, but my antipathy toward prejudice in its very many varied forms is such that I will sometimes use distasteful or offensive language to drive home the point that there is a duty of care for all of us to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or making assumptions upon any large group of diverse people. The terms and colloquialisms I used were deliberately provocative, in that perhaps as little as 50 years ago they were part of common language in many places but are now rightly considered offensive. However, that means I have also possibly offended some readers. I sincerely regret that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. They certainly were common language then, and worse. I marched with Martin Luther King -- those terms are mild compared to the abuse being thrown at us then. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, such is the anonymity of WP. I attended the "Nelson Mandela Birthday Party" in Hyde Park, lived near Southall and worked near Brixton when the riots (which were only racial in that the Metropolitan Police and especially the Special Patrol Group targeted members of ethnic groups that were not white, and provoked the situations in each case) took place.
I am pleased to have met someone who has also taken part in the struggle against ignorance and foolishness. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As one human to another, thank you for marching - we live in a better world today because of you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WVBluefield

If you could share your opinion of the evidence and general impressions at User_talk:WVBluefield#December_2009, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Split article, Fringe migration map, and according to talkpage, perhaps also Copy vio?

Merry Christmas Doug. Ever see this? History of the Hittites --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This I feel comfortable with, I'll do something tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I was not sure what the above meant, so I was keeping an eye out. BTW, by "split" I should have written "fork". It was the odd map that caught my attention, showing Hittites coming from the Caucasus and then moving on to Greece, but also, according to the link noted on the talkpage the basis of this History article is also copied from elsewhere on the internet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion on civility

Hello! I'm looking for an outside opinion on a Wikiquette request raised against me. You were very rational and reasonable last summer when we were dealing with User:Rock5410, and I trust your opinion. I know you will tell me if I'm out of line. So far the only other editor who has commented is someone else involved with the content dispute, and I'd appreciate hearing from someone totally unfamiliar with the background. The question is whether the phrase "forum shopping" is uncivil. If you have a few minutes to add a quick comment, I would greatly appreciate it. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. I appreciate your time. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Don't want to seem intrusive. Just wanted to mention that I actually find WeisheitSuchen a great guy who edits very sensibly most of the times. It's unfortunate that I've had to raise the Wikiquette request. But as much as I can forecast, I think he's one guy I'll recommend in the future to help me edit pages that I am having trouble with. Just a note, if it counts for anything. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It's nice to hear you say that. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Testing

Thank you. KnightLago (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoroaster

I don't mind Hart being removed from articles but from basically a popular culture section I don't see any reason to remove the mentioning of the book. I think the Hart book is more notable than the passing of the name in Bryan Ferry’s ‘Mother of Pearl’ for instance. Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wide or narrow categorization

Hi, you deleted "Category:underwater ruins" and "Category:sunken cities" from Yonaguni Monument. While I agree that the chances of the site being human-modified are slim, the claim exists, and methinks that Wikipedia ought not pass judgement on that. Besides, if categories serve any purpose, it is to help readers find articles *related to* a given topic, not just on things that squarely fit the definition of the topic. In that sense, for example, Venusians and Mayan calendar belongs to the Category:Venus; and Yonaguni Monument and Atlantis belong to Category:Sunken cities, I woudl say. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Categories

I had originally put the people in the cat on ooparts but they really talk about multiple pseudoarch topics so instead of adding them to the all the sub cats I just put them in the main cat. As far as the underwater ruins your right, could go either way. Jmm6f488 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mardyks

I think it's fairly obvious that he's sockpuppeting 2012 phenomenon. He has a record of (ridiculously lame) attempts at sockpuppetry in the past (including referring to himself in the third person and then signing his posts with his own name). I don't particularly want to get into a fight with him again, but I can't figure out how to report a sockpuppet. If you could help I'd be very grateful. Serendipodous 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Has there been something recent? I've got the article on my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ballandean Pyramid

Nice job; I was chipping away at the layers of bullshit, but hadn't got round to researching properly.   pablohablo. 16:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And see File:Ballandean pyramid.jpg, which the editor says he/she created last month, and [18] from 2006. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The place certainly hasn't changed much in 3 years.   pablohablo. 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad on Wikipedia arbitration request

Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Columbus

Why else would 9 and 10 year old girls be in demand? JackNapierX (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are saying that he personally was involved, when there are a number of other options, eg it's just a comment on what money can buy. Have you read WP:OR? We only report what reliable sources have to say, not our own conclusions or interpretations.

Juan Ponce de León y Loayza

Hey Doug, I've gotten into a very minor dispute at Juan Ponce de León y Loayza over whether or not a book by Gavin Menzies can be used as a source for early Spanish colonial history. Do you happen to have any recommendations for the best way to proceed? Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page, which is what I've done. This is pretty clear cut, if the other editor wants to complain at RSN they are welcome to do so but I don't see any wriggle room here. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad editors arbitration

Hi Doug: Thanks for contacting me. I have responded to you on my talk page [19]. Thanks for your guidance, IZAK (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt

Hi, could you please protect this article? CUSH 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but until it starts getting vandalised daily our policy says don't protect. It's well watched in any case. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work on Nazca lines

I agree with you on the problem with using fringe authors that most of them only use the data that supports their conclusions. Like saying that pyramids are laid out to map stars. I have always liked fringe theories not because I believe any of them but because they are sort of like my fiction. I was basically writing you to let you know I'm not some nut bar that thinks ancient civs had alien technology or some such nonsense. I do agree though that I think the category of alternative theories is misnamed because it place these theories on a par with scientific anthropology. Would a subtitle change be a good idea? Jmm6f488 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We call them section headings. It's not too bad, I'd prefer hypotheses. The real problem with the article is that it's just poor, it should say a lot about what Aveni thinks. I admit I looked at your contributions and saw no reason to think you were a nutbar. :-) Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tom Van Flandern

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tom Van Flandern. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Van Flandern (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

If you or Nev1 aren't able even to argue at discussion sections, then remove all my changes which I made at:

1) Battle of the Persian Gate (before vs. after my edits)
2) Ariobarzan (discussion and article changes by my IP address 93.143.xxx)

Why double standards?

I've promised to Georgewilliamherbert that I won't made any changes on main articles, but only at discussion sections, and then you and Nev1 started to delete all my relevant discussions, which pissed me off. So, or leave my discussions alone, or delete all my contributions which I made.

By the way, note I'm not Paradoxic, and I won't made any change at main articles so it's irrelevant if you'll block this IP or not. Bye. Orijentolog or --93.142.183.46 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Algeria and other articles

Hi Doug, you blocked User:ALGERIA BERBER for disruptive editing on Algeria and Languages of Algeria, for which I thank you. I had noted on their talkpage that IP 70.81.111.239 looked like the same kind of duck, and you blocked them (temporarily) as well. Now a new account, User:Aindrox, is making almost all (except for the 20% change) of the same edits on the same articles. Can you have a look and tell me if I should undertake any kind of action? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, suffering from flu. Let's see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

i guess you would have had him burned at the stake for asking or even thinking any sort of question against peer review or what is accepted? strange how wikis article on Galileo Galilei makes it sound like those who were defending the mainstream view of the time, were bad people who tried to suppress his new, correct ideas... funny how it all goes in circles

non biased, non political - yeah of course —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badastronomy (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia isn't here for you to promote your websites or your electric universe concept. Have you even read WP:RS?

The user's name you asked about

Assuming that the user about whose name you inquired won't get back to you: it appears to be a personal name followed by what Google Translator makes out to be transcribed Arabic for "Jews and what is not sense". —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, given their edit "Yet the Zionist still want to all of them taht can be suspected as The Ten Lost Tribes Of Israel." if they continue like that with that user name I'll block them.Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Scotias Grave and Pharoahs Daughter.

You commented some time ago on an old Irish Belief.

I have done some further researsh, and included references!


.....CONTENTS 1. Introduction and update by Michael O’Carroll 2. Comments from Wikipedia 3. Ordinance Survey Map Showing Scotias Grave 4. Extracts from “The General History of Ireland” by Jeoffry Keating DD 5. Extracts from “The Annals of the Four Masters” 6. Extracts from Barrington’s “Discovering Kerry”



1. INTRODUCTION BY MICHAEL O’CARROLL STATING CURRENT POSITION Scotia, Scota, Scotia’s Glen and Scotia’s Grave have intrigued me since I learned of the connection with the Egyptian Pharaohs. As a child growing up I heard several references to the “Pharaoh’s Daughter” in songs and ballads, but it all went over my head; until I find myself living in the area of Tralee Bay, near where Scotia is reputed to be buried. Natural curiosity, history books at hand and the availability of the internet has allowed me to do some research but I am now more confused than when I started; even in the more academic works there appear to be contradictions, so in short, what can now be said is that there may have been two Scotias whose fathers may have been any of four Egyptian Pharaohs. Some facts and conventions first; Due to antiquity the spelling of “Scotia”, may also be spelt “Scota” – both are acceptable. The Irish Ordinance Survey Map has marked Scotia’s Grave. Scotia’s Grave lies in a ravine near the Clahane mountain road, the “R5XX”, connecting Tralee to Castlemaine. Scotia’s Glen is referenced in The Kerry Magazine : No. 17 / 2007. There are many references to Scota in Scottish folklore/history

Pope Leo X. (1513 - 1521). Decreed that the use of the name Scotia be confined to referencing land that is now Scotland. Ref: http://www.reformation.org/scotia.html Benedict's Fitzpatrick's Ireland and the Foundations of Europe, pp. 376-379:

Lebor Gabála Érenn

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/lebor5.html

Extracts from the Book of Invasiona When the sons of Mil reached their landing-place they made no delay until they reached Sliab Mis; and the battle of Sliab Mis was fought between them and the Tuatha De Danann, and the victory was with the sons of Mil. Many of the Tuatha De Dannan were killed in that battle. It is there that Fas wife of Un son of Uicce fell, from whom is named Glen Faise. Scota wife of Mil fell in the same valley; from her is named " Scota's Grave", between Sliab Mis and the sea. The sons of Mil went afterwards to Tailltiu, and another battle was fought between them and the Tuatha De Danann there. Vehemently and whole-heatedly was it fought, for they were from morning to evening contending, bonehewing , and mutilating one another; till the three kings and the three queens of Ireland fell there- Mac Cecht by Eremon, Mac Cuill by Eber Finn, Mac Greine by Amergin, Eriu by Suyirge, Banba by Caicer, and Fodla by Etan. Those were the deaths of their chiefs and princes. After that the Tuatha De Danann were routed to the sea and the sons of Mil and their host were a long time following the rout. There fell, however two noble chiefs of the people of the sons of Mil in inflicting the rout, namely, Fuad in Sliab Fuait, and Cualgne in Sliab Cualgne, together with other warriors besides, who fell together on both sides. When the Tuatha De Danann were crushed and expelled in the battles that were fought between them, the sons of Mil took the lordship of Ireland. 2. COMMENTS FROM WIKIPEDIA 6 Neferhotep I There is absolutely no relationship between a king of Ancient Egypt and Scotland/Ireland. Neferhotep I ruled deep in the 18th century BC in Egypt when there was No possibility of contact between Egypt with Scotland. The furthest distance any Ancient Egyptian objects travelled in the Ancient World was to Morocco (where one or two objects naming Apophis were found) or Turkey---certainly not Ireland or Scotland which is separated from mainland Europe. You are not talking about the Medieval period when the Knights Templar and Richard the Lionheart travelled to the Holy Land in the 12/13th century AD. No serious Egyptologist, would dream of making such a claim. This is WP:FRINGE. I would add that your article on Scotia's Grave is unsourced and unverifiable. Leoboudv (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Neferhotep I, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopaedia. Thank you. I see another editor has already commented on this. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Scotia's Grave. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Hi, please don't keep adding stuff to this article unless you have citations to go along with your edits. There is no evidence for a grave there, so although the title can call it a grave, in the article we can't talk about a grave as though there really was one there. The bit about the culverts is interesting but not sourced, and the stuff about Irish mythology needs specific sources which I will probably provide this week. Doug Weller (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

3. ORDINANCE SURVEY MAP SHOWING SCOTIAS GRAVE Extract from Irish Ordinance Map – Colour. Scale: 1/2inch to 1mile. Map No. 21/1985. Approximate latitude and longitude – to be confirmed by local GPS; Lat 52º 14’ 09’’ Long 009º 42’ 25”

4. Extracts from “The General History of Ireland” by Jeoffry Keating DD

Volume 1 Christie Edition of 1809

SCOTIA Pg 104

Gaodhal or Gaelas….

This prince the virtuous Scota bore

From the bright lustre of the arms he wore Called Gaodhal glas

Pg 105 From this Gaodhal glas, or Gadelas, the Gadel1ans derive their name; and the Irish, from him, are called Clana Gaodhal.. Upon this account, an ancient poet has these lines; From Gadelas the Irish had their name, The Scots from Scota, Feine from Fenius

Some of the Irish chronicles assert, that the reason why Scota, the mother of Gadelas, was so called, was, because the father of Gadelas was descended from the Scythian race, amongst whom it was a custom to call the women after their husbands name.

It is to be observed, that this princess was a different person from that Scota, who was the wife of Golamh, afterwards called Milesius, King of Spain, by whom he had six sons; for the father of Scota, the mother of Gadelas was Pharaoh Cingcris, king of Egypt, who perused the children of Israel, as they fled from slavery, and perished in the Red Sea with all his army: but the father of that Scota, who was the wife of Milesius, King of Spain, was the fifteenth king of Egypt in succession from the Pharaoh above mentioned, and distinguished by the name Pharaoh Nectonebus.

Pg 107.

Gadelas, after the decease of his father, took upon him the command, an admitted is mother Scota into a share of the government, and they reigned together with great wisdom and unanimity.

Pg 108

The successor of Pharaoh Cingcris, who perished in the Red Sea with his whole army, was Pharaoh an Tuir

Pg 109

Keating quotes Walshingham, in his book called “Hypodigma”…”The Egyptians being overwhelmed by the Red Sea, those that remained drove out a Scythian prince, who resided among them., least he should take advantage of the weakness of the government and make an attempt upon the crown. When he was expelled from the country with all his followers he came to Spain, where he and his people lived many years and became numerous, and from thence they came to Ireland.

GADELAS was the son of SCOTA, the daughter of Pharaoh Cingcris, King of Egypt



5. Extracts from “The Annals of the Four Masters” Ref: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005A/ M3500.1 The fleet of the sone of Milidh came to Ireland at the end of this year, to take it from the Tuatha De Dananns; and they fought the battle of Sliabh Mis with them on the third day after landing. In this battle fell Scota, the daughter of Pharaoh, wife of Milidh; and the grave of Scota is to be seen between Sliabh Mis and the sea. Therein also fell Fas, the wife of Un, son of Uige, from whom is named Gleann Faisi. After this the sons of Milidh fought a battle at Tailtinn, against the three kinge of the Tuatha De Dananns, Mac Cuill, Mac Ceacht, and Mac Greine. The battle lasted for a long time, until Mac Ceacht fell by Eiremhon, Mac Cuill by Eimhear, and Mac Greine by Amhergin.

M891.14 Flann, son of Lonan, the Virgil of the race of Scota, chief poet of all the Gaeidhil, the best poet that was in Ireland in his time, was secretly murdered by the sons of Corrbuidhe (who were of the Ui Fothaith), at Loch Dachaech, in Deisi Mumhan.

6. Extracts from Barrington’s “Discovering Kerry” Scota – Index references Pages; 15, 225 & 237.


EXTRACT FROM; “Discovering Kerry” by T.J. Barrington, Blackwater Press, Dublin 1976 ISBN 0 907471 00 8 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum

Chapter l, Legends and Folk Tales. Legends (l) The Invasions (Pg 15)

The last invaders were the Gaels (or Goidels from the Welsh word for Irishman). They were reputed to have moved east from Egypt and to have taken Spain. There they built a tower to protect the land. From it one fine winter’s evening Ith saw Ireland. (In Galicia still there is a belief that from the top of an old Roman lighthouse one can, on a clear day, see Ireland.) With three ships he sailed there and landed in south Kerry. He spent some time in the peninsula and then made his way north to meet the three Tuatha De Danaan kings of Ireland, Mac Cuill, Mac Cecht and Mac Greine. He rashly praised the country and they, fearing he would come back with force to take it, pursued him to his ships. He was wounded in an ambush while he and his party embarked and died on the way back to Spain. This provoked his people to avenge him. In the year 1700 BC thirty ship-loads of them set sail. They included eight sons of Milesius, (Miles Espane, Spanish soldier) who had recently died. His widow Scota (which means, simply, Irishwoman) and the mother of six of the sons, sailed with them. Hence the invaders came to be called Milesians. They first saw land at Wexford but were driven off by Tuatha De Danaan magic. As they sailed westward, Erannan, the youngest of the sons, climbed the mast first to see Ireland, but fell and was drowned. Scene, the wife of the poet son Amergin, died within sight of land in the Kenmare River. Ir, a third son, was rowing so hard that his oar broke and he fell back in to the boat, died the following day, and was buried on the saddle of the Skellig where, until recently it is said, a dolmen stood. They landed near Waterville on Thursday, 1st May. As he put his foot on Ireland Amergin composed a famous incantation in which, like Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita, he claims to subsume all being within himself. Then, a poem on the abundance of fish in the place. Erannan was buried near Kildreelig. Ballinskelligs, and Scene, reputedly, at Eightercua above Waterville.

The alignments of four stones at each of these places is supposed to mark the graves. Amergin said the estuary should always be called after her, Inber Scene. (However, some unromantic people say that Inber Scene is only the estuary of the Shannon.) Three days later they were on Slieve Mish, near Tralee, and there Banba, wife of one of the three kings of the Tuatha De Danaan, confronted them. After much magic, a battle was fought in which Scota was killed. She was buried in Glanaskagheen in the mountains and her reputed grave is to be seen. Another of the wives, Fas, was also killed and buried in Glenfash and the little christian church of Killeton is supposed to be built on her grave. The invaders won this battle, made for Tara and demanded either battle or the sovereignty of Ireland. It was represented to them that they had not given due notice of their intention — a point Amergin concurred in notwithstanding the soldierly impatience of one of the joint leaders, Donn. However, they agreed to re-embark at Waterville and withdraw ‘nine waves’. When they stood out to sea a great, magic storm blew up and drove them west. At length Amergin calmed the storm and they returned to the estuary. Here the ship of the joint leader, Donn, was wrecked on Bull Rock and Donn and his shipload were drowned. They were buried on the rock which came to be called Teach Duinn (Donn’s House), a synonym for the other world. At length, three of the sons of Milesius, including Amergin, landed again at Waterville. Here Luigdeach, son of Ith, was bathing naked in Lough Currane (or Lough Luigdeach) and his wife Fial was also bathing naked in the little river that runs from the lake. Husband and wife unexpectedly confronted each other and Fial died at once of shame.

Extract from Barrington Page 225 Scotia. (III) TRALEE CASTLEMAINE — MILLTOWN — KILLORGLIN — CROMANE

Take the road due south of Tralee over the mountains towards Castlemaine to Glanaskagheen, Scotia’s Glen (II. 84. 110. b). Near the summit there are fine views north over Tralee. Just below the last house on the right near the head of the glen and across the stream is a deeper part of the glen. Here is a huge slab carved with innumerable names. It is said to mark the grave of Queen Scotia. She was the widow of Milesius and daughter of the Pharaoh. There are two accounts of her death. One is that she was killed in the great battle of Sliabh Mis nearby between the Tuatha De Danaan and the invading Milesians, fought in the year 1695 BC. The other is that she used jump across this glen until one day, being pregnant, she fell and was killed.

Above the glen the road becomes pretty rough, but passable. As one begins to descend on the far side one has splendid views to the south. After a steep fall turn right at the cross roads along a narrow road for about two and three-quarter miles and turn sharp left at Boolteens (IL 81. 105. c). Follow this road for one and one-quarter miles. Then, on the right, there is a national monuments sign for the Ardcanaght stones (II. 82. 103. b).

They require a walk of a half-mile along a boithrin, through a farmyard and, bearing left, over a stile into a field. There are fragments of ogam stones that may not be genuine. Of greater interest is another stone in the group covered with cup markings and other scribings. Extract from Barrington Page 237 Places Part 3. - Scotia This little church is in the parish of Kilgobban. Gobban and Elton were, with Sedna, sons of Erc married to Mor, supposed sister of St David of Wales. She lived at Ailtraighe Cliach (Knockannish, across Tralee Bay). David’s mother was Irish and he was a major influence on the early Irish church. David died about the middle of the 6th century. All three nephews settled and died in Kinsale, and Elton, victim of a succession of diminutives and of Anglicisation came bto be known as St. Multose. The church is built on a curbed mound, traditionally the grave of Fas, wife of one of the Milesian leaders. She was killed in the great battle of Sliabh Mis in which her mother- in-law, Scotia, was also killed. This is another example of a christian site being associated with a pagan one. The glen here is called Glenfash, (III. 72. 110) after her. Scotia’s Glen, Glanaskagheen, is a few miles to the east, in Trughanacmy, near Tralee.

West, in the farmyard beside the bungalow on the main roadside is a supposed ceallunach and cross pillar. Neither is correct, but there are ruined clochans there. Along the low land here, right back to Tralee, was in the 16th century Derrymore, the great oak wood. Extract from Barrington Pg. 225 Scotia. (III) TRALEE CASTLEMAINE — MILLTOWN — KILLORGLIN — CROMANE

Take the road due south of Tralee over the mountains towards Castlemaine to Glanaskagheen, Scotia’s Glen (II. 84. 110. b). Near the summit there are fine views north over Tralee. Just below the last house on the right near the head of the glen and across the stream is a deeper part of the glen. Here is a huge slab carved with innumerable names. It is said to mark the grave of Queen Scotia. She was the widow of Milesius and daughter of the Pharaoh. There are two accounts of her death. One is that she was killed in the great battle of Sliabh Mis nearby between the Tuatha De Danaan and the invading Milesians, fought in the year 1695 BC. The other is that she used jump across this glen until one day, being pregnant, she fell and was killed.

Above the glen the road becomes pretty rough, but passable. As one begins to descend on the far side one has splendid views to the south. After a steep fall turn right at the cross roads along a narrow road for about two and three-quarter miles and turn sharp left at Boolteens (IL 81. 105. c). Follow this road for one and one-quarter miles. Then, on the right, there is a national monuments sign for the Ardcanaght stones (II. 82. 103. b).

They require a walk of a half-mile along a boithrin, through a farmyard and, bearing left, over a stile into a field. There are fragments of ogam stones that may not be genuine. Of greater interest is another stone in the group covered with cup markings and other scribings. Page 237 Places Part 3. This little church is in the parish of Kilgobban. Gobban and Elton were, with Sedna, sons of Erc married to Mor, supposed sister of St David of Wales. She lived at Ailtraighe Cliach (Knockannish, across Tralee Bay). David’s mother was Irish and he was a major influence on the early Irish church. David died about the middle of the 6th century. All three nephews settled and died in Kinsale, and Elton, victim of a succession of diminutives and of Anglicisation came bto be known as St. Multose. The church is built on a curbed mound, traditionally the grave of Fas, wife of one of the Milesian leaders. She was killed in the great battle of Sliabh Mis in which her mother- in-law, Scotia, was also killed. This is another example of a christian site being associated with a pagan one. The glen here is called Glenfash, (III. 72. 110) after her. Scotia’s Glen, Glanaskagheen, is a few miles to the east, in Trughanacmy, near Tralee.

West, in the farmyard beside the bungalow on the main roadside is a supposed ceallunach and cross pillar. Neither is correct, but there are ruined clochans there. Along the low land here, right back to Tralee, was in the 16th century Derrymore, the great oak wood. About T.J. Barrington, Author of “Discovering Kerry” T.J. Barrington was born in Dublin in 1916, and graduated in economics and history from University College, Dublin. After some years in business and as a senior civil servant, he became, in 1960, the first Director of the Institute of Public Administration in Dublin. He is an executive or a council member of a number of bodies in Ireland and abroad concerned with public affairs, and has lectured extensively on these matters in a number of countries.

He is much preoccupied with the Third World and has travelled widely, especially in Africa. He is the author of a book on decentralising government, and of a pamphlet on interviewing.

He lives in Enniskerry, Co Wicklow. His love affair with Kerry began in 1933 and this book has been a-writing since 1962. He and his family have for many years spent their holidays in Kerry and now have a second home there, near Castlecove.

Regards, MOC MOC 21:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenitharbour (talk • contribs)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheng Ch'eng-kung

Thanks--Cheng Ch'eng-kung (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing edits of Jennifer500

When you removed the comment of Jennifer500 at the AfD for Faye Marsh you left a response to their sumbission with no context. Far better, on discussion pages, to strike rather than remove these comments. I42 (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

From your edit here, I think you have confused a block with a ban. Jennifer500 is blocked, not banned. I42 (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
OTOH, I see you are an admin and probably know about this better than I. (Whoops!) Has a ban effectively followed from the block? I did not think it had. I42 (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It is user:John254 who was banned (and then blocked indefinitely). Thus any of that editor's socks also fall under the ban. I didn't remove the comment by DGG because it related to his !vote, although maybe I should have. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes; I see now. Thanks for the clarification. And apologies for wading in like I did there! I42 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You've done nothing that needs an apology. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

In re Routerone: I appreciate your call.--John Foxe (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Good faith creation of user pages

I have no doubt at all that you are doing this in good faith, but I don't think it's a good idea. I raised the issue elsewhere to find out if I was alone, please see [20]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was already aware of that specific Wikipedia guideline concerning user pages when I started doing this a while back. Since I've done this so many times that I've lost count and I've never had any complaints from the users themselves, I still think it is a good idea.  ;) --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea. The red user page is a good marker for a new user that recentChanges patrollers look for. Please stop. –xenotalk 16:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Total agreement with Xeno. A red userpage (or user talk page) is something I look for whenever I'm looking over my watchlist, and I'll look at diffs more closely for redlinked editors than a name I recognize (or is just in blue). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Terra, Australis, Ignota, and Incognita

Thanks for your intervention! See this section I have just added at Talk:Australia.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Jack Merridew motion

Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf and Theserialcomma again

Theserialcomma is unhappy with Tothwolf'w departure message, and tried to remove it, possibly in violation of WP:TALK. Tothwolf reverted (next diff). I think some sort of page protection may be needed here, given that Tothwolf is retired. Pcap ping 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma is already "topic banned" from my userspace and should not even be editing there. I suppose I'll just monitor my watchlist for awhile longer. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
i've posted on the clerks noticeboard about this [[21]]. i do not want to be mentioned (via false allegations) in tothwolf's soapboxy and uncivil retirement message. also, i am not topic banned from tothwolf's user space. he just made that up. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Another clerks has responded there and I agree with the response. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

John Morris

Hi Doug

You just reverted my Anglo-Saxon England edit citing John Morris, Dark Age Dates as the was too old.

However, his was the definitive work on this subject and historians are still citing his work. A few more recent publications that cite his work:

Sussex archaeological collections, Volume 132‎ - Page 118 (1986), The end of Roman Britain. Jones‎ - Page 47 (1998), Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex‎ - Page 310 (1983), The historic King Arthur: authenticating the Celtic hero of post-Roman Britain. Reno‎ - Page 81 (1996), After Empire: Towards an Ethnology of Europe's Barbarians‎ - (2003), or a current website via google http://www.hereticemperor.co.uk/VMP/Book%204/Chapter%2016/1DAgeDates.html#DAgeDates3

I could go on. The fact is his work still stands, what he did was to take some dates from Gildas that could be verified from other known reliable sources and Gildas was out by 20 years, so he speculated that all of Gildas dates were out by 20 years. To my knowledge nobody else has done any work in this area since. So rather than quote a secondary more recent source, I would like to restore the original Morris.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfridselsey (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Doug

Checked out the website and they cite a more recent publication by Morris (The Age of Arthur) latest edition 2004, and it has a table of dates pp.512 - 517 and again it suggests the dates were earlier by 20 years. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He died in 1977. If I read the article correctly, he's being used for something about genetics? Reno thinks there was a real Arthur, Higham's book on Gildas doesn't mention Morris - this is The English Conquest, Gildas and Britain in the fifth century - are you saying no one has done any work in this area? Snyder's The Age of Tyrants doesn't mention Morris. Jones is referring to Morris's concept of "living memory". The web site is someone's self-published work, so irrelevant. We should be using modern writers, eg Jones, Snyder, Thompson etc. And this should be on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hum you're right the website was a mistake. The genetic stuff was something else entirely, some research done by the University of Reading on Y-chromosome variation, they were able to work out the number of Anglo-Saxons who migrated to Britain and the intermarriage rates. That was published in 2006. It is quite interesting as it supports mass migration into Britain as opposed to what was modern thinking that it was just an elite band of raiders that arrived.

No Morris simply compared known dates with what Gildas had recorded and was able to identify some that were verifiable and they were wrong. The book I have was reprinted in 2004 I notice that the original publication was '73.

I know that he had some criticism about his methodolgy on a lot of his work, but not in this case. I am not saying that there has not been any work by others in this area, I just said that Morris did the first serious work on dating, this was one essay on the one subject, I have not seen anything else on that scale, just a mention that Gildas was suspect and usually a reference to Morris. The sentence in the article was Bede dates the Coming of the Saxons to 446 AD; but this is now doubted., it had a citation request next to it, so as I said Morris is the definitive work in this area, so I used him. I guess that is it you want a recent citation, I would prefer Morris. If there is a contrary view to Morris, I would also like that up as well. The way the references are set up make it somewhat difficult to explain citations in any way. I think that it would be better if there was a Notes Section as well as a Reference. Now I guess that should be on the Talk page? BTW -I notice that Stenton is also given as a reference in the same article, his book was first published in '43.

I know Reno's views are some what strange. I did not say I agreed with him, just that he had used Morris as a reference.

Regards

Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work. You should read the Nick Higham book I mention, although it hasn't been met with unanimous agreement, it's all about the issue. I appreciate your trying to provide a citation. The genetics is cited by Mark Thomas's work I see. But again, Morris has been superceded by a lot of people, eg Ken Dark. But this should all be on the talk page so others can take part. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, the article does need some work to clean it up,of nine references given in the article, one is a dead link, two are selfpublished work and one is to a letter page (it is to the Brit Archaeology site letter page I suppose!). Good to see a universally high standard of references? I would like to clean this up and seperate the citations into References and Notes (the Notes section is useful for explaining a citation as you know) however if you continue reverting everything I do it seems a rather pointless exercise. Are you happy for me to go ahead with this? Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks

[22] Trum5770 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

which edit in particular was incompatible with the neutral point of view policy? in my extremely biased POV, matter and energy are two forms of the same stuff(it's proven in the first chapter of the Torah), and the views of the strong are more unbiased than the views of the weak. is that going to be a problem on Wikipedia? If it makes the good sysops and unbiased political activists on this site any happier, I can begin to self-censor. hope this wasn't too offensive, I've met people who've done time for writing emails about the directorate of operations and its neutral point of view(and obsession with electronic intelligence) during the 1990s. Trum5770 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Kindly look up Robert_Baer if the last message didn't make sense.
The main problem was creating a talk page where there was no article, as I recall because you were unhappy with some wording. I agree that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing, but not your 2nd argument. I think you misunderstand what we mean by NPOV, read WP:NPOV, and raise any issues you have on the actual talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes and references

Hi Doug

I have reorganised the 'Notes and references' section on 'History of Anglo-Saxon England' as promised. I have also included a modern Higham reference just for you! I will try and help to tidy the article up as I have time.

Regards

Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

Hi Dougweller,

I have no experience with arbitration, so I'm not sure how and when to proceed. Since the case was opened against me, am I supposed to respond to the complaints now, or wait for the arbitrators to ask questions. If I can or am supposed to respond, where do I post my responses? If I have complaints on other involved editors, where do I post them? Many thanks, Shlomke (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I will soon look at the two links you gave me. Should I be responding to my diff's IZAK posted too, or is that just for the Arbcom to look at and make their own decisions. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Respond to anything you feel needs responding to to give your view/interpreation. Arbs will of course look at diffs and decide for themselves. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, I found Hersfold/ArbGouide to be very useful. I've posted a response at the project. If you notice anything wrong that needs correction, please let me know. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Need some advice. There has been a great amount of dispute on the talk pages of Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies regarding what constitutes a "Chabad controversy". I would like to ask the arbs to set guidelines for this. Is this something they handle, and if yes, where (in the workshop) would I post this? Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if they didn't do this, but I'll check. You probably should be posting these questions to the Clerks noticeboard actually in case I'm not around. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please have a look at my proposed finding of fact at User:Shlomke/drafts and tell me if this is what you mean the arbs are looking for, as well as if anything needs explaining, corrections etc.. If this is not what they want, please clarify what it is. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please block new sockpuppet of banned user Orijentolog

His new IP: 93.142.157.65 -- Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Another one: 93.143.59.88 -- Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that he just posts a couple of times and stops. So long as he's doing that, blocking won't help. Just revert him. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's another: 93.142.145.206 -- I thought admins could block his IP range? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Too much collateral damage. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
So I'll just have to deal with this into perpetuity? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Orijentolog's IP moves over too large a range. Taking the most dissimilar IP addresses above, over 130,000 addresses would be blocked (the calculator is here. Now, not every IP address in that range will have someone making constructive edits, or even editing at all, but MediaWiki software doesn't allow for than many addresses to be blocked. The only course of action I can see here is WP:RBI. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles that get hit repeatedly by him could possibly be semi-protected for short periods of time. Otherwise, Nev1 is right. Maybe even the template's a bad idea and worse, waste of your time. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Understood. 1) How is it possible to get a page semi-protected? Can that only be done by an admin? 2) (S)He is starting to add more constructive edits but at the same time this individual is a banned editor and previously left on my talk page an incomprehensibly bigoted (even genocidal) comment. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Missed this. Only by an Admin, and only if it's getting frequent, ie daily, vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Egypt

I took the "bold" step of reverting back to January 12th version. If I did wrong, feel free to rollback my reversion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That was correct. Although I'm afraid I can't grant him GF, if he was a GF editor he should never have made his second revert, BRD is not BRR. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw on another talk page that he said he would have admins look into his situation. They did, and now he's indef'd. I guess he showed them, eh? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Atlantis theory - Cyprus

Hi Doug, I've provided a citation from the world's foremost expert on the eastern Mediterranean (Dr. Hall) on the discussion page. It shows that what is currently listed as criticism about the Cyprus theory is no more than an assumption, and yet it is being listed as final scientific proof. Truth is that no one truly understands the highly complex nature of the eastern Mediterranean geophysics and any attempts to provide sweeping assumptions as scientific facts is no more than quackery. Please let me know how to proceed on this as the use of assumptions to provide final "facts" is against Wiki policy, is not neutral, and makes a mockery of this site. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for comments. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. According to Wiki policy ("Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.) the following sources must be listed as other scientists with opposing views, namely, that the eastern Mediterranean was/is itself a "sunken continent," which negates the core sample results, particularly since these core samples are not even from the Cyprus Arc itself but rather from unrelated locations.

Malovitsky, Y.P., Emelyanov, E.M., Kazakov, O.V., Moskalenki, V.N., Osipov, Shimkus, K.M., and Chumakov, I.S., 1975. Geological Structure of the Mediterranean Seafloor, Mar. Geol., 18(4), p. 231-261

Krasheninnikov, V. A., Hall, J. K., Hirsch, F., Benjamini, C. & Flexer, A. (Eds.) (2005) Geological framework of the Levant, Volume I: Cyprus and Syria. Historical Productions-Hall, Jerusalem, Israel.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First, the quote does not come from a paper in Krasheninnikov et al. (2005). Rather, the quote is from the paper, Hall (2005), which is part of Volume 2, Geological framework of the Levant, Volume II: the Levantine Basin and Israel, of this 2 volume set.
Second, I have a copy of Hall (2005). There is nothing in this paper that supports the claim "that no one truly understands the highly complex nature of the eastern Mediterranean geophysics and any attempts to provide sweeping assumptions as scientific facts is no more than quackery," The paper, which Profsherman cites as support for the above claims, is nothing more an introduction to a book composed a number of articles about the geology of the Levantine Basin. As an introduction, it contains a brief historical overview of past research concerning the geology of the conducted in the Levantine Basin that discusses the historical development of geophysical and geological research in the Eastern Mediterranean. As a result, it briefly notes the development of geophysical techniques and research, including early and now antiquated and obsolete, pre-plate tectonics, research by Malovitsky's (Malovitskiy's) "sunken continent," in the Eastern Mediterranean. It even notes in passing Sarmast's book about Atlantis as part of the historical record. There is nothing in this paper that supports the claim that "criticism about the Cyprus theory is no more than an assumption". In fact, it is readily quite apparent from reading this paper and other papers in the book in which this paper occurs, that Dr. Hall would completely disagree with Mr. Profsherman's claim "that no one truly understands the highly complex nature of the eastern Mediterranean geophysics and any attempts to provide sweeping assumptions as scientific facts is no more than quackery."
It is true that Hall (2005) is a reliable, published source. However, Mr. Profsherman's is completely wrong about this paper containing anything that supports his position "that no one truly understands the highly complex nature of the eastern Mediterranean geophysics and any attempts to provide sweeping assumptions as scientific facts is no more than quackery". This statement falsely exaggerates and greatly misrepresents the meaning the cited quote for his or her own purposes. It would be an interesting experiment for someone to contact Dr. Hall and obtain his opinion about Mr. Profsherman's interpretation of the quote from his 2005 paper. I might be able to arrange this, if needed.
Finally, Malovitsky (Malovitskiy) et al. (1975) is a hopelessly antiquated, obsolete, paper based upon equally antiquated and obsolete geophysical data, which now would be considered hopelessly unreliable and insufficient for any sort of modern research. This paper was written before the introduction of plate tectonics and, as a result, uses long discredited notions about vertical tectonics to reconstruct the geologic history of the Mediterranean. It is the now completely discredited vertical tectonics that formed this basis for ideas of a sunken continents in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, this paper was before the Messinian salinity crisis was recognized, As a result, vertical tectonics and sunken continents were mistakenly used to explain the presence of the Messinian evaporites on the bottom of the Mediterranean instead of the catastrophic drop in sea level that occurred during the Messinian salinity crisis. As a result, this paper is now useless as a reliable source for any discussion of modern knowledge of the geology of the Eastern Mediterranean, "sunken continent" in the Levantine Basin, and that the use of "core samples".
Note: Presumably, the citation "Malovitskiy (1978)", the cited source of Hall (2005)'s "sunken continent" note, is a typographic error that actually refers to Malovitsky et al. (1975) in the list of references. However, it might refer to another citation that is either missing from the list of references or confused with the real "Malovitskiy (1978)". Thus, the actual source of the Levantine "sunken continent" quoted by Hall (2005) remains to be satisfactory resolved.
References Cited
Hall, J. K., 2005, Part III – The Levantine Basin Introduction. in Hall, J. K., Krasheninnikov, V. A., Hirsch, F., Benjamini, C. & Flexer, A., eds., pp. 1-20, Geological framework of the Levant, Volume II: the Levantine Basin and Israel. 107 MB PDF version. Historical Productions-Hall, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 826. (or download from links at CYBAES manuscript downloads
Hübscher, C., E. Tahchi, I. Klaucke, A. Maillard, and H. Sahling, 2009, Salt tectonics and mud volcanism in the Latakia and Cyprus Basins, eastern Mediterranean. Tectonophysics. v. 470, no. 1-2, pp. 173-182.
Malovitsky, Y.P., E.M. Emelyanov, O.V. Kazakov, V.N. Moskalenki, G.V. Osipov, K.M. Shimkus, and I.S. Chumakov, I.S., 1975, Geological structure of the Mediterranean Sea floor (based on geological—Geophysical data). Marine Geology v. 18, no. 4, p. 231-261.Paul H. (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi again Doug: 

  According to the unnamed researcher you noted above, "It is true that Hall (2005) is a reliable, published source."  That, Doug, is really all that matters, and whether or not this researcher agrees with Hall or Malovitsky is irrelevant since Wikipedia's guidelines clearly state: "...articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources'. This is non-negotiable...

   Since it's non-negotiable, then Hall's reference to malovistky's research (2005) as well as the citation from Malovistky's paper itself, both of which take note of the "sunken continent" theory must be included if the article is to remain free of "bias."  And again, until physical proof comes from the Cyprus Arc itself then all conjecture is based on assumptions, and even they're educated assumptions, they cannot be stated as absolute, final truths -- again, this would run contrary to Wiki's guidelines.  

   There's nothing worse than religious dogma, except for scientific dogma.  All points of view must be presented fairly, regardless of personal beliefs.  This is the law of science, and the law of Wikipedia.  Based on Wiki's own clear guidelines, the other points of view MUST be included.  We're not here for dogma; that can presented in personal writings.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Profsherman,
The "reliable, published source" criteria do not apply to misrepresentations of papers such as the quote-mining, which constitutes the only so-called "evidence" from Hall (2005) that you have. If Wikipedia allowed misrepresentations and fabricated interpretations of "reliable, published source", like the one that you presented, then Young Earth creationists, could falsely argue that they have "evidence" from all sorts of "reliable, published sources" that prove the Earth is only 10,000 to 6,000 years old, evolution violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics, and so forth. It is not a matter of whether I disagree with Allen (2005) or not. The problem is that your claims are based on a completely false and distorted description of what Hall (2005) stated. Wikipedia is built on what a source actually states, not what what a person either imagine or fabricate a source to state.
Also, if Mr. Profsherman would bother to read Malovistkiy et al. (1975), he would find that there is nothing in it about the Levantine Basin having been a sunken continent. The only sunken continent mentioned in Malovistkiy et al. (1975) is one reported from the Tyrrhenian Sea. The last time that I looked at a map of the Mediterranean Sea, the Tyrrhenian Sea lies between Italy and the Islands of Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily far enough away from the Eastern Mediterranean to demonstrate that it is an entirely different "sunken continent" from the one that Sarmast proposed. If anything, the figures in Malovistkiy et al. (2005) show that area of Sarmast's Atlantis was underwater after the Messinian and certainly underwater during all of the Quaternary. If Mr. Profsherman would bother to read Malovistkiy et al. (1975), he would find that this paper contains nothing in it that supports Saramst's proposed location for Atlantis. Again, Mr. Profsherman has fabricated completely out of thin air an imaginary account of statements and evidence that exists, not in the original source, but only in his vivid imagination.
Mr. Profsherman needs to understand that Wikipedia only accepts what is actually published in a "reliable, published source". Material imagined to be in a "reliable, published source", which not does exist at all in "reliable, published source", obviously is not valid for inclusion in Wikipedia.Paul H. (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional note, It does not matter what Hall (2005) said about Malovistkiy et al. (1975). What matters is what actually is written and illustrated in Malovistkiy et al. (1975). In Wikipedia, the primary source always has priority to second-hand accounts. If there is nothing in Malovistky et al. (1975) about a sunken continent in the Levantine Basin, what Hall (2005) says about Malovistkiy et al. (1975) is meaningless. It is quite possible that Hall (2005) was confused about the location of the "sunken continent" in the Tyrrhenian Sea mentioned in Malovistkiy et al. (1975) and mistakenly located it in the Levantine Basin. The fact that Malovistkiy et al. (1975) lacks any mention of a "sunken continent" in the Levantine Basin completely discredits Hall (2005)'s note about this "sunken continent" and make it useless for Wikipedia purposes unless some further documentation supporting this report can be found or a valid source for the reference to this "sunken continent" can be located.Paul H. (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in his list of cited references, Hall (2005) has Malovitskiy misspelled as "Malovitsky". Unfortunately, I failed to note this error and repeated it in my previous discussions.Paul H. (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok Paul H., I wasn't going to second-guess Dr. Hall. According to you, Dr. Hall was wrong about what Malovitskiy said, and Malovistkiy's research itself is unreliable anyway. So, I've already written Dr. Hall and am going to contact Malovitskiy shortly. His research is really not the main point here anyway.

What's really troubling is that if you wish to state absolute, final truths, it must be based on more than hypothesis and inference. When you wish to publish these hypotheses they must not be stated as absolute and final truths, even if in your opinion it's with an "extremely high degree of certainty." It should say, "based on these findings, we can infer that the Cyprus Arc has always been under water." You sound very scientifically minded and I'm sure you agree that this would be a more scientifically accurate statement.

I would like your help in adding certain reliably-sourced facts to the article, since I'm not supposed to do it myself and it apparently has to go through you first. Can you help with this? Thanks. --Profsherman (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I contacted Dr, Hall about Malovistkiy's paper. In his reply, he characterized Malovistkiy's paper as a "totally out-of-date reference", which supports my contention that it is too hopelessly out-of-date to be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Also, in respect to Sarmast's "Acropolis", he stated that he thought that Huebscher's 2009 paper definitely demonstrated that it was a natural structure. There was nothing in Dr. Hall's reply that demonstrated that he regarded Sarmast's hypothesis about Atlantis being at the bottom of the eastern Mediterranean as having any credibility at all. If Sarmast wants to be taken seriously, he needs to provide direct evidence in the form of recognizable artifacts or cultural deposits either photographed or recovered in situ from the area of the "Acropolis."

In addition, I have found a paper, which I will let you find for yourself until after I investigate it for my own purposes, that discusses cores containing sediments dating back to over 40,000 to 50,000 BP have recovered from very near Sarmast's Acropolis and from the Cyprus Arc. That these cores show continuous deep-sea marine sedimentation over the last 40,000 to 50,000 years for the area of the Acropolis and parts of the Cyprus Arc. It clearly refutes any claim by either you or Sarmast that either area might have been above water during the past 40,000 to 50,000 years. Obviously, you have a lot of gaps in the literature review that you need to fill in your research concerning the Levantine Basin for the Wikipedia article.Paul H. (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand Paul. The purported Acropolis area is only a tiny area of a huge submarine valley that is theorized to be the "rectangular plain" of Atlantis. It's all under mud and there's no way to check under it for geometric shapes (structures). The civilization would have been there 40,000 years ago and prior. The anomalies around the purported Acropolis Hill were researched with sub-bottom profilers by Sarmast and he himself said they are natural. They've been there for at least 100,000 years. If people lived there prior to the flood, they would have used those natural formations for defense, irrigation etc., and no device today would be able to detect it.

Wiki is just a place where people's theories are presented; I didn't realize it has become a board of deciders about what is or isn't true. The sinking of the Mediterranean basin, the Gibraltar break, and the tectonic plates were all described in the Urantia Papers in details, and it was published in 1955, way before scientists "discovered" them. You simply do not have the background to be able to comprehend the scope of this research but you mean well, and I can respect that. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.110.73 (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Knowing Paul's professional background and Sarmast's I am confident that Paul easily has the background to understand this. But then you take the Urantia papers seriously, and although it's every person's right to have their own religion, that doesn't give them any special knowledge or insight into geological issues - or how Wikipedia works for that matter. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If the Gibraltar break, the movement of tectonic plates, and the salinity crisis of the Med. were described in detail decades before they were discovered by science, then it obviously does give you special knowledge and insight into geological issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.110.73 (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it also describes the 27-mile wide isthmus that once connected the peninsula to the eastern Mediterranean coastline -- before there were bathymetric data for the region that prove that correct as well. I'm sure it's all an accident though :) Anyhow, what does any of this have to do with Wiki? If the fact that the ancient world knew/believed that the Med. was connected with the Atlantic because of the Gibraltar break, along with the info in the Urantia Papers, along with an exact match with Plato's description of the great plain of Atlantis on bathymetric maps -- if they were all used to justify an expedition to get a closer look, shouldn't that be mentioned? Or does the fact that science doesn't believe any of this just yet mean that it all has to all be kept out of the public eye, even when they're all from reliable sources? Trying to understand this confused/confusing website.--67.49.110.73 (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness at wt:PROD ...

... was not my intent, although is of course completely unworkable (and undesirable) to impose an 'entrance' fee in this way. I guess what I was trying (badly) to point out was that people would be more informed on what's required if they took a crack at editing some of the offending articles first. I realise that many of the people commenting have done just that.   pablohablo. 17:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation. I have to admit the suggestion irritated me. I do look before speedy deleting, for instance. And I would hate to ever look back at my contributions for anything. I do worry about unreferenced BLPs and feel that if anything really is notable that gets overlooked it'll be replaced sooner or later, that seems to be the way it works. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Julian Colton talks here about "other practical options", like him; I wanted to see some of the advocates of these options giving them a try. There's often a knee-jerk reaction to a bold move.   pablohablo. 20:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


clerks noticeboard

per my new message on the clerks noticeboard[[23]], do you still think tothwolf rehashing of the same accusations that arbcom is admonishing him for isn't related to arbcom enforcement? i understand that technically the case isn't closed, but it's headed towards him being admonished for this exact behavior. must i really bring this drama to ANI to get an uninvolved person to remove these attacks? Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, as the case isn't closed yet. You could add it to your evidence although I hope the case will be closed soon. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad ArbCom case

Over a week has passed since we were asked to bring evidence and comments to this case. What will be happening now?

What is the usual timeframe for proposed decisions? Or is this case still gathering evidence? Will parties be able to discuss proposed decisions, or will discussion be closed at a certain time? Debresser (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't noticed my question? Debresser (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, shortly after your question you replied to Fritzpoll's request, which I thought implicitly at least answered your question. Discussion isn't closed until the case is closed. I'd say there is no 'usual timeframe'. This month we have a lot of new Arbs, this is a complicated case, and for the past 48 hours other events have probably preoccupied people. I'm hoping that we will have a proposed decision soon but I can't give you a time frame, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am not in a hurry, just inquiring. Although I'll be happy when this is over. It's a rotten feeling. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Frenchbull

I have counseled Frenchbull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with respect to conflict of interest and created the account 161e61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for him to use. Fred Talk 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirm and update?

Hi Doug, could you please confirm and update: [24]. Paul August ☎ 14:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My dismal formatting skills

It made no sense stuck out on its own - I've deleted it; I didn't feel that strongly anyway, and it appeared Kevin was going through some personal stuff so I wasn't bothered at the time. Little grape (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, my skills weren't up to fixing it without undoing your edit anyway. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

David

I think your personal views on David are making you not objective.

I agree with you that this find does not prove the existence of David but what it does disprove are claims that a strong central monarchy in Israel in the 10th century did not and could not have existed. Reargun (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My objectivity? Look at my specific comments. You've put 'some' in where the sources say 'current research' and ""earlier than many modern scholars believe." You added 'many see' despite the lack of sources saying that. You put 'Hebrew' in the section heading despite the fact that the sources say it may not be Hebrew. I agree that the evidence suggests the possibility of a centralised polity (the wording used in one of the sources, please note, not 'kingdom' as although that's possible it's not the only possibility). Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your criticisms are vague and I suspect that you do not know much about this topic. My remarks maybe very unfair and if so I apologist. This is a good discussion on the topic please read it and get back to me.

http://robertcargill.com/2010/01/07/earliest-hebrew-inscription-reported-found/

I think my comments using some, earlier and many as better and more accurate. I can put references in here if you like.

It probably is Hebrew but there is some remote possibility that it was not.

As far as the heading, I just reverted it back and used the name already there. It is a common name for it just do a search on "10th century hebrew inscription". That is where I got it earlier.


Finally I think that centralised polity that is not a kingdom is not likely but this is another question.

Reargun (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

EBK

It looks like Wikipedia article space is now free of links to earlybritishkingdoms.com. We'll see how long this lasts, but for the time being I feel like we've accomplished something. Cheers!--Cúchullain t/c 15:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You've done some very good work there, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion talk

Ill note that when that dicussion is archived, it should be linked with motion in the index I suppose. Do you think that it has ended already or moved to another venue?

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the motion seems to be all over the place. :-) Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blumrich

Doug, whether you believe it or not, I have a copy of the book and THAT is my source. If you would like, I'll email you a scan. Just because Google doesn't have information on everything in the known universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think Blumrich knew where he worked and what it was called.

Here are the sources I am using:

  • "ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Josef F. Blumrich is chief of the systems layout branch of NASA. Born in Steyr, Austria ..."

Spaceships unnumbered p. 180

  • Space Engineer and Author of

The Spaceships of Ezekiel

JOSEF F. BLUMRICH

Confirms Ancient Astronaut Theories

Josef F. Blumrich, Chief of the Systems Layout Branch of NASA, helped develop ..."

Spaceships unnumbered p. 181

  • Los Angeles Times, October 26, 1973, page B11, "Blumrich - chief of the systems layout branch of the Marshall Space Flight Center ..."
I'm sure that's what he said, and that seems to be where everyone else got it from, but there's a major issue if we can't find any independent sources for such a position that don't mention him. We don't use self-references for such claims unless you want to say 'according to his book' or something like that. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The UNESCO article, which is available on-line: "Until recently the author was chief of the Systems Layout Branch at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center."

24.155.68.169 (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Which you said was wrong. In any case, I've no reason to think that the information there didn't come from Blumrich itself. That would be normal and I wouldn't expect the editors to actually check to see if that was correct any more than I would expect them to check to see if his address was correct. So we are still lacking a source that doesn't mention Blumrich that does mention this alleged post or department/section of NASA. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Anglo Saxons

Sure did, Doug. I was using Huggle (which I rarely do) and just clicked through it. Apologies and thanks for catching it. Regards. --Manway (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake

Ya. His user page is so confusing. I first read the top line wrongly (it's writtinwritten "unblocked indefinitely", while I read, blocked indefinitely). And then got missed reading the next paragraphs. Anyway, apologised to him and have withdrawn the SPI report.

Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we all make mistakes, no problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Addendum - as you may have seen by my edit summary on his user page, when I removed the tag I noted that I thought this was a misunderstanding. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 10:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Judges tale, A&E res

The table on the Judges page was way out of line, I don't think the user understands the meaning of OR. On the A&E page, I just re-wrote the ref to refer directly to the JPS Torah, the diff being that people will now have to go look for it in a library. PiCo (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine, but can you add some publishing details and hopefully page numbers? Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

warning template?

it's generally considered bad form to template established users - a simple reminder would have sufficed. no worries though, I had a moment of temper and unwatched the page. it happens. if you'd care to discuss the matter you can leave a note here or on my talk page. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are right of course, I should have given you a simple reminder. I was probably responding to your temper. I can accept that that can happen, but maybe you should still strike through your comments and I will strike through mine. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
no problem, and that's a good idea. I'll do that now. sorry for the trouble, or any offense. --Ludwigs2 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez & HAARP

Wondering if you have any opinion on this. Finding well-sourced conspiracy theories for that section is difficult, but if it's going to be a drama magnet, I'd rather see the Chavez story gone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had guests and also I've been closing an ArbCom case, I'll look at this tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks sorted, do you still want my opinion? Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm wondering how to fix Bernard_Eastlund. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Hi, Doug. There have been a lot of shenanigans at Bosnian Royal Family, an article up for AfD which seems to be suffering an infestation of sock and/or meat puppets. The latest member of this crew is User:Goldor, who has been re-adding complete junk to the page. I think it needs semi-protecting to stop these SPAs. Personally, I've come to believe the whole article is a hoax (for instance, see if you can spot an unusual feature of this coat-of-arms image created specially for the page[25]). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you REALY wanted be fair protect it then do it with ORGINAL VERSION not sabotaged. See here how Serb who start all this fight called Anglos on arms playing on ther national sentiment Goldor (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Goldor's been blocked indefinitely by another editor after I told him his next insult would lead to a block, after which he posted at two pages calling editors scum. What's the story about the image? I don't understand what the brown thing is. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A photo of a rat. According to the author of the article "the meaning of a heraldic rat is largely unknown, though some proposed that the rat facing band sinister meant the bearer's abatement". We're clearly dealing with a troll. Thanks for the help. --Folantin (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, then I did spot it! Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Yikes, I always forget about that when I'm in a hurry. I'll pay attention to it from now on- thanks for catching that. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Clarifying talk page edits re: use of WP:MINOR

I didn't think my understanding of the policies was that wrong but I re-checked the WP:MINOR and sure enough around 22nd June 2009 this edit [26] adds "talk pages" to the list. Prior to that the WP:MINOR did NOT mention talk pages but only alludes to article pages. The WP:TALK doesn't mention use of the "minor" flag. WP:TALK thus needs to be updated to highlight that though the publishing standards may be different, the use of the WP:MINOR flag is the same across article and talk page edits. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added "Use minor for minor changes only: The minor flag in your edits should be used as it is with article pages and should only be used for superficial differences between the current and previous versions such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Adding new text to the talk pages should not be marked as minor." to the WP:TALK guidelines. OK ? Ttiotsw (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

I agree. Vandalism is a major problem. In my view it often includes people using the Wikipedia for their own political agenda. Reargun (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Although that could at times perhaps be vandalism, you must not call edits vandalism unless they meet the criteria at WP:VANDAL, ie they are a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". I note that at least one other editor has told you you've accused them incorrectly of vandalism. You are also copying material from websites - you can't even 'close paraphrase', you need to use your own wording. Difficult at times perhaps but you've got to follow our copyright guidelines, they aren't optional. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks doug, my mistake

Thanks doug, my mistake, you did the right thing. Ikip 12:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you Dougweller for your welcome message, it's kind. :) You have right, I have some experience. I was making some edits across my favourite topics without an account for couple of weeks. ;)

Althought English is not my native-tongue, I hope my contributing shall be OK :)) Have a nice day and thank you once more! take this as a farewell kiss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Take this as a farewell kiss (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:The Ming Dynasty aka User:Yongle the Great

Hi Doug! You just blocked the new account, User:The Ming Dynasty, for block evasion. I went through all of his edits that he made tonight and reverted those that had not already been done with the following edit summary: “Reverting actions of account that was blocked for block evasion.”  Is that okay? Most of these would have had to be reverted anyway with various other descriptions and concomitant warning templates placed on this talk page. But, since the account was indefinitely blocked, I used a “blanket” description. Hope that’s not a problem. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, and much appreciated. I admit to just doing rollbacks at times because this user can appear as many as 3 times in one day and I can't spend a huge amount of time dealing with him, but your way with the edit summary is better! He is really time consuming. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. As it was I had Huggle open anyway, so I just let it do the job automatically. I tend to only use it for about 50% of my vandalism reverts since a lot of them require a more delicate, manual touch. But for his edits, it was easier just to automate the reverts. If I can ever help with any other edit reversions for that editor, just let me know. — SpikeToronto 06:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I just saw you reverting edits of Yongle the Great who was using IP 123.23.254.111. I thought that those might be his edits and was thinking about reverting them, but I couldn’t be certain. So, how did you know that they were his when he was doing them anonymously?! Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
A combination of the IP address and the articles being edited, plus no edit summary. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yongle the Great for the IP addresses he uses. Whois and Geolocate also help at times. And the time of day he edits, between 5 and maybe as late as 9 am UTC. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
And then he sometimes, as today, comes back with an account. And even uses that account to put a blocked sockpuppet tag on one I missed!

Yeah, I saw that one! Outing himself. I am reverting the edits he did as Central officials eagles and military dogs (COEMD). But, in some cases, putting them back puts them back to edits done as Yongle the Great. Maybe he thinks that by outing COEMD, it will restore edits he wants kept by Yongle. Anyway, a good example is Category:Ming Dynasty imperial consorts. Why not just delete the page? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE Same with Noble Consort Cheng Mu. — SpikeToronto 07:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE Ditto Consort Guo Ning. — SpikeToronto 07:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE Possibly Consort Li Shu and Noble Consort Gong Shu. As regards outing himself, perhaps his madness, ’tis method in it. — SpikeToronto 07:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, edits done before the block evasion should only be undone for policy/guideline/etc reasons. Your updates above, are they pointing to cases where he's reverted to himself, or? Off to walk the dogs now. Keep a lookout for his return if you can, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I’m off to bed. But, if there is ever a list of his edits you want undone, just leave me a note on talk page. Have fun with the bow-wows! — SpikeToronto 08:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk

Hi,

I am interested in becoming a Clerk. Even though I have a small amount of edits, I feel this would be a perfect role for me. How would I continue with the process? Enti342 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Enti342. Our latest recruitment drive has just ended. What I suggest you do is enjoy what you are doing, expand your participation to areas of interest to you, and see if it's still what you want to do in a while. You need more experience as I think you know. Happy editing and if you want any more advice my talk page is always open. Dougweller (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New user showing pattern in DNA articles etc

Doug can you have a look at this user who has suddenly appeared and gone heavily into a lot of old controversies ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dna_truth --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll keep watch. Dougweller (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Baligród massacre

Don't remember whether it was you or another editor that was commiserating about the plethora of tiny "massacre" articles, but there's a deletion discussion going on at [27]. (Taivo (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Sex Tourism

Hi Doug. I can confirm that the image is definitely not a BLP violation. I know the guys in question and I was aware at the time of the purpose of their trip. This photo was specifically taken with their permission to be put on this article. Thanks, Rabbi Orr Cohen (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not only is that not official, you aren't even bothering to suggest that you had the permission of the woman in the photo. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Book and Snake

Hello Doug. I just wanted to run something by you. There has been a persistent user vandalizing this page with bizarro stuff. I put the page on my watch list some time ago, and haven't contributed but have just reverted this registered user, whose only contributions to wikipedia consist of vandalizing this entry. Just now I received a strange message from the user on my page: "Hello MarmadukePercy -- I have some questions for you. everyman717@yahoo.co.uk Everyman777 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)" This feels like a case of cyberstalking. Is there something that can be done about this sort of behavior? Thanks much! MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Doug. Thanks for fixing this. Somehow I overlooked the words in italics. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange edit to Arbitration proposal

I'm a bit confuzzled by your removal of comments in this edit. In your edit summary you say "Comment in your own section please". But the comments removed in question were made by Jeske Couriano under the Jeske Couriano statement section. Can you explain why they were removed? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 08:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have had breakfast first, I guess. The difference in his sig with the user name as in the case confused me, I moved it back and then decided to just roll my edits back, well spotted though. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that's what it was. It happens, so no need to worry I spose! Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

tothwolf's continued violation of arbitration restrictions even when blocked

even while blocked for the violating his restrictions, tothwolf continues to repeat delusional, yet confident, allegations about my supposed real life identity, along with some imaginary COI, because he's convinced that he's outed me as being some woman who runs a blog. he continues to repeat these creepy and erroneous outing attempts -- as if they were a matter of fact -- EVEN WHILE HE'S BLOCKED: Tothwolf: "I asked for someone uninvolved who is familiar with BLP and NPOV issues to review an article after it was edited by someone who had been berating and ranting about the subject of the BLP (during the time in which they edited it) on their blog (including linking to it and other related pages they were editing/creating)."[[28]] please do something. these matter-of-fact accusations and outing attempts cannot continue. the behavior is a direct violation of his restrictions, and it's unacceptable behavior otherwise. also, please inform him not to ever attempt to contact me via wiki-email again. Theserialcomma (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for broaching real life of contributor

I don't remember specifically addressing John Foxe's public life. Perhaps I referred to it in response to another posting. I'll make sure I avoid this in future. Thanks for the fair reproval.

On another note, I really am shocked at the mess the Joseph Smith article has become. It is, in my opinion, a victim of some weird group dynamics. A handful of dedicated Mormon critics, an apparently "rogue" Mormon (the term Jack-Mormon comes to mind and I don't mean it in a critical way but it should be identified that an unorthodox Mormon claiming to be a representative of the LDS position can lead to some real confusion in what sensitivities should be afforded the LDS people), and then a couple of highly offended Mormons like Routerone and I (granted Routerone seems to be so offended he is overstepping Christian courtesy, er Wikilove) whose POV is often in question. My question is what can be done to flag this article, call for outside contributors, and work to save the sinking ship. I read about a dispute process and would gladly see this one investigated.

Before you jump to defend the article or its contributors please visit outside articles (i.e. Britannica) and then compare the tone and sensitivity with that of Wikipedia's. Theirs may read like a telephone directory, but I'd rather read that than the National Enquirer when I'm looking for reliable information. I assume WP is more interested in accuracy and balance than shock value in its articles.

In the interest of balance and truth,

I am the contributor known as,

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

It wasn't reproval but an explanation of why edits had been deleted by me and have now been made to vanish entirely. Please understand that everyone has a pov and that is not a problem. What is a problem is when their pov leads them to ignore our policies and guidelines. As for 'accuracy' and 'balance', have you read WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV? I suggest you study them carefully. I am not going to defend or edit the article myself, but I note that another Administrator has also deleted edits including your last one and asked that the focus be solely the article, not the editors. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

History of ancient Israel and Judah

I'm off for two months researching the ghosts of mainland Southeast Asia. No wiki for me (the lengths I go to in order to pleasure Lisa). You might like to keep an eye on this article, which I've been editing it extensively and single-handed for a few weeks. I'm not finished, but I guess I never will be. I wish I could give Wiki up, but it's too much fun. PiCo (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm off and on, will try to keep an eye on it but no major work! Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re YtG

Of course, anything to help :) EyeSerenetalk 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15
42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

No Problemo.

I tend towards WP:BOLD sometimes.  :) Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: User:SpikeToronto

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

Dougweller

I have been looking at a few of your edits and I think you should be banned from the Wikipedia, I will complain if it continues. Your comments on the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription as nonsense. BerelZ (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do go ahead. What are you going to do by the way, keep the sockpuppet tag or? Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help with the IP address. Hopefully you wont have to hear from me about edit warring with IP's again. Thanks again! --Omi(☺) 10:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for catching my 3RR on Younus AlGohar I didn't even realize! Yes, I think this issue seems as serious to the IP's as religious conflict- it looks like there is some really hard feelings between the editors and the subject of the article. I think we're going to have to use RFC to reach consensus, since they don't seem willing to work things out on their own. I will try to keep things civil...I think very edit will have to be discussed on the respective talk pages to avoid edit wars again...but anyway, thanks for your help! -Omi(☺) 10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Heh,sorry about the minor edit box thing...but on the bright side, since you mentioned it I've been getting used to paying attention to that little box now :) --Omi(☺) 11:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Balony - not just a meat

The criticism section of that article is crap. Your reversions keep it crap. There are Federal laws in the US that people strongly disagree with and if they don't like them they can move to Canada, Saudi Arabia or wherever they want. The criticism section should include possible problems with the system and if there is ever a world government then there will be world laws (otherwise there really isn't a world government) and such laws can never be "escaped" from.

FYI, the UN passed a resolution against "blasphemy" - luckily for us all they are about as effective as eunuchs. I get that you seem to want a world government, but you should try not to let your political bias and/or WP:OWNership color your judgement too much.

The fact of the matter is that section is far better with the included text and there is no good reason to keep it out. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not defending the article, I'm just saying that what you added is simply opinion and shouldn't be stated as fact. as what would really happen. If a real world government ever happened, it would almost certainly be more similar to systems in the USA, UK, Germany, etc, not a monolithic organisation with just one set of laws. Dougweller (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, the UN passed a resolution against blasphemy, if they had any real bite then they'd have drastically limited freedom of speech. Most countries around the world aren't as "enlightened" as the West. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not read the article but several laws relating to blasphemy exist in the federal and state laws of Australia. Although I have never known of a person to be charged under them. BerelZ (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And in Iran? Saudi Arabia? The Islamic countries were the ones who pushed for that UN resolution - how do you think they'd implement it (see Danish cartoon for the answer)? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to argue about the UN motion and hypotheticals, but I will say that I think that the changes that would be necessary to bring about a world government are probably changes neither you nor I could forsee, and barring some huge catastrophe are unlikely in this century. You don't know what it would be like any more than I do. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Good since you don't know what it would be like, then the sourced criticism I wrote up, which isn't expected to be prophetic, should be in the article since it improves it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What you wrote was a flat statement about what a world government would do. Clear speculation but expressed as fact. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What I said was that under a world government people couldn't emigrate away from laws they strongly disagree with. If there is a world government then it must have worldwide laws - otherwise it isn't really a world government. I also said that the "tyranny of the majority" could be exacerbated, because, obviously, there would be both more minorities that could be oppressed and/or bigger majorities to do the oppressing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There you go, deciding what a world government would be like. You don't know what worldwide laws a federal world government would have, if any. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not assuming they are having any specific laws, but human nature being what it is people will always disagree on some things. Would this world government say freedom of speech is a human right? If it does then some societies would be against it and if it doesn't then other societies wouldn't like the world government and would have ideological reasons not to pay taxes to support a regime that won't stand up for human rights. The only things I'm assuming are basic human nature and that a world government will have world laws - these aren't big stretches. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
World government is such a huge stretch that you can't make assumptions. And any assumptions are OR. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> They were sourced, are common beliefs and they improved the article. [WP:IAR] my friend. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamat

OK, don't worry and thank you for wlcoming, But isn't that character made from ancient goddess? So I think we should put that image in article about Tiamat, in section "Appearance" because there is a line The strictly modern depiction of Tiamat as a multi-headed dragon was popularized in the 1970s as a fixture of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game inspired by earlier sources[who?] associating Tiamat with later mythological characters, such as Lotan what sugests that this goddess was a model for a character. --Mychele Trempetich (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is one more question - can I upload a picture of myself? But I don't know is that legall here, on wikimedia isn't.--Mychele Trempetich (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked another Administrator who does more copyright stuff than I do, and she says "Well, for fair use questions I'd send them to WT:NFC or WP:MCQ. As far as uploading personal images, there's the complicating factor that copyright is owned by the photographer, which means that a photo of themselves is unlikely to be owned by them. :) I think that quite often a blind eye is turned towards this, but to do things properly we need license from the photographer. Ask them if it would be possible to have the photographer upload it. If it hasn't been previously published, that should take care of things. If it has, we need the usual permission process at WP:DCM. If the photographer can't upload it, the editor can upload it him or herself, but should have the photographer mail a licensing permission just as if it *had* been previously published." So take a look at the links and ask your question there about adding it to Tiamat in that section, it may be ok, I'm cautiously optimistic, but it was definitely not ok where it was before, but I think you see the difference now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I include my information according to your guidelines?

Hi Doug, I would like to include my songs without the promotional aspect. I saw that one person said if you wanted to hear his song go to his website so I thought it would be OK to refer to cdbaby.com. If that's not OK I would like to refer to the ^ a b University of Pennsylvania Library: Freedman Collection of Recorded Jewish Music, but I couldn't figure out how to cite the reference properly. I saw that you already have that reference. Is it OK to type the lyrics or should I leave those out? Please advise. Thank you, Judithtellerman (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that I or someone else removed the edit by someone saying go to his website. You can add a reference to the library collection, but not the lyrics I'd say. OK? Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Thanks for responding. I tried to insert the reference to Univ. of Pa Libe: Freedman Coll of Rec Music but couldn't figure out how to do it with your format. Could you please explain? I'm very appreciative.Judithtellerman (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Reargun

Because I'm going through the SPI backlog, I blocked the user for 2 weeks due to confirmed abuse of sock policy. Only after did I notice your brief note on their talk page that you decided to not block them. It would be helpful if in future you noted the sock case to state what you did, and possibly mark it as {{SPIclose}}, as it would have saved me (and other clerks and clerking admins) a lot of time. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 08:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Very sorry about that, I know the hard work you all put in, I've been thinking that I must get more familiar with SPI processes but I didn't realise I should have made a note on the sock case page. I did tag Rearguns userpage correctly though, I hope. I've looked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions again, did I miss something or should this be added? I know as an ArbCom clerk our procedures aren't detailed enough yet, because it's hard to cover everything. Thanks for the explanation and I'll remember next time.
No worries, essentially a brief note under the admin or clerk section saying "I've blocked the sock, and warned the master about doing it again (AGF). Tagged." would have been sufficient and saved some time. It's been hell lately with the bot down! But yes you did tag correctly, and I do appreciate that. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 09:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Wrangel Island / U.S. non-claim

Hi. If you look at the article about Wrangel Island north of Siberia, you find this curious sentence:

"According to some US individuals, including the group State Department Watch,[21] eight Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia, including Wrangel Island, are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State[22] no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty,[23] which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands."

It's true and well sourced, but does it belong? The backstory is of course that some very insistent individuals were claiming that the U.S.A. did in fact claim this island, until the U.S. State Department committed treason against the U.S.A.

I think it would be better to remove the sentence, but I'd like somebody more experienced to have a look first. It may boil down to whether or not State Department Watch is so notable that their claims merit mention. Jon kare (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google site search on Wikipedia, turned up this Talk:List of territorial disputes which has a short discussion of it. A better version of the claim is in Herald Island (Arctic). There was a story in 2001 in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, [29] and more recently this [30], which is just a letter to the editor, but also this official US statement [31]. I'm still thinking. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Help

I just joined yesterday, and I'm having trouble figuring out how to create my userpage/talk page. Can you maybe give me a simple tutorial on how to blue-link it, put up userboxes, etc? Thank you. Arilicious (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one gave you a Welcome message. I've given you one with loads of links. I'm afraid I'm bit busy and probably not the best person to ask, but you can ask specific questions at WP:HELPDESK which is specifically set up for questions about using Wikipedia. How'd you find me, by the way? You can copy stuff from others, but you must attribute it by putting where you got it from in the edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I left a note over at User talk:Aunt Entropy#New editor -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hongwu's Northern Expeditions

As the protecting admin, you may wish to review the above article. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing's How It Used To Be

You placed a {{db-a9}} tag on Nothing's How It Used To Be, requesting its deletion. However, the artist, Julian Barry, has an article on Wikipedia, although it was not linked. It might be better to check for an unlinked article before placing an A9 tag in future. Also, the article says that the single charted (admittedly, only at #109). This is, I think, enough of a claim of significance that an A9 wouldn't be appropriate, even if the artist had no Wikipedia article. Please double check when placing speedy deletion tags in future. DES (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was in error, above, Julian Barry is not about the Julian Barry who is the creator of this single. I am doing a web search to see if this appears to be notable enough to avoid restoring the A9 tag. My apologies. DES (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The creator should not, of course, remove the tag, but his having done so improperly (and having been reverted) is not a reason for me not to remove or to replace the tag, nor is it a reason to remove it. My initial reason for removal was in error, but I think that the claimed chart position is just enough of a claim of significance to avoid an A9 speedy in any case, although this is borderline. I have therefore taken the matter to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nothing's How It Used To Be. DES (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I'd already replied on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

wizard re emily margaret brown austin

Hi, I want to use the wizard but it just created a blank page. Please help.Bull Market 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

emily Margaret Brown Austin1

Dougweller:

Thank you for your helpful note.

Yes, I did already see the references to the additional family members and the lack of development of those articles. I fully intend to develop a series of articles related to as many of her family members that are on wiki already or are important to history. In addition, I will write about Peach Point Plantation which is an official State Historic site and where she lived, where Stephen F. Austin considered his home, and where James Perry lived, etc. I will add as much as I can to each article to weave them into each other and to new subject areas such as that first Railroad in TX and the first teacher in Texas, etc.

I started by just messing around with improving the article on Jones Creek, which is the town/location where all this happened.

Again, thanks.

-Bull MarketBull Market 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

I would like to

draw your attention to the move-warring going on at the Creation according to Genesis article... CUSH 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: want to withdraw SPI

Okay, I've closed the case, and it'll be archived shortly. And sorry for the delay, I was eating. :) Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Wyclef Jean

Why did you block me I wasnt doing anything wrong. I am fed up with the way you people assume things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.186.229 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block you, I protected the page where you were causing serious problems. You were blocked by another Admin, justifiably it would seem given the multiple warnings you received and your blanking of at least one article. Ah, now this is interesting. The IP address you are posting from at the moment was only blocked for 24 hours, but you are clearly 86.190.19.23 (talk · contribs) as well, blocked for a week and block evading. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

King David

Hi, Doug,

I see the article on King David has been somewhat of a battleground. (Which is rather fitting: "Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house..." 2Sam. 12:10)

Thanks for reverting that "Panbehchi" change, whatever that was about.

I've been checking in on this article from time to time and watching the debate about images. Seems to me the Berruguete image was the best. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rey_David_por_Pedro_Berruguete.JPG I'm fine with the present one (Actually, I'm fine with anything.) but feel it's misleading with that medieval crown on his head. It shows more a religious legend than an historical personage. What with David's great importance in the cultural legacy of the West and the Middle East as warrior, poet, and king, it would seem the most appropriate image would reflect what would be the most historical and thus neither favor nor insult any of the three major faiths in which he is such an important character. The current one favors medieval Roman Catholicism. And, I'm not sure the attribution is correct. I can't find any source other than Wiki and its mirrors that have Guercino sculpting anything. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for finding the right sculptor. I've contacted the photographer to double check, since the Vatican says the sculpture is wood and this one looks like marble. I'm thinking it's correct, though. Almost at the bottom of this page: http://www.vatican.va/various/sm_maggiore/en/storia/cappella_borghese.htm The child was throwing me off, but that page says he's the Messiah. Makes sense. Yopienso (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf and Theserialcomma again

Theserialcomma is unhappy with Tothwolf'w departure message, and tried to remove it, possibly in violation of WP:TALK. Tothwolf reverted (next diff). I think some sort of page protection may be needed here, given that Tothwolf is retired. Pcap ping 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma is already "topic banned" from my userspace and should not even be editing there. I suppose I'll just monitor my watchlist for awhile longer. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
i've posted on the clerks noticeboard about this [[32]]. i do not want to be mentioned (via false allegations) in tothwolf's soapboxy and uncivil retirement message. also, i am not topic banned from tothwolf's user space. he just made that up. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Another clerks has responded there and I agree with the response. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently these guys just cannot disengage. [33]. Pcap ping 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is now at WP:AE, so you should probably just archive this. Sorry to have bothered you. Pcap ping 07:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Popol Vuh

The church influence dilemma is pure WP:OR garbage from people who are either envious that the historical cultural devolpemnet found within their imaginary geographic borders before conquers was a piece of crap or they are simply active dogmatic faithful activist in the atheísm religion, and it has absolutely not base other than vague assumptions. The same kind of people who would buy the evolution theory simply because of a resentment to the way they were arbitrarily brought up in their childhood and who are also guilt of the false sense of elitism found very commonly in religions. Ximenez compilated data that was written already in quiche and simply put it together by organizing it in the same language. But power is justice, no point in arguing. Stratogustav (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if power is justice (I don't agree), and knowledge is power, then knowledge is justice. Hm.
Lol, gnosticism. Stratogustav (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You know how to link to our OR policy but you don't seem to understand it. Or maybe it's WP:VERIFY which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." You seem convinced that you know the truth about this issue, which I guess simplifies life for you. I'm not so lucky, I like evidence, and although I am sure myself that a lot of the content is pre-Columbian, there is no evidence for the existence of any pre-Columbian records (and I think you know that), and the evidence suggests that the source of Ximinez's manuscript was post-Columbian. But that's arguing the case, and my point is that yes, we do allow OR written by reliable sources, that's the way encyclopedias in general work, but not by editors. In this case we will certainly never know how much Christian influence there was in the only document we have, and there is no way that we can say that there was none. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is agnostic, I like that better than just going on a side. Stratogustav (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Ethiopia

Howdy. I noticed you removed the section "Judaic Ethiopia" from History of Ethiopia, as an apparent copyvio from http://www.ethiopianhistory.com/Coming_of_Judaism. I'm not sure it's actually a copyvio. However, the text in question was originally added without any sources, so your removal of it is really a non-issue. I'm not sure whether you've been following the discussion at Talk:History of Ethiopia#Ancient History Sections Need to be Rewritten, but I have mentioned your edit and my own findings at that talk page. Thanx, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)

Hi Doug. I'm writing this to you in your official role as clerk. I have already sent an email complaint to Shell Kinney which I said she could distribute to the rest of ArbCom and the clerks. This user, formerly Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and multiple other accounts, seems to be using the RfAr page for harassing me and making personal attacks. His latest inference that I somehow enjoyed ChildofMidnight's sadomasochistic remarks on my talk page (see the diffs on RfAr) is simply unacceptable. It is certainly not at all what I wrote at the time, when CoM started getting out of control on my talk page. Noroton is using the RfAr page for making malicious statements about me which are not supported by diffs, as he claims. From what I can tell, he seems to be trying to bait me. I am extremely busy and very upset by his personal attacks, which in normal circumstances would result in a block. Please could you caution him as a clerk and tell that he is not free to make his own inferences on why I might have removed offensive comments from my talk page? If necessary, if he persists, he should probably be blocked. I will also post a copy of this at the clerks page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mathsci, I didn't get around to acting but I did make sure my colleagues know about your concerns. I'll have another look tomorrow, I think I've missed something, a diff would help. Dougweller (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This diff was unacceptable.[34] But I think JohnWBarber will probably be ignored. He has written that reminding ChildofMidnight of his RfC/U is a personal attack: that is a ridiculous statement to make. If JohnWBarber's absurd interpretation had been correct, I would not be editing now. Multiple administrators and arbitrators have made exactly the same point. The problem has been solely with ChildofMidnight's behaviour. It might be that JohnWBarber finds that very hard to accept. That is no reason to attack and bully other wikipedians with whom he does not agree, by harassment of this kind. I am a bit reminded of Abd's behaviour at the start of the Abd&WMC case where he tried to get me and others listed as parties. I think that as Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), there were similar problems with this user's behaviour, possibly also with him defending ChildofMidnight. I'd have to look that up, just to make sure. Mathsci (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Copying material from other articles

Hi Dougweller. Ok, I will cite material when copied from other Wikipedia articles by wikilinking it in the edit summary. I've tried to learn more about copying inside Wikipedia, please help me locate the exact terms of the licences you mentioned here:

["This is an absolute requirement as that is the only way attribution to the original editor can be traced. Not to do this is actually a copyright violation as it breaks our licenses. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)"]

P.S:I suppose you are concerned about the Cantino map chapter changes in the Early world maps article - I thought it was obvious that it was up-to-dated from data in the Cantino map article itself, sorry. Only now noticed that there is contradicting information this and Map of Juan de la Cosa, maybe reflecting some external expert opinions on dating, that should be adressed in more detail.

Thanks--Wikitza (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I had just a birds-eye view of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, assuming my sharing alike and copying when needed, with some common sense, but would be really more careful - Thank you so much for your remind Dougweller.--Wikitza (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

TM page

Hi Dougweller, I hope you are doing well. Just a minor heads up that there is the beginnings of some interspersed/threaded comments/replies at the ArbCom case page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I got distracted by some article editing... I've moved it. I'm sure it will happen again. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
No worries, Cirt (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Movement Arb Com

Hi Doug, one of the participants has innocently posted in my section on the evidence page.[35] Not sure what to do. Please advise. thanks! -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See above. I've moved it. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You are very fast. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI reply

CBW asked that I comment. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I am especially interested in you views on Flagged Revisions. This may help the encyclopedia, from my perspective. But it appears that we have problems implementing. Any knowledge you have on improving the situation for all would be most welcome. Specifically, can you direct me to the proper venue for unearthing issues. And yes, I went through the steps in hopes of resurrecting an idea which has been moribund at the scale of the English encyclopedia, for some reason. I remember in 2006 how it was issue after issue. And yet, it can be accomplished, if the scale is right. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask Jimbo Wales on his talk page, that's where the discussions have been taking place recently. It's going to happen, it's just been delayed by software and real time problems. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Help

Doug - Could you please help with a picture? I am not good at uploading pictures. Could you please replace this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AdmiralHarryHarris.jpg with this picture: http://www.c6f.navy.mil/images/Harris.jpg The second picture comes from this web page: http://www.c6f.navy.mil/harris.html The licence information would be the same. Both pictures are the work of the U.S. Government. Thanks, - Ward GroveGuy (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look, maybe not until Monday though, sorry, real life you know. :) Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Ward, did you try [[36]]? I'll do it if you'd rather me do it. But what I don't know about is actually replacing that picture, is it ok just to upload the new one as a separate file? I think both can be done, but I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Another question, the picture you want replaced is on Commons, shouldn't the new one be on Commons also? And, did you know my Dad died last month? Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent you an eMail via Wikipedia GroveGuy (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded it to Commons, replaced the image in the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was having difficulty posting my evidence at [37]. I think it's OK now, but let me know how to straighten it out if it's not. Thank you.Hickorybark (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the sock's back.

Look for reversions to Ming Dynasty topics in my contributions. - Zhang He (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On-ness of the Scottish Borders

That link you provided just mentioned "....on the Scottish Borders...(wait for it) Council website"! ;)

I live in Berwickshire, and have done for years, and the only time I've ever heard of "on", as in "On the Border" (singular) is actually when one's at Carter Bar, Berwick Bounds, or Gretna, on the line that's generally been the same between England and Scotland for the past 500 years or so. I certainly live in the Scottish Borders, not on them, so I have just re-reverted your edit. Brendandh (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, I have just noticed that the pic is of Nether Hindhope which is pretty close to the Borderline, and have changed the wording and link accordingly. Brendandh (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, they both are used on the web, almost a million hits for 'on' but more for 'in'. Maybe it's more common further south in England. My experience is different to yours, but reflects decades in Birmingham I guess. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.

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

- Zhang He (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.

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

- Zhang He (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Workshop posting

Hi Dougweller, again a TM comment, at the Workshop page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop, looks like a user is commenting in the top part (the Motions and things) that might actually be an intention to add in the templated Principles/FoFs, etc? I am not sure, I will defer to you on that. :P Cirt (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't look at it for a little while and something like this happens. In fact I'd been thinking that at least some of Tucker's comments in evidence might belong somewhere else, but I need to think about whether that's the place for them. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Nod, okay thanks. I doubt ArbCom would do anything "immediately" anyways, that is, prior to the resolution of the case itself. (Unless there was some sort of pressing ongoing disruption of the case, by sockpuppets). Cirt (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Workshop#Proposals_by_Tuckerj1976 = Tucker moved his comments - but now it is unclear if they are principles, or FoFs, or what... Cirt (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor guy. It's a bit more complicated now that Durova and Fladrif have replied. I'm a bit tired, long day, so will let it go until tomorrow, maybe try to restructure it myself rather than ask him to do it again. Dougweller (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Arbcom - Move comment at talk to evidence?

Should this [38] be moved from the talk page to the evidence page? I would think so. Thanks for all the otherwise thankless work keeping everything organized. Fladrif (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I´d liked to invite ya for an discussion at Thamphthis, for leoboudv´s edits there are high problematic. Hope ya don´t feel taken on now. Greetings;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis_creation_myth is becoming a creationist platform

Really, some admin needs to put an end to the kind of arguments that are made to revert the articles title to "Creation according to Genesis". There is a small number of editors who seem determined to present the Genesis story as a factual account of the world's origin. What is Wikipedia's position on treating all creation myths the same? CUSH 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

It seems less then coincidental that this claim of plat forming is made after my response to supporting a move. Frankly I am concerned about Cush (talk · contribs) and his blatant uncivil behavior here. Particularly since i found this old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush. I frankly find his behavior uncivil and unproductive especially an attack on me in the edit description "reply to a fundamentalist." Based on Issues brought up in the Previous RFC and the edits i have checked over he seems to have prejudice against anyone he considers "Religionist" and attacks statements they make if not the user themselves. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

An RfC on User:Cush's behavior has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush2.Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ica stones

Hello there. Hopefully everything will be okay now; I've looked up quotes from the original studies and scientific reports.MXVN (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Arbcom

I must admit I haven't counted the words but it would appear that Tuckerj1946 [39] and David Spector [40] are quite a bit over on their 1000 word maximum. Thanking you in advance for your attention to all these details.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Spector is just a little over, I've left a 2nd notice on Tuckerj76's page and will refactor myself if he doesn't. And apologies, I got my wires crossed looking at Seddon's edits and left a note on your page by mistake, which I undid. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Thanks for alerting the others that are over the 1000 word limit. I was also alerted which surprised me as I had counted my words but removed some copy anyway to be compliant but now I see it was not necessary. Could you please tell me what my total wordage is at the present moment so I can see what I have left to work with? I assume you have some kind of automatic counter or something. I won't add anything until I hear back from you. Thanks so much.-- — Kbob • Talk • 11:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're fine, which is what I meant by saying I left a note on your page by mistake. A normal word count is a bit tricky with all your X's etc, but I get 768. You were ok before you started this morning, you were under 1000. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes around 768 is what I had also. Thanks for your help. You're doing a great job!-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence statement at the TM case

Clerk Notice Please refactor your evidence so that it is less that 1000 words in length - at the moment it is 1500 words long. This requirement is stated twice on the evidence page. Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that total include the text embedded in the URL diffs I provided? For convenience, you can respond here, I've got your page watchlisted. Dreadstar ☥ 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I got your message. Sorry. Will refactor today. I'm watching here now. David Spector 17:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Dreadstar, still checking to see what the situation is, I'll get back to you tomorrow. But you've got a lot to cut. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I took all the text out of the links, so it's much shorter by that measure.[41] I was thinking perhaps the text in the diffs would be counted as a diff, but I can understand that it's extra words to read since they have to read the actual contents of the diff. Dreadstar ☥ 00:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually the text in the diffs was ok. Your word count is fine now, but you can also set up a user subpage and link to that. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. When I did a word count on the orginal version with the text in the diff links, it totals 1556 words,[42], but when I removed just the text from the diffs, it dropped to 688. [43]. The original count matches the calc you show of 1500 words long. Right now, after tightening the rest of the text, it's 589. If you don't mind the trouble, I'll put just the text in the diffs back and see if it increases the word count. To get my numbers, I'm copying the text from the edit box, and pasting it into Word. Dreadstar ☥ 05:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine, go ahead. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Done! Dreadstar ☥ 06:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tuckerj1976 at TM ArbCom

Hi Doug, How goes it? Re: Tuckerj1976 I know you have warned him twice but I believe he has added more content instead of reducing. Not very fair to the rest of us who are walking the thin white line. Anything you can do to even the score and level the playing field would be appreciated. Thanks. -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Dougweller. Could you explain how I can set-up a subuser page please? Thank you Tucker talk 05:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Subpages. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike and 1oz?

Hi Doug, do you remember Mike and 1oz http://semperegoauditor.typepad.com/ccc/2005/02/the_true_locati.html

I don't know if this is what they ment and this certainly doesn't prove anything but it's certainly interesting stuff:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/photogalleries/100224-shipwreck-bronze-age-treasure-salcombe-britain-pictures/#025918_600x450.jpg ,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/photogalleries/100224-shipwreck-bronze-age-treasure-salcombe-britain-pictures/#025919_600x450.jpg ,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/photogalleries/100224-shipwreck-bronze-age-treasure-salcombe-britain-pictures/#025928_600x450.jpg ,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/photogalleries/100224-shipwreck-bronze-age-treasure-salcombe-britain-pictures/#025922_600x450.jpg ,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/photogalleries/100224-shipwreck-bronze-age-treasure-salcombe-britain-pictures/#025925_600x450.jpg ,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/photogalleries/100224-shipwreck-bronze-age-treasure-salcombe-britain-pictures/#025917_600x450.jpg ,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/photogalleries/100224-shipwreck-bronze-age-treasure-salcombe-britain-pictures/#025929_600x450.jpg

Cheers, --Antiphus (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow in replying, I've looked it up yesterday and forgot to respond here, good thing as this morning I found [44] -- interesting but of course even if the time period was earlier, not exactly evidence. :-) Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ire

I seem to have earned the ire of editor nicked Deadtotruth] - he's issuing threats on my personal page. I find this pretty offensive. It all has to do with Genesis creation myth, a very hot-topic article at the moment. If you feel you have the strength, you might like to review the talk page/edit history and, if you feel Deadtotruth has overstepped the mark with his warning, suggest to him that he cool it. PiCo (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Personalized Actions

Doug, I saw your post to Deadtotruth, in which you encouraged him to avoid personal attacks. Could you please take a look at an officially personalized attack? The content dispute has turned into an ANI against myself: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/EGMichaels.EGMichaels (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mesoamerican Calendars

Hi Doug, thanks for looking out for Mesoamerican calendars. I would ask you to be a little lenient with possible botched edits to that page and a few other Mesoamerica related pages over the next weeks as my students will be working on them. Anyway Mesoamerican Calendars already has a lot of empty headers so one more or less I guess shouldn't be a problem for a few days while my students think of how to fill them. Best regards. A list of my students and the pages they will be editing can be found at User:Maunus/MESO1b·Maunus·ƛ· 06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, have you seen Wikipedia:School_projects? Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, no I hadn't. Thanks for directing me there!·Maunus·ƛ· 13:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the heads-up with Zapotec civilization (I have all the project related articles watchlisted of course). I just wanted to tell you that you needn't be shy with correcting my students' work - I'll just appreciate it if you'll be gentle in doing it, so they won't have an excuse to skip homework. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Doug. I am of course checking for copyvios - I have the literature at hand as I was the one who provided it to them. I am not going to require my students to do a more thorough formatting of the references than simply adding citations that are precise enough to locate the source of information. Although I suppose that when the articles reach a state where internal peer view is relevant references will eventually be formatted to conform to the specifics of WP:CITE - for now I am content with references conforming to WP:V. You are of course welcome to change the reference format before then if you wish. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't sure if they were finding their own literature. I'm not going to worry about the cites (except maybe I'll change the ones that don't have the book title properly). Thanks, sorry if I'm nagging. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

Sorry Doug, but you've got this the wrong way round. RCS personally attacked me. I replied: "This is a place for discussion of the content of an encyclopedia. Please limit your contributions to that." Channelwatcher (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: He/she has a record of personal attacks. Please look at his/her talk page.Channelwatcher (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PPS: It was the second troll intervention by RCS against me on that page in the same evening.Channelwatcher (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PPPS!! Me again, Doug. :) Look, I just found this on the Leuchter Report talk page:

Markacohen (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't pose as a Jew! --RCS (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to Please stop with the personal attacks. Markacohen (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather supports my contention that this person has a history of personal attacks. Channelwatcher (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Markacohen was given an indefinite block for disruption, etc - it did look as though he was pretending to be Jewish. See [45] & [46]. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. I had no knowledge of these incidents. It's a side issue, though, Doug. The point is that RCS is subjecting me to personal attacks which (deliberately?) side-track from the points I raised and seek to embroil me in argument. That is practically the definition of a troll. But I am the one who, wrongly, received the warning. I was entitled to be sharp, in response to that. But it was only very briefly. The main thrust of my reply was "This is a place for discussion of the content of an encyclopedia. Please limit your contributions to that." Channelwatcher (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You referred to his " stupidity and intolerance" and called him a troll. If you don't know, you can remove anything you want from your talk page. I commented on his bit about hidden motives also, although I wasn't sure if it was you or people mentioned in the article he was referring to, and WP:AGF suggests to me I should have granted him good faith. I may have been wrong, I don't know, but I do know that your comments don't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It was in response to his aggressive post. Check his record with others: there's plenty of it. I don't accept your warning and I'm removing it. We'll have to agree to disagree.Channelwatcher (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits to AE articles

I put link on a page of Qaineit, and that link works just well. --Mychele Trempetich (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Also, I don't know why you think that my edits are false.

They are unsourced mainly, although I found one which was sourced but you changed the text so that it contradicted the source. The sources I find for Herneith say she was buried separately from her husband. Confusingly enough, I can find reliable sources (academics, not web pages) that contradict each other about whether her husband was Djet or Djer. You really should always add reliable sources (see WP:RS although for AE subjects it means academic sources) when you edit, if you look below the edit window it says content must always be WP:Verifiabile. I'm spending quite a bit of time looking for sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Herneith was buried at Saqqara, and her husband Djer was buried at Abydos. Djet was son of Djer and husband of Merneith, and father of Den. Is that hard to understand?--Mychele Trempetich (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.179.232 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but at one point the article said Herneith was probably buried with her husband and you corrected that and I added sources. And as I've said, reliable sources seem in conflict as to whether Djet or Djer was her husband, so our article needs to reflect that. I'm not sure why you are asking me this. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Especially as it was yours truly, not Doug, who added the unreferenced tags to several of the articles you created, Mychele. If you have further questions about my edits, it would be more productive all around to direct them to me, not Doug. (Especially since he & I don't always see eye-to-eye.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talking of...

...people who would want Holocaust historiography be reevaluated , here is Mr. Controversy himself (last paragraphs). Cheers, --RCS (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk Training Request

Hello, I am interested in becoming a clerk for the ArbCom. I was wondering if you could train me. Regards, Cutno (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cutno. Thanks for asking. No disrespect, but I have to say that you are still too inexperienced. We expect clerks to have considerable experience both with articles and in non-article space, and most of us are also Administrators. Just keep on editing, read and later participate in some of the non-article areas, show that you can handle any situation with aplomb, and look at the Clerks noticeboard to see when we are recruiting again, but maybe next year? Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Methinks it's a delete...

I deleted a somewhat spammy article by this same person about a NYC locksmith. This is, well, spammy. Someone slapped a PROD on it, but I'm going to invoke WP:BOLD and delete it. Thanks for letting me know.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I thought about that but chickend out. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

vandalism

In your opinion, are the deletions by Pico Vandalism? You stated, "Secondly, this is clearly a content dispute and you should definitely call people's edits vandalism in such cases, see WP:Vandalism." I have issued Pico a vandalism warning and he proceeded to commit the same act some 5 times in less than 4 days. There are at least six editors who have requested Pico to stop - I am neither the first nor the last to ask Pico to stop. As far as a double standard, several editors have accused Pico of holding a double standard and I listed their talk in my request. However after following the lead of other editors, I ceased with this effort when the other editors asked me to stop. Unlike Pico, I do listen to the other editors and if they ask me to stop I generally do so. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Deadtotruth (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Danish colonization of America

Hey there. Regarding your edit and refusal of the suggestion of deletion for Danish colonization of the Americas :

1. The article has no sources, why is it not deleted?

2. The Norwegian possessions eventually taken by Denmark were Greenland, Faroese Islands, Iceland, Shetland.

3. There is no such thing as Danish colonization of the Americas. The Norwegians who went there, lost contact with the homelands and died out. To say the Danes had anything to do with the colonization of the Americas is flat out wrong and a distortion of the truth. This is not a POV, this is a fact that can be looked up in any history dealing with Scandinavia.

4. Further more, would you refer to the settlers of Jamestown as Anglo-Saxon or English? I suspect the latter, so why refer to Norwegian colonization of Greenland as Norse?

85.165.230.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

Please see WP:AFD for the normal deletion process. The article was clearly sourceable and a topic written about by many authors. It was also sourced and other sources have been added today. I can't get my head around the concept that something that once existed isn't real, even if it doesn't exist any more. A lot of colonization efforts all over the world have failed, that doesn't mean they never took place or that we shouldn't write about them.

Norse does not mean Norwegian. As Kirsten Seaver says:

"The broader term Norse also needs definition. Eastward expeditions across the Baltic Sea and deep into Russia were usually made by the eastern Norse— that is, primarily by Swedish and Finnish people who had no known role in the Vinland voyages and who therefore fall outside the realm of this study. Westward enterprises mostly involved people from Norway, especially western Norway, and Denmark." You're simply wrong in suggesting that people from the area we call Denmark today weren't involved in colonising Greenland. We rely upon what reliable sources have to say about the question, and they don't support your view. Who possessed Greenland when doesn't affect the question of where the people came from. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the Finns are not Norse, nor are they Scandinavian. They are Finno-Ugric. However I now see the context of the original article, I confused the broader term of the Americas with the first colonization of ther americas i.e Vindland. Yes the Danish went to the Americas in the 16th century, but Greenland is not the Americas, nor were it settled by Danes so why it is even mentioned is beyond me. I suggest that the article undergoes some rephrasing. Also, its not unrealistic that the explorers of Greenland had slaves with them, and considering the slaves might have come from Ireland in particular should we say that Irishmen also colonized Greenland? Of course not. 85.165.230.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC).
Greenland is the Americas. And Greenland was colonized by Danes from the 17th to the twentieth century.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Look at the article on Greenland, it rightly states that Greenland was colonized by Norwegians. To claim it was danes is outright wrong. Greenland was colonized by Eric the red. Either you would have to try to alter the Greenland page, or you must alter the article we discuss here, because right now it does not compute 85.165.230.127 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The Danish also colonized the US virgin islands St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John. Danish colonization of the Americas is a valid topic - probably the Norse colonies in Greenland is only the smallest part of it. Later Danish Colonization of Greenland beginning in the 18th century and going to the present is more relevant.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Danish (re)colonisation of Greenland started in 1721. That's a fact. Please take this to article talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest you get the two separated : Danish colonization and Norwegian colonization. Because right now the article is wrong. 85.165.230.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Hi

Thanks for your suggestion re Mission (Christian). Someone has already reverted my deletion. We all know that every religious topic could have a negative section. My thinking is that an article should give information about the topic, not what detractors have as criticism. Can you start a new article? You are more experienced than I, and I can help in further editing? Let me know. Thank you so much. รัก-ไทย (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that would be against our guidelines and policy. See WP:NPOV and WP:Content forking. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

SitchinIsWrong.com

Hi, I would appreciate if you could refer to the issue I raised here: Talk:Zecharia_Sitchin#Using_SitchinIsWrong.com_as_a_source Thanks! John Hyams (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dating conventions.

Interesting convention. I hadn't really seen this before. Like calling miles kilometers without changing the distance it describes, I think it's a bit silly but I do respect authors choice of content. Some day I may argue with you Editors over this convention but until then the saying "Where they make an edit, they call it peace!" will have to suffice. LOL and all the best. Manila Calling! (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manila Calling! (talk • contribs) 04:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:UP redraft

Following discussion I've had a go at redrafting WP:UP which needed a good cleanup. I was amazed how much improvement is possible. Before proposing it at WP:UP I wonder if you'd like to review the cleaned up version and let me know any comments on its talk page.

I've deliberately made few or no substantive changes to allow focus on style and flow improvement.

I'll also be suggesting a rename to "Wikipedia:User pages", removing the ambiguity that "user page" normally means just the one main user page.

Thoughts welcome.

FT2 (Talk | email) 22:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A question plz

Dear Dougweller goodmorning from Crete, Greece. Cretan diet is not a commercial link to articles. Can i Add it again plz? thanx a lot.

Cretan Quality Agreement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symfono gram (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I was confused by 'the company' and 'products'. Yes, but the English link please, [47]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Deluge Myth

Actually, the edits I made are not personal opinion, or unverified research. When looking at history and comparing it with the Bible accounts, the writing of the Deluge myth was about 1513 BC by Moses. Saying it occurred in the time frame listed on the page would bring the flood about the same time as the books from Numbers - Ezra were written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakuplanguages (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Several points. No one actually knows when it was first composted, which may have been orally. There are a wide range of viewpoints about when it was written and by whom, many people do not think there was a historical Moses. Ditto the 'flood', which modern science says never took place although the story may reflect local flooding, perhaps the earlier floods described on Sumerian tablets. Finally, changing 'God' to 'Jehovah' clearly represents the JW pov and shouldn't be in this article. And changing the Bible reference to a JW one is also pov. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Neophyte Ancient Egyptian Toe Stepping?

Dear Doug,

Thank you for the welcome.

I am a complete neophyte, but have made editing changes to two articles: [48] and [49]. The edits are pretty bold stuff, but are supported by recent US and UK patents. A full discussion as it applies to Ancient Egyptian technology and Obelisks is contained in [50].

I do not want to step on any toes here, but am not sure just how the review process will go with such an outlandish (although supported by physics and civil engineering) suggestion that the Ancient Egyptians did not use many ropes and humans to transport and raise the Obelisks!

Any comments, criticisms, helps, or other would be appreciated!

Thanks,

Elsie Spry Spryem (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC

You voted twice at this RfC, [51] and [52]. I took the liberty of striking your earlier vote, and merged it with your later vote [53]. Feel free to re-arrange as you think necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's embarrassing and definitely not deliberate. Thanks for your help. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I know it wasn't :) I probably should have made that more clear in my initial posting here. Everybody makes mistakes. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What credentials do you need?

Dear Doug,

You have reverted my edits for the reason of not being significant. Thank you for recognizing they were done in good faith.

I truly need some help here:

Why is physics applications technology -- recognized by US and GB patents ( US6739827[54]/GB2460558 [55] -- not significant?

What credentials are needed (Dr. Spry is a PhD in Physics)?

If the ERIC article ED438175 ([56])is not significant, would the article in Journal of the Washington Academy of Science (Volume 95, Number 1, Spring 2009, page 13 ) be more appropriate?

Will it take the level of a NOVA production (they are not happy that the technology counters their already produced program -- I've tried talking with them already) or would a less nationalized production work (I'm working on a larger demonstration than physics class Duplo with local engineers)?

How was a Kite with pulleys (Mory Gharib and Maureen Clemmons) significant to Ancient Egyptian theory of doing work ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryem (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks,

Elsie Spryem (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The kite stuff had an article in Time Magazine [57] and National Geographic News [58], ABC, etc. You can discuss this on the talk page of the article, Talk:Ancient Egyptian technology, or maybe our reliable sources noticeboard - WP:RSN which will give you more input as to what would be necessary. Don't just listen to me. :-) I'll tell you where else you could discuss it (wouldn't help you get it on Wikipedia, just a place to discuss it, the forum at [59]. NOVA would work. I don't think the journal article would, you need other people discussing it. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Doug,

So it is the popular extent of third party recognition -- rather than the endorsement of third party international patent awards, third party peer-reviewed journal recognition, and third party archeological findings -- that is needed to be recognized by Wikipedia? I just want to be clear on this, since I have been focusing my time just on intellectual, professional and historical confirmations. I will take your advice to create a buzz on the popular discussion boards and prime time video productions for the future.

I'm glad all my source references were to reliable sites, as defined in the Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard: US and UK Patent sites, the ERIC site, and the Journal of the Washington Academy of Science. I will also continue with further archeological confirmations and source references (such as the work of the court artist of Der El-Bahari: R. Engelbach, The Problem of The Obelisks, Pages 57 and 58 excerpted:[60]); Queen Hatshepsut's account of Obelisk work: The Obelisk of Hatshepsut Translation of the Inscription on the Base of the Obelisk of Hatshepsut [North Side][61]; and Wikipedia's own reference to a "3,000-year-old papyrus scroll where one scribe taunts another to erect a monument for 'thy lord'" ([21] NOVA (TV series) [[Secrets of Lost Empire II: Pharaoh's Obelisks][62]]).

Your suggestions for popular discussion are greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, I can't get to the blogs and boards right away, having further engineering, science journal and artifact identification projects in hand. Hopefully -- if TV coverage after the weather will do -- the alternate "Sand Motive Force" theory can be included along side the "Kite with Pulleys" and "Many Ropes and Men" conjectures already in the articles (even though the Ancient Egyptians had no pulleys, and the NOVA crew had trouble with only a 25 ton obelisk). I'll just have to work at getting beyond the present independent intellectual, professional and archeological confirmations and references to achieve the kite and rope levels of recognition.

Thank you again for the clarification of Wikipedia significance, as well as your advice for getting it!

Best Regards,

Elsie 67.20.250.26 (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No no, a buzz on blogs and boards is useless, I said that it wouldn't help here. It has to be discussed in reliable sources, Egyptological or media, so that it becomes a 'significant' point of view. Your own research won't help here either. Also see WP:Notability. Local tv coverage won't cut it either. By the way, the Egyptians had 'proto-pulleys' that didn't turn. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Doug,

By "buzz" I did mean popular discussion, since the professional discussion of current patents, peer reviews of the science, and supporting archeology findings don't make the "significant" grade for Wikipedia. I agree, relying on popular discussion is pretty pointless -- why I have been focused on the patents, peer review and archeology finds -- until it gets "loud" or popular enough for Time or National Geographic to feature it. I am sure that was your point in recommending the discussion sites you did, and I thank you. I took your point being that was a way to get the third party interest of NOVA, and others that met your "significant" definition. At that time, I am sure the third party patents, third party science, and third party archeology would be noted. I am just too enmeshed in the civil engineering applications for today (retaining wall, trench safety and beach nourishment) to concentrate on generating a "buzz" that would get the significant recognition needed to be listed in Wikipedia for the Ancient Egyptian technology. I just thought it was curious that the Kite theory -- although it does not fit the resources or archeology of the time, and would have certainly destroyed a 500 ton (strong but brittle) obelisk with the uneven and abrupt force of the wind -- was acceptable. Again, your point on its popular recognition is well taken, and was just the sort of direction I need.

By a proto-pulley do you mean a cleat, a stationary bollard or a spool to change the direction of the rope? All I could find were discussion board references without definition. I have used both a cleat and bollard to pull in or let out a boat while either docking to tighten in, when pulling away (in high winds, or a wind release), or to control the sails by letting out or pulling in (no pulleys -- they were broken or in the deep, or both). The spool I've used for kite flying. All of these would change the direction, but not the force ratio that the Kite conjecture relied upon. Is there something else?

Thanks,

Elsie67.20.250.26 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, p. 211 - mushroom shaped hard stones with grooves which he suggests may have been used to change the direction, as you suggest. Things like supporting archaeological findings don't help not because they aren't significant but because they don't mention your father's work. You need reliable sources discussing in a non-trivial fashion (ie not just a sentence or two) his work. If the subject of the construction itself interests you, this might: [63] and the Choice Magazine review says he discusses this protopulley. I'll be too busy for about a week and a half now for discussion, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence at TM case

Ryan Postlethwaite has notified me that my evidence is about 300 words overlength. Due to unexpected real life events I may not have an opportunity to refactor it within the next 24 hours. Durova412 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's taken care of now. Durova412 04:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Deluge Myth again

(I wasn't sure if you preferred a new comment on an old subject to be kept with that subject or to be posted at the bottom of your page.)

I happened to notice the reversion of the change from LORD to Jehovah, and just want to mention that though in this case the editor may have been working from a JW point of view that would invalidate her/his edits, many translations of the Bible use Jehovah or Yahweh for the tetragrammeton YHWH. Here's from the WP article, "Jehovah":

The spelling used by Tyndale was "Iehouah"; at that time, I was not distinguished from J, and U was not distinguished from V.[29] The original 1611 printing of the Authorized King James Version used "Iehovah". Tyndale wrote about the divine name: "IEHOUAH [Jehovah], is God's name; neither is any creature so called; and it is as much to say as, One that is of himself, and dependeth of nothing. Moreover, as oft as thou seest LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing), it is in Hebrew Iehouah, Thou that art; or, He that is."[30]

The name Jehovah appeared in all early Protestant Bibles in English, except Coverdale's translation in 1535.[31] The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible used "the Lord", corresponding to the Latin Vulgate's use of "Dominus" (Latin for "Adonai", "Lord") to represent the Tetragrammaton. The Authorized King James Bible also, which used Jehovah in a few places, most frequently gave "the LORD" as the equivalent of the Tetragammaton. The name Jehovah appeared in John Rogers' Matthew Bible in 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, Bishop's Bible of 1568 and the King James Version of 1611. More recently, it has been used in the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version in 1901, and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures of the Jehovah's Witnesses in 1961.

At Exodus 6:3-6, where the King James Version has Jehovah, the Revised Standard Version (1952),[32] the New American Standard Bible (1971), the New International Version (1978), the New King James Version (1982), the New Revised Standard Version (1989), the New Century Version (1991), and the Contemporary English Version (1995) give "LORD" or "Lord" as their rendering of the Tetragrammaton, while the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), the Amplified Bible (1987), the New Living Translation (1996, revised 2007), the English Standard Version (2001), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004) use the form Yahweh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

You could also see this webpage: http://bible.cc/genesis/6-3.htm Yopienso (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)≠

newbie asking for help blocking a vandal

I just reverted vandalism on the Hungry Hungry Hippos page. I checked on the talk page and noticed that this vandal has been warned several times that he/she will be blocked if the vandalism continues and one of those warnings was from you. I have no idea how to block someone...how do I go about doing this or asking for it to be done? Thanks for any guidance you can offer. Miketsu (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Only Administrators can block people - Administrators are generally editors with considerable experience in various aspects of Wikipedia who become Administrators through a discussion process in which others register what we call !votes ! meaning 'not' as they are considered opinions, but that's another issue. WP:BLOCK explains our policy on blocking. In your case we are looking at IP addresses, tricky as some IP addresses are assigned only so long as the editor is online, then get assigned to other people, other IP addresses are more permanent. WHOIS at the bottom of user talk pages sometimes reveals the IP address is assigned to a school. We normally give short blocks to IPs unless they are schools, which can get longer blocks. Although the page on blocking mentions ANI, one of the Administrator's notice boards, normally people should go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You might want to read WP:ANI to see what sorts of issues are discussed there. In your case, the edits are 'stale', ie it's possible the IP addresses have been assigned to someone else (doubtful in one case), so probably nothing will be done. You can leave warnings, judiciously, and not normally for stale warnings. WP:Twinkle helps with that. Judiciously, remember, and be very careful it's vandalism before you label it that. Have you read WP:Vandalism? I hope this helps. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

user:Mehrshad123

Take a look at his contributions (specially in Fereydun Farrokhzad and its talk page). He persists on removing sourced material from that page and the reason that he mentions in its talk page only consists of personal attacks and calling other users as propagandist and agents of political groups (for example, he calls me a member of MKO, which is a political organization with a history of terrorist activities). Alefbe (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is why I usually hesitate going to ANI. Most of admins who are active there don't even distinguish between a relevant discussion at a talk page and personal attacks. The first time that I was blocked was because Rjanag refused to take action against a disruptive editor (a sock-puppet of user:orijentolog who was later banned) and the second time that I was was blocked was because Rjanag misused his sysop tools in a content dispute with me (and anyone else agreed that it was a misuse of tools). Now, User:Atama refers to those two blocks and instead of dealing with obvious personal attacks by Mehrshad123, he threatens me being blocked. Alefbe (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Atama has now given Mehrshad123 an only warning and - ah, you know about the ANI discussion. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Atema's comment didn't stopped Mehrshad123, neither from removing sourced material (from reliable sources such as UNHCR [64]), nor from continuing personal attacks [65] [66] [67] [68]. Apparently, the way that User:Atama has handled this issue has encouraged Mehrshad123 to continue his behavior. Alefbe (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_15&oldid=1078386098"