User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

JingNan Campaign

Hi, I translated the Chinese wiki page of Jingnan Campaign (JC) to English version and posted, the original text is far too massive to be cited, all of them can be found in the references 明实录、明通鉴、明成祖实录 etc.. Restore it plz. Dont u think mine is far better than present one? In the sense of quality and fineness. Ww9980 (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I had no way of knowing that. We have guidelines on translating other wikis:

Because Wikipedia licensing requires attribution, the translation source must be credited to avoid copyright violation. Attribution in the edit summary and placing the template {{Translated page}} on the article talk page are the recommended ways to credit the source of the translation. (See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.)

This guidance was in the templates at the top of the article's page.
The original text has 214 references. I can't be sure, but it seems very well sourced. It's a great idea to use the original article, but if you do, then you need to source it with the inline citations used in the original but translated into English as the detail given in the footnotes is important.
Obviously this will take time, but there's no urgency, do it a bit at a time. See if anyone on this list[1] (members of the Chinese history workgroup) will help. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Our favorite page...

How many new editors have miraculously shown up in the last month or so? I've lost count... I'm beginning to think this isn't a coincidence either. Perhaps there's some conversation going on one of those forums that obsess over topics like this about how to change the page to their liking...--Yalens (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

sorry, lost track. I couldn't find anything but you may well be right. Meanwhile, look out for [2] being used as a source - it is self-published.[3]. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

re: Cosmology page reversions

Hi, Several people, including you, have been reverting the description of Biblical Cosmology to one that is just completely fraudulent and doesn't have hardly a thing to do with the Bible's actual description of the cosmos. It's nearly a carbon copy of the Babylonian one and not accurate at all in terms of what the Bible says (which is why I included Bible references in my revision). Describing Bible cosmology as similar to Babylonian is about as accurate as calling America a communist nation. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be accurate?

All who have reverted it simply do not seem to care about accuracy. They may have good intentions, but their description is not accurate at all. I have MUCH more documentation of this I can add if you wish, even by agnostic scientists. I'm also a professor myself and have done quite a bit of study into the Bible as well as science and history. Wikipedia is very good in many places..but there is unfortunately a bias against historical facts in some areas, sometimes in Christian areas, but not limited to that by any means. I use wikipedia a lot...but we need to make sure it is accurate, not just supporting a prejudiced agenda.

Sorry I haven't contacted others about this..I just figured out how to use the talk pages just now.

Bryan

Dotoree (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cosmology

Hello again Doug, Long time since we last spoke. Can I please ask you to look again at the Cosmology article. There have been a load of reverts, by either IP addresses or unregistered names. These reverts seem to be quoting the Bible as historical fact. I have ask for reasons, but they seem to be intent on pushing their own points without using the appropiate Talk Page. One has used my personal Talk Page, without signing their contribution and also shouting. I would be grateful for your action/advice. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Doug,This was sent before I realised the contribution above. Regards,David J Johnson (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Remember you are free to delete anything on your talk page. It looks to me as though this is under control. I've warned the editor that he must get agreement on the article talk pages now as he is at 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug, Many thanks for your help. Best regards,David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cosmology

Hello again Doug, Long time since we last spoke. Can I please ask you to look again at the Cosmology article. There have been a load of reverts, by either IP addresses or unregistered names. These reverts seem to be quoting the Bible as historical fact. I have ask for reasons, but they seem to be intent on pushing their own points without using the appropiate Talk Page. One has used my personal Talk Page, without signing their contribution and also shouting. I would be grateful for your action/advice. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Doug,This was sent before I realised the contribution above. Regards,David J Johnson (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Remember you are free to delete anything on your talk page. It looks to me as though this is under control. I've warned the editor that he must get agreement on the article talk pages now as he is at 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug, Many thanks for your help. Best regards,David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

[post from Dotoree deleted, I'm not having my talk page used for this]Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to define your world views. It is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTWEBHOSTHeiro 18:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Doug, Reference the contribution from Dotoree above, I think the time is fast approaching for further action. I and other editors have offered to help Dotoree and have been rewarded by being called "amateurs" and a good deal of "shouting" in his replies. It is obivious that he is trying to push his agenda against Wikipedia guidelines and will not listen to help and advice. As I have stated, should we all consider further action? With best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

[and again]. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not here so you can publish THE TRUTHTM, you do not have a right to express your "freedom of speech" here as this is a private website where volunteers edit and must abide by the rules. Not letting you run roughshod over the rules here is not "intellectual human rights abuse". Nor is this the place for you to "debate and discuss how true each cosmology is based on evidence of different types and things like that". Read up on WP:What Wikipedia is not. And knock it off with the "perpetrating fraud", "intentionally deceptive", and "people who hate and are prejudiced" crap, it is seriously bordering on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to constantly hurl that out at everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with your biblical outlook. Heiro 07:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Colon

The ANI report is up at WP:ANI#Colon-el-Nuevo. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please restore User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon

In December 212 the page User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon was deleted as "Abandoned userfied article, editor hasn't edited for 18 months." Actually i log in very frequently. I know that to you i am "just andother red shirt" but i have made it clear that most, if not all, of my editing is done from my IP address, and i have actually given detailed written explanations as to why i chose this method of work.

In short, i have chosen to function as what in the retail world is called a "mystery shopper," a term that refers to a supposedly "random customer" who samples the customer service skills of the store. In Wikipedia terms, i am the "random editor" who contributes data in areas of personal interest and expertise. I note how many times my work is reverted by bots, unjustly. I note how many times i receive dire warning texts for simply adding a sentence to an article on a well-known and easily-researched topic. I am happy to say that the number of unpleasant personal encounters -- unwarranted rudeness to an unknown IP editor -- has decreased greatly over the past few years, but the bot problem remains.

My former IP was 64.142.90.33

My current IP is 70.36.137.192

I have had other IP addresses as well -- this is up to my isp, of course.

As far as i know, there is no time-limit on username log-ins at Wikipedia as there once was at Dmoz, where i also edited for many years. If there is, and you would like to advise me of the time-frame, i will cheerfully comply and log in promptly in my name and make a courtesy-edit within any time-frime you or your superior officers desire or require -- be it daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.

On the whole, however, i prefer to contribute to Wikipedia as an IP rather than as a username -- it is quicker and more convenient than logging in (i can edit on the fly while on my job, which is writing books) and i enjoy the variety of responses to the IP-editor.

So can i please have my Carroll Runyon page back again? It is not "abandoned." It was actually the casualty of an anti-occultism deletionist edit-war of long ago, and i have hopes to reinstate it. The subject of the biography is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, in my opinion.

Cordially,

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi cat - no problems with timelimits on accounts. But June 2 2009, your last edit with a 64. IP address, is a long time ago, almost four years, so it does certainly seem abandoned. And worse, it has no sources at all. How about starting a short version in your userspace (with the userdraft template please, that was missing from the deleted version so it was showing up on Google) adding some references to show notability? That would both show that you really are working on it and make it more likely it can be restored to Wikipedia. I'm not the one who deleted it and I'm loathe to restore it as it is now. Start some work and reference it and I would probably feel differently. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug, Yes, indeed, my last edit with the "Ol 64" IP (64.142.90.33 ) was four years ago. My isp changed my IP when i signed on for a DSL account with them. I have been using the IP 70.36.137.192 since then and clearly stated that in my letter above. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.36.137.192 and you will see that i edit here often and that you made an error by checking the wrong IP.
Additionally, you have created a Catch-22. You say that i can have the Carroll Runyon page back if i start to edit and source it, but since the page is being held as unavailable, i can't edit it or source it since i don't know what information it contains. cat 70.36.137.192 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I was not referring to your last edit anywhere, just your last edit on the deleted page. I didn't suggest that you start to edit and source it, but that you "Start some work and reference it and I would probably feel differently." In other words, start some sort of new draft with some reliable sources. If you recall, the userfied copy was not to be restored, it was the original that was to be restored if appropriate. It would be easier to do that if you could produce some sort of draft that clearly shows notability, then it would be possible to undelete the original and for you to add your new work to that. I'm not even suggesting a full article draft, just material with reliable sources that will show notability. You don't need the original to do that as I'm just effectively asking for notes. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Dougweller.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tucson Artifacts

I have been offline since I wrote the edits to Tucson artifacts. I had watched the American Unearthed episode on the H2 History Channel and decided to look at the Wikipedia article and anything else I might find online. I watch that show for amusement. Obviously, and unfortunately, it is skewed toward accepting the fringe theories on pre-Columbian discoveries of America. Nonetheless, some information gets through. If one is not very careful about listening to what is said and what is and is not covered, one can be taken in by these theories, however. I saw that the article was incomplete and poorly written. Worse, someone had added that the articles were most recently proved genuine, based on the History Channel show, and there was some additional nonsense about the Templars. Even while watching the show I noted that any mention of Templar predecessors was ridiculous because they had no predecessors from 300 years prior to their organization.

I am interested in history and in fringe theories for amusement. I don't rule out a few pre-Columbian visitors. We know the Vikings made it. By the way, the show, if you have not watched it, has also dealt with Roanoke Island. No pre-Columbian connection there at all.

It is a shame that Professor Covey, a scholar at a big time university, appears to have been taken in by this hoax - but perhaps his conclusion was actually to debunk the whole story. We don't really know based on the brief insert about his book. I hope he did not actually support this theory. This was before the Payn and Burgess articles but the University of Arizona report rejecting the articles as a hoax rather clearly sets out the problems with the artifacts.

I am also interested in the credibility of wikipedia since I have written 85 articles and intend to do many more. The article had 2,920 visitors yesterday. It would have been very bad for the project for people to have seen that article with the genuineness assertion and mention of the Templars. Also, it was poorly written and very incomplete. I read the lengthy Burgess journal article which covers the history and the arguments in great detail and used that to put some key points into the article that would refute the major few points from the show. I felt I had to do a triage job quickly because the show would likely cause an influx of readers to that article. Over the next several days I may try to improve the article and to look at the others you mention. I do like to drift into other areas of history than the ones I usually work on. I have been doing recent changes patrol for the most part over the past few months, but I am about to cut back on that and do more content creation and editing. Donner60 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work there. I've afraid Cyclone Covey buys into 'they all visited America'. He's also written for Ancient American, owned by an LDS adherent and once edited by Frank Joseph with a collection of articles edited by Joseph and Zechariah Sitchin. He got stung there when they changed his wording in a major way. His book on the Tucson artefacts is "Calalus:a Roman Jewish colony in America from the time of Charlemagne through Alfred the Great". He also wrote "Algonquins, Egyptians, and Uto-Aztecs". He once wrote "‘‘The clinching evidence of a possible Solutrean connection trans-Atlantic is pre-Indo-European Pleistocene speech persisting in the earliest dialects (th, n, and y) of Algonquin Cree, cognate with West-European Euskera before its Indo-Europeanization as modern Basque’’." (the last bit being nonsense, and to quote Alice Kehoe, "It's highly unlikely that Pleistocene speech features can be recognized in Cree recorded ten millennia later." He recently wrote an intro for a book arguing that the Cherokee come from the Middle East. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That's disappointing. The "truth was out there." Perhaps the sources that Payn and Burgess were able to dig out were not easy to find, being limited to university and museum archives and a few private copies. Still, it is a baseless, if not nutty, proposition. As near as I can tell, nothing but these "artifacts" has been found to support this wild idea. They do not stand scrutiny as ancient. The supposition that Europeans from the Middle Ages, with primitive weapons, and able to bring only limited supplies on any kind of journey, would travel to one of the most inhospitable places in North America to settle, nearly across the continent - that they would be able to even make it there, much less become established - is nonsensical. And they left no other traces. Improbable events have occurred in history, but not that improbable. The explanations that a high school boy created the artifacts for amusement and pitched them away or that a few of the principals, at least one of whom was fired by the University of Arizona, created them as a hoax seem to cover the realistic possibilities. Covey seems to have dealt in fringe theories too extensively to let him off the hook for this one. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Data Science addition of a commercial symposium advertisement

At the Data science article I have reverted the addition of an external link to a commercial Chief Data Scientist Summit. The Big Data and Data Science conferences are plentiful these days, and selecting one of them to publish in a Data Science article is not representative and seems to fall under Non adverising policy. The link may belong to a page describing conferences on the subject, but then it would violate the Not a collection of links policy. Vlad Didenko 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Very good point, I agree. I was trying to clean up the article and it occurred to me I could use that link as an EL rather than just delete it, but I'm very happy with what you've done - it's basically in line with my edits. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Known Fact; Cyrus Cylinder is corroborated by Nabonidus Chronicle + Cyrus Panegyric + Historians' Accounts + Religious Texts

Dougweller,

This is a known fact that Cyrus Cylinder is historically correlated by Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus Panegyric, and historians account such as Herodotus and Xenophon. Plus, it corroborates with various instances in the Bible, i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. The first two sources are Historical and Archaeological accounts at once, you cannot argue their veracity, the Bible is religious, yet you cannot reject what is written in it; it basically calls 'Cyrus the Great', a 'Messiah'; this is by all means the utmost reverence for a human being by at least 3 world religions, who consider the Bible a sacred text.

Also please try and understand the semantics here, there is difference between a 'biography' and a book called "The Ancient World: 'Dictionary' of World Biography" (which is also used as a source in various Wiki articles such as, 'Ancient Greece', 'Ashurbanipal', 'Damnatio ad bestias, etc.). In any case, 'Biographies' may also be used as references in Wikipedia, FYI, and there is no problem in that. Nevertheless we are not citing any 'biography' or 'world biography' here, but a 'Dictionary', and you cannot cancel the reliability of this book, just because its title contains the phrase 'world biography'. Thanks. Armaiti (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Eilat Mazar page update

Hey Dougweller, I wanted to thank you for your feedback on the Eilat Mazar wiki page I put up yesterday. Perhaps "overhaul" was not the right word in describing the updates - what Eilat really wanted me to put up was a more complete list of her publications and a more accurate description of her excavations and committees she belongs to - e.g. she is not a "senior fellow" for the Shalem Center, as the older article states. Since the original article was put up, many excavations have taken place at the Ophel, and Eilat wanted a description of them on the site, along with the earlier Achziv excavations. As you mentioned, the references to "Dr." and "Prof." have now been changed. But perhaps the biggest thing you mentioned was with the bias of the article - I apologize for that. I have gone back into the old page and reinserted all of the counter-comments from other archaeologists. I do not mean to start any conflict of interest battles on this page, merely just to provide an updated biography of Eilat and her excavation activities. My thanks again for your assistance, please let me know if anything else may be done to improve the article. C.k.eames http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.k.eames (talk • contribs) 12:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nalanda article

Hello, This is in response to your reversal of my edit to the Nalanda page. I understand that measures must be in place to prevent WP being used for promotional purposes. However, I'd like to draw attention to the changing landscape of the publishing (in fact, any content production) world today. The whole idea of the Internet is to be able to evaluate material democratically and ensure that the power to produce is not held by a closely guarded elite monopoly. I believe that sites like Google and Wikipedia should support those who strike out a path against major companies. Wikipedia should base its decisions on the reception of creative works amongst the public, such as in reviews and other online sources. I have seen a good many books published by reputed publishers (Penguin for instance) to compare poorly to some indie titles. This is a time when indie authors are trying to make it on their own, refusing to tread the groove and accept the terms of the big houses. The Internet should do what it can to support them.

Trying to impose an arbitrary clamp on self-produced content, just because it is self-produced, is bad. Material should be evaluated for its status amongst peers as evidenced by online reviews and its reception. Not allowing a citation of a self-published work with good reviews while allowing a citation from a Random House book with poor reviews is like Google refusing to index Wikipedia because it was not endorsed by Brittanica. Surely, we've come a long way from those dark days?

The book I cited from is available at reputed libraries (http://www.worldcat.org/title/i-am-not-a-buddhist/oclc/809387576). I'd be happy to create a page for the book at some point in the future.

Thanks.

GvH

Actually we do what you say we should do. See WP:SPS, WP:USERG and WP:BK. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
So it's ok to undo the reversal then? Ironically it was because of the book that I was motivated to look up Nalanda in Wikipedia!

Gvonhousen (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd still say no, unless she's clearly an expert on translation - I'm also not sure that we can quote a whole poem in any case - copyright issues. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dating conventions

Hello Dougweller: Thanks for your note concerning the revert of my recent edit. I have recently been editing a number of articles related to ancient Rome, and had not seen this particular emphasis on Common Era dating to any great degree. Certainly not the forced attempt at common era dating evident at this particular article. In a brief, and incomplete, review of past edits, it appears that most of these changes took place (roughly) 9 months ago. At that time, the section header "Early Christian Era" was changed to "Common Era" and so forth. If there is a WP:ERA violation, it may have taken place at that time. But I certainly won't know that until I do more reading, and review the Talk page comments. I got sidetracked from that effort when I noticed the dangling reference to monsoons. That, in turn, had me reading up on the Aksumite Kingdom (which the Roman traders had to pass through) and their effective use of monsoon winds in these trade routes. So forgive my sloppy half edit to the dating issue, and my incomplete response to your kind note. I'll try to complete the review of past edits, to see if I or someone else come up short with the WP:ERA oversight. Gulbenk (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked in depth. Funny, I've been working on the Aksum article - where I've had a bit of a problem with an editor who doesn't like anything that looks like Western research. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There we go...great minds running in the same ditch! Hope your Aksum editor doesn't look too closely at the roman trade article, as well. I probably won't be researching the Aksumite Empire to the same depth, but if I run into anything interesting (in some obscure corner), I would be most happy to share. Gulbenk (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Panther-Yates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Panther-Yates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Panther-Yates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Intervention needed at Aligarh Muslim University!

Hi! Well, Sir I needed your intervention at Aligarh Muslim University, in this section! Here's the Article's History! The user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is not behaving normally, he reverted edits many times! The dispute is on the List of notable Aligarh Muslim University alumnies! This is the List_of_notable_Aligarh_Muslim_University_alumnies#Heads_of_State_and_Government table that was added to the main article, but this edit was reverted by the user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom in multiple edits, with the objection of un-referenced content, You can have a view on the page's history! I was also contacted on my Talk page here here. After it, I searched for the references, and found them, put them on the list, and then copied the table on the main Aligarh University Article! But now, he is again reverting others edits, with the objection of "duplication" He says that the table cannot be on two pages, i.e. Aligarh Muslim University and List_of_notable_Aligarh_Muslim_University_alumnies#Heads_of_State_and_Government table at the same time. Please Intervene! I just want to put the table in the main University article, it will not be a copyright violation, as it was in this revision! Faizan (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also reported this user in the three revert rule violation! So please have a look at conflict!Faizan (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Request...

Mr. Dougweller, I am Dr. K A Paul's assistant and owing that 90% of the information that Wikipedia is publishing about Dr. K A Paul is wrong and is written in a libellous way, we want all information about Dr. K A Paul to be remove from Wikipedia, the entire page that talks Dr. K A Paul we want to be delete from this website... I have tried to provide to Wikipedia the right information about Dr. Paul, by editing and posting the right information and trying to correct all the false information on it, but Wikipedia keeps changing it to their own way, giving to the public wrong information by slandering Dr. K A Paul... You are obviously one of Wikipedia editors and not just a person from the general public providing Wikipedia with information, is obvious to me that you have orders from your bosses to keep Dr. K A Paul's page in a certain way and obviously gossip sales more than the real facts, I can provide all documentation needed to prove that I am Dr. K A Paul's assitant, ( I have been his assitant for more than 10 years) and I can provide all documentation needed to prove that almost all information that Wikipedia is publishing about Dr. K A Paul is false and wrong. Is obvious to me that Wikipedia is not a public forum as they are trying to show to the public, yes anybody can adit Wikipedia articles but right away Wikepedia own editors will change all information back to their own way, I am telling this for my own experience as I have edited Wikipedia articles and right away all information that I have posted is deleted by one of Wikipedia own editors, ( and the information I have posted is factual and I posted it in a respectful way as well) but however is deleted by one of Wikipedia own editors, therefore the best is to remove all and each one of the articles that talks about Dr. K A Paul on this website, as Dr. K A Paul doesn't need any of Wikipedia articles talking and or gossiping about him, and I am making this statement as Dr. K A Paul's assistant and representative on this matter.

Sincerely NCJM — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCJM (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi NCJM, I'm also an admin here at Wikipedia. I took a look at K. A. Paul, and the other editor was correct to remove the information. The problem is, you can't just come here and say "I know him, I know what's true, so I'm changing it." Wikipedia relies on drawing information from reliable sources. You can probably see why this is necessary: otherwise, anyone could come here and just claim to be related to a subject, and say anything they wanted. This is explained in our policy on verifiability. Additionally, neither Dougweller, nor the other editors on K.A.Paul, nor anyone here, work for the Wikimedia Foundation (the private charity that runs Wikipedia). We're all just volunteers, trying to follow policies as best as we can.
If you work for Paul, then you may be able to help us. Do you know of reliable sources that support what you're trying to add? If so, we can use those to support changing or adding to the article. When two sources contradict each other, we usually show both pieces of information. I'd be glad to help you with all of the formatting and fidgeting it takes to get things inputted right.
Lastly, I do have to let you know that we won't be able to delete the page. Paul is clearly notable, and we don't remove pages just because the subject of the page doesn't like what's in it. Really, that's exactly the same as a newspaper, or book, or even a paper encyclopedia: you can't call up the company and tell them what their publication has to say. But, like I said, I and I'm sure Dougweller are willing to help you if you can provide us the sources we need. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, this is now at WP:BLPN Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Zaza people.

Hello, can i ask you why you protected the page and put them as the Zaza Kurds?, they are not Kurds, it even says in the history about them that they are not Kurds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've explained why on the talk page. Edit-warring is not a good way to write articles, nor is using sources that don't meet our criteria or that don't actually have anything to do with the text they are supposedly sourcing. You all need to work out your differences on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Doug, good luck with your admin work on this article. I tried to investigate the topic once. It seems there is a split among the people who speak the Zaza language as to whether they should consider themselves Kurds. Probably the best we can hope to do is to reflect the conflicting opinions of the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
And stop the edit warring. I've made a note on the talk page about sourcing - someone's been moving sources around, some sources are not at all RS, many needed more information, not just a link to a Google page. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Doug, yes, if you would be so kind: [4] and [5]. No need to go to oversight with this. Thank you! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Awesome fast, thanks again! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd: this and this are related to changes -- copy the edit to clipboard, revdel, paste, abridge, save -- that I'd vaguely intended to make myself. A message on my user talk page today prompted me to go ahead and do it, but I thereupon found that my intended changes had been preempted. ¶ I'll add that I would have done all of this as a courtesy. Though I see the term "outing" used, WP:OUTING tells us: references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. And this was still-existing, self-disclosed information. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Did you want me to do something about this? Or leave it? Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's all fine, thanks. My two messages have probably served their purpose and needn't be visible any more; if I was charged with "outing" then I'm no longer being charged with it. All's well, from my PoV. -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This one AfD discussion

Do you know what happens next at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazrat Sayed Mehboob Ali Shah Chishti Nizami? I'm not trying to push further discussion, but I really don't know where to go from here. As the nominator, can you function as the closer? Can a non-admin function as a closer? Despite editing Wikipedia for more than six years, I honestly still don't know much about the process. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No one who has participated can close it. If there were no conflicting !votes, anyone could close it. In this case I'd say any experienced editor, or of course an Admin, could as the one !Keep is clearly not going to count. I'll have more comments later today as there is an issue about how long it should be kept open. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Enthusiastic moderator.

Doug, I am sure you are enthusiastic about wikipedia, and it gives you a sense of importancy, to edit other peoples input. However you, and others are doing wrong, and lately you claimed I was "promoting" something, and said wikipedia is not for promoting this or that, and that my talk post, was "using wikipedia as a forum". "it is only for improving the article". If you lack the capacity, to understand that I am sharing from 10++ yrs of research, and that must include an URL to the work, and that my post indeed, is far beyond just improving the article, it is about research that is fundamental enough, to change how people generally view "God", you need to understand that I post it in the talk section, as people can read the research, and consider the whole, and rewrite a quite different article. This is just a correct way of doing things. Maybe you should try and be less enthustastic and try to understand the point of why people do what they do. And everyone cannot explain all little things to you at any time. This is a problem with Wikipedia.

Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.28.14 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Replying in more detail on IP's talk page. IP needs to read WP:NOT. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:PD-US-no notice

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:PD-US-no notice. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanity check: is someone perhaps starting a sock farm?

Take a look at the history of Regina Maris (schooner). There's a whole bunch of accounts which show up in January/February and do nothing but do one or two edits to this article. And now [one of them] goes on to participate in a bunch of AFDs, including one in the Sarkarverse which like a lot of guru-centric articles has people popping out of the woodwork to oppose deletions or mergers. Am I off-base to be paranoid about this? Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably. Looks like some school class or something (in Norway?) who decided or were asked to improve the boat article. One has decided to continue, which is more than most such efforts result in. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought of something like that too. I'll keep an eye on them for a bit anyway. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure at all about one of them. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
What's puzzling is that he comes in so much later than the rest of the editors to that article, the others mostly falling within just a couple of days. But I can't work out an obvious purpose to his edits. I'll keep the occasional eye on him. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your endless hard work on fringe theories and neutrality problems... you make a big difference. bobrayner (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

wysinger

Hi, no opinion on that website. IIRC I have used it as a convenience link, which I found by googling, so the source deposited there would hopefully have been a valid one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I checked one example on my watchlist and noted that you just removed the url, so that seems fine. (Shame though.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Block this editor please - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.81.81.80

There is currently a content dispute at article Leviticus. It is currently the subject of a quite civilised discussion on the NPOV noticeboard - Book of Leviticus. An isp editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.81.81.80) has very recently begun some extremely disruptive editing to the article which has the effect of pre-empting the discussion, and I ask you to consider blocking this editor. PiCo (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Given your editing pattern on this article, one would think you might be a little more reticent about trying to get other users blocked for the same behavior. - MrX 15:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I've asked for page protection. On the other hand, I don't know that I like to see IPs from Homeland Security editing. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I suspect there's some (in this case idiotic) rule saying that can't do such accounts there. I don't see anything malign in this IP's editing, and from my POV it's helpful to see where they are coming from. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It's probably an open proxy, but WMF doesn't allow these IPs to be blocked. I don't see that the user's edits are particularly harmful though. - MrX 15:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hell, I never read that page. I read the IP addresses on the block page where I make the block. I can see the link there now, I didn't realise though that it had a separate list of IP addresses. That's really not a very sensible way to handle this issue. I'll ask on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
HAHA, I love it that one of those sensitive IPs from DHS is editing The Big Lebowski[6], Clutch[7], and video games (Bejeweled Blitz) [8]. Our tax dollars at work, LOL. Heiro 21:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Or our tax dollars not at work. If this really is an open proxy, DHS has some serious issues with information security. Of course, it could also be one or more DHS employees. - MrX 21:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
So the article has been protected per your request, and there's been a fair amount of discussion on the talk page. We've come up with an edit request, and I was hoping that I could convince you to make the edit so that we don't have to wait 3 days for someone to notice it at CAT:EP. It's a fairly complicated edit, so I've made a mockup in my sandbox and provided a diff on the edit request. (Hopefully me asking you doesn't make you "involved" again. I don't think anyone would consider you involved at this point.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

AfD issues

A large number of articles on non-notable subjects have been created by a group of editors who appear to be connected with one another - possibly even meat puppets. All of the articles in question seem to be advertisements for various religious organizations in southern India. The accounts are:

There might be more. All of them have been primarily active during the last year and activity seems to have dropped off with many of the created articles deleted. None of them have behaved in uncivil or combative manners and in fact most seem unresponsive to the deletions. Still, it seems to be a group of accounts all affiliated with the subjects of the articles they create - Ashrafnlkn's own personal website was cited as a source - and it does technically seem to fall under WP:ADVERT. Based on your experience, should anything be done in the way of meat/sockpuppet investigation? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Found some more: Special:Contributions/Junaidess, Special:Contributions/Quraishie, Special:Contributions/Shafeeq75 and Special:Contributions/Faizalniyaz. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems like all the accounts are created solely to promote these religious organizations in Kerala. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_qwqwijr8hwrkjdnvkanfoh4 as well. It just never ends. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Damn...Special:Contributions/Usamuba yields similar non-responsive and advertising behavior on the same articles as well. This is getting deeper and deeper. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the seriousness (or lack thereof) doesn't seem to come near ANI, at least to this editor. If you are tied up with the weird article about the Si Cie Something tribe (is it like a myth or something?) then this issue does seem a lot less important in comparison. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nazca Lines - Dinosaur-like geoghyph

Hello Dougweller, regarding your reversal of my recent addition to the Nazca Lines article (a Dinosaur-like geoglyph locally known as "The Dinosaur" or "The Duck", I understand that when you say that we should use names that are accepted by academic sources, you may already know the "accepted" name for that geoglyph, because you are rejecting the name I used for it. In that case, I would appreciate it very much if you let me know the accepted name for that geoglyph that will be in concordance with the Wikipedia policies. That way you could help me to contribute with that image and the right and "official" name for it. About the location, it is in Nazca, not Palpa. The coordinates are: 14°47'25.60"S 075°00'22.80"W. That is definitely part of the Nazca Lines, and not the Palpa Lines, which are located north of Nazca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemr69 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Elvey again.

Hi. On the off-chance that you might have missed this: you might check WP:AN#User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Op Privilege Policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Op Privilege Policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

I eagerly await your reply.

Hello. Please return to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. The thread is Response_by_J._Johnson. Please respond to this. Thank you. Elvey (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

vandaliziam

What!!!!! is going on!!!! I have always enjoyed wiki but some people out there like to vandalize others!!! why is this being allowed people!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.53.102 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Dougweller. You were mentioned at the ANI thread Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 08:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired

I'm tired of all this. Who, actually, gives a FF? I'm going to rent a villa in Bali, one without internet, and learn yoga. You can come and visit if you like. PiCo (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC) P.s. - the link to the site is perfectly safe.)

Familiar disruption at SPLC

I think there is more than a passing resemblance between User:Yeoberry, indef-blocked User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, and socking User:Belchfire. In particular I've always thought LAEC went away a bit too quietly. El duderino (abides) 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd missed Belchfire's block. Good question, SPI? Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
If you mean the recent SPI for Belchfire it's here. Not sure what the next step is, I just wanted to mention to someone more active at SPLC. El duderino (abides) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure, given[9]. Without more evidence there's no point in an SPI. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You may want to examine the observation I made on Sandstein's talk page, regarding the editor in question. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:JJ and Elvey

If an editor is violating Arbcom sanctions, there needs to be an RfC before bringing it up at Arbcom enforcement? --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't see where Elvey has raised the issue of ArbCom sanctions. Normally if an editor has violated ArbCom sanctions they get warned (with a link to the sanction), then blocked by an uninvolved Admin if they ignore the warning. Are you thinking of something else? The AN report is now closed and he's been told RfC/U is an option. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, or AE of course if that applies. But a warning needs to be given first. And I think if Elvey took that route it might not end well if he handles it as he handled his AN report. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Sad that whatever problems he's caused prevent attempts at addressing another's incivility and disruption. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your continued BLATANTLY false accusations.

Dougweller: Your recent posts indicate you still don't understand how many reverts it takes to violate 2RR or how many reverts it takes to violate 3RR. As recently as 6 March, you have falsely accused me of violating ("exceeding") 2RR ([10]) You make this false accusation even long after I warned you, and you had responded with evidence of just 2 reverts - a 1RR violation at most ([11]) (I admonished you several more times, too!) What part(s) of "That's why my two reverts (which is more than one revert only) didn't violate 2RR or even come close to violating 3RR." do you disagree with or not understand? (diff). You continue to claim that diff) you do not understand my confusion. There, you claim, "I'm not even sure if you are still saying you didn't even make 2 reverts or that you did". WP:3RR states, "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts". What part of that do you not understand? If you understand it, why do you keep making false accusations against me? Why do not recognize that 0RR, 1RR, 2RR and 3RR are all clearly defined and it takes (n+1) reverts to violate (n)RR? --Elvey (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Boring. What you mean is that I should have written 'reached' rather than exceeded. I've fixed that. To repeat - a 3RR warning means you have reached 3RR. It does not mean you have exceeded it. "you had responded with evidence of just 2 reverts - a 1RR violation at most" doesn't mean much to me. If an editor has an edit restriction of 1RR then then can breach it, but we don't say that a 2nd edit for an editor with no edit restrictions is a violation of 1RR because it isn't. I hope you are clear now and that if you ever do make 3 reverts in 24 hours and are warned that you realise that it means just that, you've made 3 reverts and a 4th might get you blocked.
And what is boring is your attitude. You'll get a lot further if you start being civil and discuss things in a reasonable tone. That makes it easier for people to concentrate on the issues. Although I don't think for a minute that your AN thread would have resulted in Admin action, you might have gotten more attention on JJ's edits. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
My reply is here, right below your comment, and mine, both of which were made after and are below the closed discussion!--Elvey (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Please respond to it.--Elvey (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Newport Tower and Scott Wolter/History Channel

Hi, per WP:BRD I would appreciate it if you would share your views and opinions on the article Talk page. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Do not create hoaxes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Do not create hoaxes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I entered alternative explanation to variance in "Genealogy of Jesus" article, of Matthew chapter 1 vs Luke chapter 3.

It was reverted for non-standard sources. It may have been reasonable to request a PROOF of Joseph of Arimathea's linage, being the brother of Heli and uncle of Joseph-ben-Heli.

I believe your editors' are uneducated on the Jewish tradition of placing a Mazuzah at the entrance of tombs. The Mazuzah, an "Epitaph" or genealogical record of pedigree, placed upon doorways to homes AND graves, has been a common practice for over 5000 years. Google it.

The names, in Luke 3.23 "...so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat...", in itself is biblical proof of a misconception, not of err in linage. Rather than the passage being a proclamation of factual linage, as your article portrays. And upon which historians have argued for 400 years, and Traditionalists, thus a creation of the rationale, a representation of Mary's linage.

The article included opposing positions, because they are common and documented views, but no solution nor conclusions. Which in turn, your article perpetuates both the myth and error, that this WAS the linage of the mother of Jesus.

So, presenting to your readers, the only historical source, that the linage was somone else's and misinterpreted, and could have been obtained from the mantle of the borrowed tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Brings a plausible solution and conclusion, to myth or fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Jay.Canfield.1 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Doug.

You reverted my edit of the Tripadvisor article.

I have since made an entry in the "Talk" section for Tripadvisor. My intention is to amend the Criticisms section. I would appreciate your feedback. I realize that it need polishing but I think I'm making some valid points.

Irritablevowelsyndrome (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Gigette

Once again Gigette is wreaking havoc on articles related to Aztec mythology, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maunus#Aztec_mythology. Rewriting a whole genre of articles to reflect her own original research? Using unreliable sources? Writing articles with no citations like the Aztec creator gods article? Refusing to discuss edits with other editors. How can anybody violate every rule worse than this? What does an editor have to do to get blocked around here? Senor Cuete (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Here's another article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahuiateteo. Isn't this everything a Wikipedia article is supposed NOT to be? Senor Cuete (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Agreed, although she didn't write it. She did write the Spanish one however which uses Wikipedia as a source. The annoying thing is that good sources are easily available, eg [12]. If Maunus will help with an RfC/U that's the way to go now. Have you tried to discuss on her talk page? Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jona Lendering

I noticed your statement about Lendering. In contrast, does that mean his website Livius is not considered a reliable source? I haven't ran across any articles using the Livius website as a reference lately. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I'd rather use an academically published source for anything historical, but I've seen articles with Lendering as a source. Not using him avoids problems. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand. I have a preference for academically published sources, myself. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rev delete some school based vandalism with identifying info?

This seems like a fairly straightforward case. I haven't warned the user yet, since I'm not sure what's the best way to do that for school IP's. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

why is false information with no documentation clearly biased allowed?

hello friend! all I ask is that the sentence on the page i edited be more neutral to reflect the reality of the statement. one can not simply say something to make it true, especially when there are no less that four sciences referenced. this is wild behavior. also can the amendment on the second sentence be left? this keeps getting changed regardless with no notation as to why. thank you, jane cohnJanecohn66 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Brooke Medicine Eagle

I am new to Wikipedia Editing and am trying correct the slander on Brooke's page. If I fail to follow procedure please be patient. I will edit the Bio to be less promotional and work on sourcing and references. The attack on Brooke on her page is badly sourced reference 1 ^ "Tribal certificate" - Members of the Crow Tribe say these are forged documents. This is a dead link and meaningless - what members of the CRow tribe? How is this accurate or maintaining integrity of Wikipedia? The other attacks are one persons opinion and or attacks on non natives using native ceremony and very general, a debate not appropriate for a personal bio page. The AIM article from 1984 is just plane weird did you source this and are you trying to claim AIM approval for the attacks on Brooke? Thanks for your attention, my friend Brooke has never claimed to be a Traditional teacher in her work, it is very unfair to make her defend a right to basic human spiritual practice. Rickgmt (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC) rick gildroy

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Help on archiving

Doug, can you take a look at the archive settings on Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites and tell me what I did wrong and how to make it right? I suspect I should have set the counter to 1. The archives should read archive1 and archive2 instead of archive 5 and archive6, and the archive links don't display properly on the template. Can this be fixed? Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I left a message at the help desk here as a first step. Ignocrates (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The help desk has taken care of it. Ignocrates (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jrrao sockpuppet investigation

[13]. — goethean 15:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation on the NCSE page

At that article, I was just "passing through" and didn't have enough interest to do further work. So I put up a "cite needed" tag and left the matter to those whose interest might be greater. Your citation fulfills the need. Thanks. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of my references on Sir Arthur Lawley

I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, U.K. and the National Trust at Tyntesfield. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu in 2010, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. I am a Fellow of teh Royal Geographical society. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these.(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David J. Hogg (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The "real" problem

I tell you, the obvious problem is the lack of software that checks sock puppets by itself. But the real problem is what no one wants to talk about: that the people at WMF are always smiling (because they have no deadlines and no competition, so they can feel great) and all the dedicated volunteers on ANI (like you) have to work 10 times as hard (and get stressed) to keep the encyclopedia running using antique software tools.

No one wants to talk about this: it is the unmentionable. But I have always said that if the programmers at WMF had been working for me, I would have fired them all by now. Twice over. Someone should tell Erik Möller: "get a better sock puppet tool working in 3 months or you are fired". If he does not get it, fire him! But no one ever gets fired at WMF, it is the friendliest culture on earth. No deadlines, no pressure. The work just gets pushed to the dedicated volunteers. That is the real problem.

It should really take less than 60 days for two smart programmers to get an automated sock puppet system that does not invade privacy (because no one sees the details) but just gives warnings by partial match scoring. The fellow who wrote Cluebot can probably do it in 30 days (I do not know who he is, but he is clearly smart enough). So fire Möller, hire the fellow who wrote Cluebot. Most of these problems will then go away. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I left a message for MRG and she may just make it happen, if anyone can... History2007 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

All my citations in the article on Sir Arthur Lawley, 6th Baron Wenlock have been removed by two Wikipedia editors. I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in existence — "Sir Arthur Lawley, Eloquent Knight Errant". I worked in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, UK and the National Trust at Tyntesfield in England. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. Robert Bell of Langcliffe, Sir Arthur Lawley's great grandson, was also very helpful. All the family portraits, photo albums, books diaries and letters were open to me. The Foreword to the book was written by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. Much of the work was done at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, Rhodes Mandela House in Oxford, the British Library and the National Archives in Kew, London. I also researched at Harvard, in New York, in Pretoria, South Africa, and in Zimbabwe. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these. It is quite absurd to reject the leading expert on Sir Arthur Lawley in Wikipedia. This book was self published in the United Kingdom with the support of the Empire and Commonwealth Museum and Tyntesfield and published by Lady Lawley Cottage and the Red Cross in Western Australia. 600 copies have been sold and it is now an iBook. All my references are in the printed books and in the iBook I enclose the Foreword by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia.

I am new to Wikipedia and cannot find my way round your system. Could you please contact the two editors and re-instate my references.

Foreword by Lord Wraxall The Right Honourable the Lord Wraxall, KCVO, CMG.

My grandfather died in 1932 when I was only three years old and although he no doubt saw me from time to time as a toddler, I have no recollection of him at all. After my grandmother came to live at Tyntesfield during the war, I then heard a great deal about him, and my mother often spoke about her father in terms which made clear her strong affection and admiration for him. Of course neither my grandmother nor my mother ever gave a continuous account of my grandfather’s life; their references to him were as it were episodic. They were however enough to convince me that he had indeed been a remarkable man, who lived a life of exceptional interest. I know that both of them would have been delighted that at last a biography of him had been written, which shows just how exceptional his life had been. Moreover owing to David Hogg’s indefatigable research work much more information has come to light, of which even my grandparents were unaware. For example my mother always maintained that the origins of the Cunard family were lost in the mists of time. Now we know precisely where they came from in Germany and when they emigrated to America. For all his painstaking research and the valuable information it has produced, but above all for his undertaking to write a life of my grandfather, I owe David Hogg a major debt of gratitude. I believe this biography makes an important addition to knowledge of the British Empire in its heyday and enables us better to understand the actions and motives of those entrusted with its administration.

THE THIRD BARON WRAXALL of Clyst St George


Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia His Excellency Lieutenant-General John Sanderson, AC., Governor of Western Australia

Effective leadership can be defined by strong ethical principles, bolstered by courage, determination and imagination all the traits displayed by Captain Sir Arthur Lawley in his illustrious career and life. Sir Arthur came to Western Australia when he was appointed Governor of the State on the cusp of federation of the Australian nation. The State was just newly formed, and faced great challenges to carve out a solid place in the new united nation. On his arrival, to take up his appointment in 1901, Sir Arthur presented his credentials in Perth then immediately set sail to Melbourne to represent Western Australia at the opening of the Federal Parliament in Melboume in May by the Duke of York, later King George V. Sir Arthur’s governorship was not a long one. He quit the position on the Declaration of Peace in 1902 to take up the important post of Lieutenant Govemor of the Transvaal. History records that though his time was brief, he carried out his duties as the Crown's representative with great ability, handling several political crises during his time. He laid the foundation stones for two of the State's most important institutions the Parliament of Western Australia and the Supreme Court of Westem Australia. His sense of justice and compassion was reflected in his support for the Australian forces sent to relieve Mateking during the Boer War and his expressed sympathy for the injured and dead soldiers. He was also reputed to have led the State's social life with aplomb, supported admirably by his wife, Lady Annie Lawley, who identified herself with community welfare issues and organisations. Lady Lawley was the instigator of the Lady Lawley Cottage for children in Cottesloe, which today still bears her name. Her husband, too, felt bound by moral considerations to support society's underprivileged and later in life became Chairman of the Child Emigration Society in Britain (from 1921 until his death in 1932), a position he used to give strong assistance to the Fairbridge Farm School in Western Australia. He was able to get support from the Royal family with the then Prince of Wales giving the scheme his enthusiastic backing. Later the Duke and Duchess of York visited Fairbridge in 1927. Sir Arthur also persuaded his friend from his days in South Africa, Sir Herbert E. Baker, to accept the commission as architect of the chapel at Fairbridge. Sir Arthur and Lady Lawley last visited Western Australia in 1927 and made a particular point of going to Fairbridge and to Lady Lawley Cottage. Western Australians are very familiar with the name Lawley. Mount Lawley is a flourishing inner suburb of the State's City of Perth, named after Sir Arthur. His wife agreed to a suggestion that it be named after her husband but only on her strict instruction that no licensed hotels would be built in the suburb! This book gives us all a better appreciation of the man and his achievements as a leader and contributor to society on a broad worldly scale. It will be a particularly useful reference for those Western Australians keen to examine the State’s history in more detail, especially so because it includes rare photographs of Western Australia and of the opening of the Federal Parliament from Sir Arthur’s personal albums that were unearthed after laying hidden for many years at Tyntesfield, the home of the late Lord Richard Wraxall, near Bristol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.245.173 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship POV

Hello Dougweller,

I did not write that last paragraph, its from a source. I thought that it was more logical reasoning in explaining the view that Mosaic authorship has earlier roots, than simply a POV.

I did not write about those 6 verses, that was there from a previous editor who was trying to show that there are only 6 references to some "vague" laws of Moses. I thought that it was appropriate to cite Miller in his general critique of that whole body of work that repeatedly points out that there is no mention of Moses writing a Torah, only laws, that the Hebrew Torah uses the term Torah and not laws. It is he who writes that the fact that they did not read or understand Hebrew was a reason for their insistence that there is no mention anywhere in the Torah of Moses writing the Torah. This point is very important as it provides a strong basis for Mosaic authorship. This is neither original research or POV.

Since the previous editor saw fit to cite 6 verses and point out that there is never a reference to a specific law, I thought that this mistake should be corrected. Again I wasn't the editor that started citing those verses.

As to pointing out that all bibles have Nehemia reading only in the book and not the complete book, I do not think that this qualifies as research. McEntire stated a fact that is verifiabley not true. This is no different than if a source would misstate any other verifiable fact.

Also if you look at what the article was like before I made my edits it was not at all neutral either. It was completely dismissive of Mosaic authorship, and the whole article consisted exclusively of proof upon proof that Moses did not write the Torah, with the conclusion that it has no basis in fact.

However you are an administrator and allot more familiar with WP guidelines than I am, so I defer to your view on this matter. It is certainly not my desire to write stuff that should not be on WP. L69 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to when I copied and pasted from another WP article. If you are referring to the copy and paste from the verses in Torah I cited that on Torah from a source and also cited the source on Mosaic authorship. L69 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

PS Did you receive a complaint about me that triggered this review? L69 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Self-published book being used for Arthur Lawley, 6th Baron Wenlock (Published by Lady Lawley Cottage and the Red Cross in Australia)

All my citations in the article on Sir Arthur Lawley, 6th Baron Wenlock have been removed by two Wikipedia editors. I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in existence — "Sir Arthur Lawley, Eloquent Knight Errant". I worked in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, UK and the National Trust at Tyntesfield in England. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. Robert Bell of Langcliffe, Sir Arthur Lawley's great grandson, was also very helpful. All the family portraits, photo albums, books diaries and letters were open to me. The Foreword to the book was written by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. Much of the work was done at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, Rhodes Mandela House in Oxford, the British Library and the National Archives in Kew, London. I also researched at Harvard, in New York, in Pretoria, South Africa, and in Zimbabwe. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these. It is quite absurd to reject the leading expert on Sir Arthur Lawley in Wikipedia. This book was self published in the United Kingdom with the support of the Empire and Commonwealth Museum and Tyntesfield and published by Lady Lawley Cottage and the Red Cross in Western Australia. 600 copies have been sold and it is now an iBook. All my references are in the printed books and in the iBook I enclose the Foreword by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia. I am new to Wikipedia and cannot find my way round your system. Could you please contact the two editors and re-instate my references.

Foreword by Lord Wraxall

The Right Honourable the Lord Wraxall, KCVO, CMG. My grandfather died in 1932 when I was only three years old and although he no doubt saw me from time to time as a toddler, I have no recollection of him at all. After my grandmother came to live at Tyntesfield during the war, I then heard a great deal about him, and my mother often spoke about her father in terms which made clear her strong affection and admiration for him. Of course neither my grandmother nor my mother ever gave a continuous account of my grandfather’s life; their references to him were as it were episodic. They were however enough to convince me that he had indeed been a remarkable man, who lived a life of exceptional interest. I know that both of them would have been delighted that at last a biography of him had been written, which shows just how exceptional his life had been. Moreover owing to David Hogg’s indefatigable research work much more information has come to light, of which even my grandparents were unaware. For example my mother always maintained that the origins of the Cunard family were lost in the mists of time. Now we know precisely where they came from in Germany and when they emigrated to America. For all his painstaking research and the valuable information it has produced, but above all for his undertaking to write a life of my grandfather, I owe David Hogg a major debt of gratitude. I believe this biography makes an important addition to knowledge of the British Empire in its heyday and enables us better to understand the actions and motives of those entrusted with its administration. THE THIRD BARON WRAXALL of Clyst St George

Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia

His Excellency Lieutenant-General John Sanderson, AC., Governor of Western Australia Effective leadership can be defined by strong ethical principles, bolstered by courage, determination and imagination all the traits displayed by Captain Sir Arthur Lawley in his illustrious career and life. Sir Arthur came to Western Australia when he was appointed Governor of the State on the cusp of federation of the Australian nation. The State was just newly formed, and faced great challenges to carve out a solid place in the new united nation. On his arrival, to take up his appointment in 1901, Sir Arthur presented his credentials in Perth then immediately set sail to Melbourne to represent Western Australia at the opening of the Federal Parliament in Melboume in May by the Duke of York, later King George V. Sir Arthur’s governorship was not a long one. He quit the position on the Declaration of Peace in 1902 to take up the important post of Lieutenant Govemor of the Transvaal. History records that though his time was brief, he carried out his duties as the Crown's representative with great ability, handling several political crises during his time. He laid the foundation stones for two of the State's most important institutions the Parliament of Western Australia and the Supreme Court of Westem Australia. His sense of justice and compassion was reflected in his support for the Australian forces sent to relieve Mateking during the Boer War and his expressed sympathy for the injured and dead soldiers. He was also reputed to have led the State's social life with aplomb, supported admirably by his wife, Lady Annie Lawley, who identified herself with community welfare issues and organisations. Lady Lawley was the instigator of the Lady Lawley Cottage for children in Cottesloe, which today still bears her name. Her husband, too, felt bound by moral considerations to support society's underprivileged and later in life became Chairman of the Child Emigration Society in Britain (from 1921 until his death in 1932), a position he used to give strong assistance to the Fairbridge Farm School in Western Australia. He was able to get support from the Royal family with the then Prince of Wales giving the scheme his enthusiastic backing. Later the Duke and Duchess of York visited Fairbridge in 1927. Sir Arthur also persuaded his friend from his days in South Africa, Sir Herbert E. Baker, to accept the commission as architect of the chapel at Fairbridge. Sir Arthur and Lady Lawley last visited Western Australia in 1927 and made a particular point of going to Fairbridge and to Lady Lawley Cottage. Western Australians are very familiar with the name Lawley. Mount Lawley is a flourishing inner suburb of the State's City of Perth, named after Sir Arthur. His wife agreed to a suggestion that it be named after her husband but only on her strict instruction that no licensed hotels would be built in the suburb! This book gives us all a better appreciation of the man and his achievements as a leader and contributor to society on a broad worldly scale. It will be a particularly useful reference for those Western Australians keen to examine the State’s history in more detail, especially so because it includes rare photographs of Western Australia and of the opening of the Federal Parliament from Sir Arthur’s personal albums that were unearthed after laying hidden for many years at Tyntesfield, the home of the late Lord Richard Wraxall, near Bristol.

There are currently about 5000 Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society. However only a few have given lectures to the Society.(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David J. Hogg (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed last paragraph from Mosaic authorship

I decided that if you, an administrator, who understands WP policy allot better than I do, held that its POV its best that I remove it. L69 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar. Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas was a challenging article to write, having to wend one's way through sources of varying quality, but I was pretty happy with the "end" result. StAnselm (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wala (island)

I noticed your deletion of Wala (island) because it was created by a blocked user. I understand that such deletions are standard procedure, but I can't see anything nefarious in that article. Could you please restore it either into article space or userfy it (preferrably with history) into my user space. Thanks. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Burn after reading

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

Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

Please verify and watch these articles. Similar edit wars and non-constructive edits started by IP users. Articles:

Thanks. Zheek (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I think I will let you handle the edit warring on Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century. I have had my fill of edit warriors using multiple IPs to get their way. I am going back to List of papal bulls and lose myself in some reference searching for a few hours. Have fun! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller, Can you help and comment on consensus section?: Template_talk:History_of_the_Turks_pre-14th_century#Consensus_for_the_content_dispute. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Hi! I think you have missed my message above. Waiting for your reply. Thanks and regards.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 20:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Babylonian_Empire#Requesting_semi-protection_for_the_article_- THANK YOU HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Copying Sources by L69

I saw your contrib log and I am figuring that the 1st edit that you saw from me was The Kastner Trial. I got that from Perfidy by Ben Hecht and will go back and cite that. Your reference to copy and pasting was about the Auschwitz Bombing Debate, where I copied from Wyman. I will go back and write that in my own words. Those are important facts. You asked me if I ever copied and pasted on other articles, I thought about it, and I did in one other article. I will fix that also. I do allot of work writing legal briefs and citations in that form of writing must be verbatim.

Also is there any proper way to point out with clear and sourced verification that a source states facts that are factually false. Having something written that is plainly wrong is not a policy that I would think an encyclopedia would want to have. L69 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a hello

I see your name around all the time and I hope you haven't given up on our Rome related articles! Just stopping by to say "Hi"!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Davidovits

Hi! The article was once {{COI}} tagged by Tuckerresearch after the edit by the subject himself. After discussing with Tuckerresearch, I copy edited the article myself, removing the tag.[14]

discussion at Tuckerresearch's talk page

Article on Joseph Davidovits

Hi, I have done some copy edits to the lead section[15] hoping to achieve neutrality. FYI, while making that edit, he wrote the in summary: "I just added details on my scientific career and did not touch the controversial archaeological section. After this he explained it in the talk page at Talk:Joseph Davidovits#Adding details on my scientific career:".

He has his autobiography originally published in his won website http://www.davidovits.info/ . I think he has almost adhered to Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you].

Now, the only part containing his direct contributions is the section Career (ncluding its subsection). But it is written like a timeline of events. Can you please help in finding the parts which are biased. Kind regards···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy edited and removed the tag.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 18:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I was just worried he was going to continue editing. Your edits soften his tone a bit. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you have reverted[16] the recent addition[17]; the article does not contain any content added by the subject himself except at the carrier section which has already undergone copyediting from me. So, can that {{COI}} template be removed? If possible, could you also give me some suggestions to improve its neutrality further. Thanks!···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 21:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kindness. Regards.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yuvn86

He is currently involved in an edit war on Definitions of whiteness in the United States over content he insists is not supported by the citations. As someone who has checked them out (which is why I included them), this is not true. This leads me to believe that he is simply being disruptive. Any advice?Evildoer187 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop Lying and Stalking

You're the editor who stalked me for the SPLC page, lied three times at the CRBC page (no, I don't believe you somehow forgot that the notability tag you put up on March 9 had only been up for five days when on March 14 you said it had been up for 2 months), etc. Please don't contact me or post on my page again. Yeoberry (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is sad. That was a genuine attempt to help you (this time I'm on your side if you can get your references accepted), but I should have realised that good faith is something you aren't very good at. The article is on my watch list since August last year when I edited it which is how I saw your edits. I promise I won't ever try to help you again. Your stalking claim is ludicrous, the SPLC page has been on my watchlist for years. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Afsharid dynasty and Nader Shah

Hello, in the Nader Shah page it's says that his numerous campaigns created a great empire that briefly encompassed what is now part of or including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, India, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Oman and the Persian Gulf, but it doesn't show it like that on the Afsharid dynasty map, do you think this map would make it more precise? i can't post the picture because of some strange reason, try to write Afsharid dynasty and click on the map that is most blue colored. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Horus Eye and Rhind Papyrus

Hi Doug. I just looked at the page regarding the Horus eye fractions. The point made in the edits is that the Horus eye fractions (powers of 1/2) were thought to be represented by parts of the eye of Horus. This theory has indeed been "debunked" and is no longer considered to be the case. The notation in hieratic (I think) looks like the parts of the Eye of Horus, but that is more or less a coincidence. The Ancient Egyptians still seem to have had some fascination with expressing their fractions in terms of 1/2 and its powers. What is on the Horus eye page is basically correct, but I think it needs to be rewritten a tad for clarity. I will take a whack at it over the weekend. Cheers --AB (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia belongs to Evildoer187

Can you advice me what to do, or where to take this issue further? Evildoer187, in EVERY article he edits that I also made edits to, lets you know that you cannot change a word, a single WORD if he doesn't like it, period. regardless of sources. He will change lines and add words, according to his opinions, and only after that will add soucres (if he's asked, because otherwise he won't) and some of them won't even speak directly or mention the lines he edited, he will just add sources for the sake of having them but keep his changes/opinions in the articles. It's been like that for months, and while he got warnings, I simply don't know where to take this, or why other users haven't noticed it more. Yuvn86 (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources were there from the beginning. I did not add them after being pressured into it, like he claims. It simply turns out that he did not agree that the sources supported the content in the article, which leads me to believe that he did not even read them and that he was just deleting things he didn't like, which he has done before. Although it's also possible that there could be a misunderstanding.
Whatever the case, after he edit warred me, I went for some sources that were more visible. I updated the article with these citations, and he responded by arbitrarily deleting a quotation from Cornel West on the subject, asking "what does the opinion of an activist have to do with anything?". This made no sense, as he did not touch the quotation from Michael Lerner, who is also an activist. Both were relevant to the topic, so I reverted him.
He also changed some of the wording to past tenses, even though a good number of the sources were less than 10 years old. I reverted that too, because I did not think it improved the article. From what I have gathered from Yuvn86's editing habits, he seems to be vehemently opposed to any information or edit which highlights either the Middle Eastern origins of Jewry, or denies their status as "whites". I do not want to make assumptions on his character, but I feel his editing is nevertheless disruptive.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

I'd kindly like to ask for your input on Talk:Birthright_Israel#Controversy. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think a proposed text is badly worded. Since I am not a native English speaker, and my opponent is but others have already expressed their opinion that something is wrong with the text he proposes, perhaps you could help us? Debresser (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment there. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Mass non-constructive edits by IP (IPs)

IP user started to add irrelevant language (Turkish/Anatolian Turkish) and template to these articles: Ghaznavids, Timurid dynasty, Khilji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, Khwarazmian dynasty, Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi). You can verify IP. Same range IPs with similar edits (you can verify articles version history). Thanks. Zheek (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Creation Science and Intelligent Design listed under Pseudoscience

Dear Mr. Dougweller,

I recently erased creation science and intelligent design (which I shall abbreviate CS and ID respectively) from the category of pseudoscience due to their presence under that category being offensive and biased. You reverted my revision, but did not specify why I failed to defend my argument. The pseudoscience category and other related pages seems bent on portraying any religious views as false and scientifically unfounded and the editors seem obsessed with pushing evolution as a truth and not a theory with many flaws (e.g. Cambrian explosion, irriducible complexity, the Big Bang "bumping into" the necessary time required for evolution, etc.). Even if some people view ID or CS as pseudosciences, there are other people who view evolution as a pseudoscience due to its flaws and falsified data, but evolution is not listed under pseudoscience. I feel that I at least deserve to know why may explanation is insufficient. If I do not receive a response in the next several days, I feel it necessary to inform you that I will erase ID and CS again unless a sufficient argument can be presented against my alterations. - 3/24/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.176.14 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's simply the type of encyclopedia we are. We prefer academic sources to websites, we give mainstream views more weight than fringe, and we rely on what reliable sources by our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFYH say for our articles, and they say pseudoscience. You are also confused about science. People talk about 'laws of science', but that's just a short cut for saying 'we can usually say if this than this (but not always). Theories explain laws, not the other way around, and in science we don't expect proof because proof means that there can be no exception, and as we never have all the information in the universe to check, we can never prove anything. Not even the 'law of gravity' which only works under certain situations. Gravity is a theory in the exact same way evolution is. You will be much happier at a conservative or Creationist wikipedia which might well let you call evolution a pseudoscience and where I would expect to be reverted frequently. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that at least one reference work on pseudoscience counts these topics as pseudoscience. A list of the articles in that work can be found at User:John Carter/Pseudoscience articles. So, if a reference source specifically dealing with pseudoscience calls them pseudoscience, I think we are, basically, obligated to do so ourselves. And, Doug, FWIW, I do eventiually hope to work on that list to indicate which of the topics it discusses at greater and lesser length, which can be seen as an indication of the relative importance of those topics to the broad field of pseudoscience, but I'm still working on getting together beginniings of similar lists for other religion-area topics, and it might be awhile before I get back to this one. When I do, I hope to move it to a subpage of the WikiProject Pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, similar and related comments can be found in Category talk:Obsolete biological theories. Paul H. (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Kenimer Site, again

IP insertions of WP:FRINGE material at Kenimer Site article, again. Probably the usual suspect. A combination of OR and cites to the History Channel show "America Unearthed". Would appreciate some help keeping an eye on it if you notice anything. Hope you are well, cheers, Heiro 18:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching it. By the way, it is 'Kelly', not 'Kelley', as in Arthur Randolph Kelly, although sources get it wrong, eg[18]. I'm fine, just busy and would like the snow to melt - we may have a white Easter. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, I was wondering about Kelly, thought that might be the case. Glad someone else is keeping an eye on it as well. As for weather, spring has sprung here, flowers in bloom and trees almost fully leafed out, low 70s temp wise. Best time of the year here, beautiful. Spent all day yesterday at a traditional boucherie. Live Cajun music on the front porch, beer, fresh cracklins, boudin, backbone stew, and smoked sausage. Mmmmmmmm. Be jealous, bwahahahaha, :-) Heiro 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds great. As for Kelly, I can't find an RS but I suspect that's right, see /www.examiner.com/article/mayas-the-usa-controversy-you-be-the-juror (spam filter caught me!). Even Hyperdiffusionism had its heyday in American archaeology until the 50s at least. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Considering how long ago he was published, most sources would probably be in physical print and unlikely to be digitized, might be hard to track them down online except where people like Thornton are making reference to them to push their stuff (60 yrs of southeastern archaeologists haven't pushed the Mayan angle except to refute it, at least all of the ones that I've ever read). And unless Kelly mentioned the Kenimer site specifically, I don't think his outdated material should be given WP:WEIGHT in this article anyway, but that's just my opinion.
And in an unrelated note, the Serpent Mound site has had some new coring tests done. Don't think anything is in print just yet, but it should be in the next 6 months. Apparently their results push its construction back to the Adena period. This may change the current scientific consensus on the site, so dont be surprised if we get people showing up at the article.Heiro 19:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Surajt88's talk page.
Message added 10:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suraj T 10:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oral gospel traditions

Hi Doug. Regarding the Oral gospel traditions, Bart Ehrman has been very helpful. He is one of the most knowledgeable authors on the subject. He covers all the basics in his most recent work Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83-93 and pp 98-101) If you have a chance please read it and together we may carefully expand the stub. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, I suggested Ret.Prof contact you before resuming editing to head off any potential problems (see my talk page). Ignocrates (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think most people in the field would be wary of Ehrman's most recent work. He has for example emphasized manuscript variation to a degree that a lot of others have publicly disagree with. I wouldn't use him without corroboration from others. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Good to know (I don't mean to speak for Doug here). I think we (all interested editors) should lay out all of the relevant sources on the article talk page before any new work is done. We can discuss notability (WP:Note), acceptance (WP:Fringe), etc. Ignocrates (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
(e-c) Well, if he has made statements which several others publicly disagree with, that would definitely perhaps change exactly how high on the RS meter Ehrman's work falls. Personally, I have read his books, and listened to his Teaching Company classes, and like his work a lot. But I could say the same about some well-written works of rather transparent fringeniness, too. He is among the most recent books on the topic, and that might make him useful for "the latest information," but I have a feeling JSTOR and Highbeam and ProQuest and other databanks have a lot of material on the topic, and probably reviews of Ehrman's work, and the former are generally preferable as academic works. I'll check to see what the reviews of the book are, and maybe try to get together an article on it. We really do need a lot more articles on books we use as sources of all kinds, particularly indicating where they are and are not found to be most reliable. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Doug, I'm seeing a familiar pattern on the article talk page. So, where do we go from here? Ignocrates (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy vio?

Doug, would it be a copy violation to include a link to this in the GH article? Thanks in advance. Ignocrates (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. That's a OUP book and very much in copyright. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up question. Apparently, anyone can "browse" this e-copy as long as they don't reproduce or distribute it. Would the encyclopedia qualify as such a user? Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Brandenburg stone

Is it just me, or is that Bat Creek all over again, except worse? I'm finding next to nothing on this except a really questionable local museum exhibit featuring some vague talk about a Welsh historian's translation. One of the few references I found even mentioned it in the same footnote with the Bat Creek inscription, for heaven's sake. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dating system

25 March 2013

Doug:

I've edited several pieces on Wikipedia to make improvements as is suggested by the presence of the editable feature of Wikipedia---tacitly and expressed.

I don't see a problem with my date editing as it seems to conform with commended date instructions per the Wikipedia guidelines---except maybe the request that the original date format of the article not be changed. I did so in part to teach and propagate the logical dating format. The following is a piece that I wrote on the matter.

Thank-you, Richard S. Otto, richard@ottoselectrical.com

17 April 2007

The dating method, used afore, date-month-year, is the only logical way—as do we in our formal documents, as does our military, as is done in most of of the world.

Using this method, there is no need for a comma as the numerals of the date and year are not confusingly adjacent; the units of time are juxtaposed gradually—day, month, year. This time-unit graduation also agrees with the sensibilities of the mentally organized.

There is yet another reason for this method, which comes into play the first thirty-one years of each century. Here's an example: you notice a date stating: "May 04" on something--a piece of equipment--a letter--. Is it an incomplete date meaning 4 May, or does it mean May 2004? Because of the haphazardness of human nature, you cannot be sure. With the proper dating method, the ambiguity is eliminated.

Using this dating method is simply logical, as is the use of the metric system. Let's standardize methods by using logic.

Thank-you, Richard Stuart Otto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.214 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Al-Fatiha

Regarding your edit here That website is not personal website, nor a blog, it is just word by word meaning teacher of the Quran! I have restored it again. If I did a mistake, then please reply me! Thanks.

Not a blog but seems to be a website by Mazhar Anwaar Nurani - thus a personal website, and I can't find any evidence that shows that Mazhar Anwaar Nurani is a noted scholar, etc so I don't see it as passing WP:EL. You can ask at WP:ELN if I'm right or wrong. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I will discuss it, Thanks! Faizan (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

vsmit ?

Re: this - don't know vsmit ... but the "activist" bit - yeah maybe, ignorable though. Didn't know there was a vsmit - not very active tho'. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia has become a politically correct website. You are no longer interested in the truth. You said you wanted to collaborate but you have nothing to say about the truth of my posting. You just want to remove it without even discussing whether the information presented is truthful. You simply say I'm being "uncivil" because I accused Vsmith of being a global warming activist and then delete my information. Does truth mean anything to you people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwillis101 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Kumari Kandam article

Regarding 'Kumari Kandam' article, as per your comments, I have mentioned it as a hypothetical landmass and added the map again. Please check and revert if there are any concerns. Thanks. --ச.பிரபாகரன் (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Those 2 blocked accounts

One of them was created by me via an ACC request. I was unaware of the connection at the time of it's creation. Just thought I'd clarify.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No I don't think so just yet. I'm going to talk to stwalkerster. We have been watching this user because of concerns.—cyberpower ChatOffline 11:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Per the discussion with stwalkerster, I have given him a final warning to not preach on Wikipedia. I'm inclined to have him blocked for his intent being to preach religion on Wikipedia. You may also want to watch User:41.220.68.2 since he seems to be using it per this edit.—cyberpower ChatOffline 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that it is possible for this editor to actually edit constructively. Let me know if you want me to block. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Article arbitrarily proposed for deletion

Hello again,

An article that I have contributed hundreds of hours to, Camille and Kennerly Kitt has been proposed for deletion. If you would be so kind to look at the history page, you will find that Knowtheory proposed the deletion of the article, putting up a poorly-formatted sign which included the following message, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it." Accordingly, another contributor to that page removed the sign and explained on the article's talk page why he did so. However, moments later, Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) , who claims to be a seasoned Wikipedian, put up a NEW sign proposing the article for deletion again, and this time it is not removable.

We are supposed to assume good faith, but on her talk page, Tokyogirl went on to say, "I wasn't nominating it for deletion myself, but completing a nomination that wasn't properly formatted. I had no true opinion as to whether or not they met notability guidelines." Now, I'm not a seasoned Wikipedian, but it seems strange to me that she would re-post a proposal for deletion sign (regardless of formatting issues with the previous one) since I must repeat that the first sign read, "If this template is removed, do not replace it." Also, why would a veteran Wikipedian take such a drastic measure (this had never happened since the creation of the page in December 2011), and then say that she has no opinion on the matter? Does all this seem right to you? Standard procedure? It would seem logical to me that a seasoned Wikipedian would first examine the article and then propose it for deletion if he/she thought it should be discussed for deletion after a rookie Wikipedian made the initial proposal. Besides, the original template said that it should not be replaced if it's removed, but she replaced it anyway with a non-removable template. She didn't even have the courtesy to join the discussion regarding the proposal for deletion of the article. That discussion is here, by the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_26#Camille_and_Kennerly_Kitt

I completely dismantled the reasons put forth by Knowtheory for the deletion of the page, and not surprisingly this user has not come back with counter-arguments. As I told Tokyogirl on her talk page, her arbitrary behavior seems destructive to me since it discourages people from creating and/or editing Wikipedia pages. If she had come up with the idea in the first place to propose the page for deletion, and providing good reasons for this decision, then that would have been acceptable to me, but instead she says that she has no opinion on the matter. To me, this is very wrong, suspicious, and actions should have consequences.

Meanwhile, the article is still being proposed for deletion. Only one independent Wikipedian checked the article, and said that it needed improvements (which is true about most Wikipedia pages), but that it should not be deleted. So I wonder, what else can I do? When will the discussion be closed? It seems dead to me, and I fear that the page will be deleted if nothing happens. Thank you very much once again for your time and help. Please reply on my talk page... Dontreader (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your message on my talk page and for your time. The links you provided are very helpful, as always. I see that "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected", so that approach was ridiculous since the article is edited regularly and nobody wants hundreds of hours of their time to go down the drain. The AFD approach would have sounded more reasonable if the user who proposed this measure had not gone on to say that she had no opinion on the matter. As I said earlier, I think actions should have consequences. I cannot at this point assume good faith in the case of Tokyogirl, for sure, especially since she claims to be a veteran here. Anyway, thanks for the encouraging advice, and certainly if you can find the time to take a better look at the page, I would be most grateful. Have a nice day... Dontreader (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I realized that Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) is definitely honest; I was mistaken when I said that she switched the PROD status to AFD status, as if she was involved in trying to get the page deleted; it's how it seems in the article's history, but that information was insufficient and misleading. However, she did mess up in some ways, which is why two of us contributors to the article were suspicious. You can understand this by seeing what happened on her talk page. Anyway, we all make mistakes. Thanks again for your help today. Dontreader (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Your recent editing history at Melungeon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


Keep comments in the talk page, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, 2 reverts and I get a 3rr warning? Stop attacking other editors. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century

Judging from the IP's continued editing warring on other articles, is there any way you can make the page protection on Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century indefinite? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not something we normally do at all, sorry. The latest IP to edit there seems to have stopped editing anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Signpost interview?

It would be your call, of course, but if this sort of, well, strange statement about you winds up getting any sort of legs in the outside world, it might not be unreasonable to give you a chance to present your side, or maybe just a piece on how one of our more neutral editors gets impugned by POV pushers. And it's kind of a shame Ottava Rima is still banned, although I did try to get that lifted. At least a few years ago, he had a newspaper column, and if he were allowed to edit here he might have been maybe willing to do an outside interview with you, which might really help establish notability. Yeah, I know that would probably be giving you more attention than you want personally, but slandering one of our best is slandering us all, and this loon's allegations at least to my eyes definitely deserve some sort of clear and unequivocal response/denial. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John, but I don't think it's worth it and I don't think I want an article about me. A signpost interview would just perpetuate the situation and feed Thornton and Wolter. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones

Hello. I'm wondering why mentioning a possible link between the date March 22nd (3/22) and the secret society Skull and Bones who have the number 322 prominently displayed in their logo is considered by you to be some form of vandalism worth of deletion when put in the "conspiracy theory" section of the Georgia Guidestones page.

For God's sake, the name and image of Skull and Bones is an obvious reference to danger and/or death and the Georgia Guidestones are clearly calling for a ninety plus percent reduction in the world's population, meaning that the Guidestones MUST BE calling for the death/culling (or miraculous rapture or whatever) of some six billion people.

So, pointing out that maybe, just maybe, there may be a connection to the 3/22 unveiling date and the number on the Skull and Bones logo constitutes vandalism??? REALLY??? What are you, in Skull and Bones or something??? Are you one of the lucky five hundred million that are allowed the survive???? Please enlighten me with your reasoning.

The section is called "Conspiracy Theories" dude. And that's where I put my THEORY about a possible CONSPIRACY by a secret society whose name and logo clearly represent death and whose logo clearly and prominently displays the possible unveiling date, and whose mission, purpose and goals are a secret to all but it's members. Pointing out the possible connection is putting forth a THEORY, and implying that there may be a nefarious connection between the Guidestones and the secret society is putting forward a CONSPIRACY THEORY. That's not vandalism when put in the "Conspiracy Theories" section. It's pointing out a very intriguing reality and/or possibility, and at the very least a coincidence worth mentioning. Why do you think somebody included a reference to the possible 3/22 unveiling date??? Why not delete that as well so nobody makes any further connections about a possible CONSPIRACY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.34.179 (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources commented om this possible conspiracy? That's what is needed to consider including such in the article. If it is just your theory, it's original thought, which is not permitted in articles. Can you point to us where, for instance, a magazine or newspaper has commented on a possible connection between the organization and the Guidestones? LadyofShalott 02:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Um, dear lady, I tend to doubt whether the word "thought" is enitrely appropriate in this particular situation. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps not. "Original madness"? LadyofShalott 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was Weller who removed it...he will keep removing it no matter what sources you have etc. Doug Weller is doing it to hundreds of other articles. One of the History channel's TV hosts recently mentioned Doug Weller in a interview about how Doug Weller doing Alot of other editors like this. I've had admins review my edits in talk pages before adding them to articles..they be approved for inclusion from wiki admins and instant Doug STILL revert them and act like they never been discussed. The reason he will not let you put the stuff in the Georgia article is because of Scott Wolter. Doug Weller has been on alot of other websites since 2009 saying bad stuff about Scott Wolter of the history channel...and continues to remove stuff from anything Scott discusses.

Even if you get Admins to approve your edits...Weller will still remove them.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2009-10/msg00498.html

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2009-09/msg00383.html

"In an interview on March 25, 2013 the host of the History Channel’s new hit series, “America Unearthed,” Scott Wolter, stated that he had demanded that Wikipedia remove his biography because its editors had allowed so many false alterations to its contents. Wolter had sent them the true facts on his career, but the editors of Wikipedia refused to eliminate the recent anonymous edits. Wolter added that immediately prior to the premier of "America Unearthed," several articles he had written or contributed to in Wikipedia had been simultaneously “gutted” or deleted by a self-appointed Wikipedia editor in rural England named Doug Weller. Wikipedia provides little information on Doug Weller other than that he has been designated a “purple gatekeeper.” Weller has no professional qualifications in geology. Until 2006 he claimed to be an archaeologist, but withdrew that claim when exposed. Surprisingly, Weller has also been editing Wikipedia articles about the history of the Southeastern United States. These activities will be described in a following section." Richard Thornton http://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-thornton/24/860/204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.183.229 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly, Doug Weller comes from the Southeastern United States and has never said he was a professional archaeologist - convenient that Wolter left out the adjective 'amateur' that I've used in the past when I was active, and that he left out the fact that he tried to remove criticism from his article made by a former colleague. And that he only has an undergraduate degree in geology. We are all self-appointed editors - this is, after all, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And what in the hell is a purple editor? But why worry about the truth when lies are more interesting? Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope I'm allowed to say this here without breaking any Wikipedia rules. What's interesting and entertaining is how you systematically and politely humiliate people who attack you! Not that I visit your page often, but when I do, it's a fun experience! Dontreader (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy To Suppress The Truth Barnstar

You are hereby recognized as part of the all-powerful conspiracy of self appointed editors!
- LuckyLouie (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, where's mine? Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. You haven't "gutted" enough articles yet. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait...where's his purple gate keeper barnstar?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

For successfully keeping the existence of the Cadre of Purple Gatekeepers a secret, you are awarded this purple gate. Long may it stay closed. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

👍 Like--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess purple is the new rouge. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi Dougweller. The IP hopper in the range 101.0.71.0/24 who accused you of being a meatpuppet has now registered an account as Akuri. Within his first ten edits, he has indicated that he is interested in making some kind of request for an arbcom case. I have no idea why somone not even autoconfirmed should want to do that. Mathsci (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be aimed mainly at FPS, but the editor might have planned to include me. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this where Thornton got his information?

Metapedia: en.metapedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Weller. It's got the 2006 false claim (I always said I was only an amateur archaeologist), mentions where I live now. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And somehow is the 2nd hit when I type in my name - that's new, as are fake YouTube and Google+ pages saying I'm gay. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the club Doug. You'll receive your membership card in the mail within 30 days. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I was previously unaware of Metapedia. Holy crap. They're serious about all that? LadyofShalott 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Is it ok if I move Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#More_attacks form the noticeboard page to the talk page? it's just good to have a place for discussing separate issues that aren't directly related to content. Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Phaistos disk decipherment claim

Thanks, I had forgotten about the self-publishing rule - I guess I am not going to fight it all over again! Just wanted to point out however that having some ideas published in e.g. "The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs" does not make them more legitimate than work that someone has put up on his/her own web site, instead of struggling to find a (probably linguistically ignorant) dead-tree publisher. Jpaulm (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

When I read this my response was "what is this Burlington Magazine, maybe that doesn't belong in the article either", but it's The Burlington Magazine - and is cataloged in Jstor, so I think it's probably ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
OK - I was just using it as an example of a publication with doubtful expertise in Minoan linguistics - is anyone an expert? In my view, Fischer's interpretation makes much less sense than the Massey twins', and that's a published book (I paid money for it too)... Sigh... Jpaulm (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased/POV edit

Hi. Please verify this diff and compare it with previous revision(s) and used sources like Britannica. I think it's a POV and totally is different from what sources say. Does not match with sources. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Citations also included the venerable Catholic Encyclopedia, and Dr. Raymond O. Faulkner, yet you deleted the whole thing. Why so draconian and sweeping?MithrasPriest (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Venerable century old encyclopedias are nice but we should have better sources. Give me 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Request revision deletion at Talk:Jat people

Greetings, as you can see on the History page, on 1 April an IP (now temp blocked) made and then deleted some grossly insulting phrasing. It's petty childish stuff, but there's no utility in having a record of some kid spewing obscenities, so if you get a chance could you please consider Revision Deletion just to avoid some future reader being discomfited? Link. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, and thanks for the great job you're doing at Wikipedia. Concerning Scythians, I wanted to ask for a clarification. At the talk page, you said (in a post you probably wrote at the same time as I wrote mine) that we should rely less of encyclopedias and instead try to build more on academic sources. [19] I couldn't agree more, you're absolutely right. But isn't your reversion of Slovenski Volk [20] a bit contradictory then as it removes a relatively recent (2009) academic study published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal? Then again, I might be missing something, that's why I preferred a casual question here. Keep up the good work!Jeppiz (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Poor edit summary by me. Here's the article, do you think it backs his edit? Even if it did that's no excuse of such a major change since so many other sources say Iranian/Indo-European. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, a poor edit summary. I've read the article and I'm not convinced, that's why I've only involved myself at the talk page, not in editing this article. I hope Slovenski Volk will answer my question about which part of the article they feel supports the edit.Jeppiz (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

While I have your attention ...

... what's your reaction to this diff? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at DGG's initial response to your post to him and I agree with it. The other question I'd have is how did you choose the editors when you posted to them? Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment

Hi. Please comment: Scythians: Consensus for the lead section: Iranian people or Iranian-speaking people. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Pompeii

Hey--I reverted your change to the epoch name in Pompeii. I know the edit you un-did was unexplained, but it was a good edit, per WP:ERA, because BC/AD is used in the rest of the article and no discussion had occurred on the Talk page. Don't ya wish more folks would supply an Edit Summary? Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, sorry I missed that. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Minimalism

You stated minimalist do not believe Exodus existed. You used they to make your assertion. Who is they? Are all minimalist in step and one and the same. I was wondering how you lump all the different levels and types of minimalists into such a neat definition. Please elaborate on how your definition is the definitive one. Obviously biblical minimalists despute much of the bible but there are varying degrees of minimalism. Just because someone claims they are not something does not make it so. If one fits into the definition they are indeed that even though they deny it. Please do not be so narrow in your definitions and use some philosophical reasoning before you get carried away reverting edits. Thanks for your concern but please try to be less biased and more discerning in your edits. Whole sale reverts reflect poorly on your ability to edit. Any fool can revert an edit but an "editor" would only clean it up and correct or dipute with facts their opposing view. I thus proclaim you an EDITUS RAPIDUS NON DISCERNUS from a FEDUPUS NEWBEUS. Please remember to not drive away those who are trying to add oppossing views that are documented by those you label as non-reputable sources. Who said you can simply label a credible well established source as non-reputable because you oppose their viewpoint and then revert the edit based on that. What higher authority do you have to make you an all knowing, all mighty discerner of reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheasantpete (talk • contribs) 08:29, 4 April 2013?

Wow. I guess this might be about my edit summary "if you want to cite Bimson, cite him directly, don't use Frontline Ministries website as a secondary source- calling Dever a minimalist when he has been scathing in his dismissal of "minimalists" is a WP:BLP violation". Can't see anything there about me saying a source is non-reputable. If you want to discuss the rest then take it to some article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A suspicious article on an Egyptian deity

I know you probably have several things on your plate at the moment, but I just wondered if you know anything about this obscure Egyptian deity. None of my sources support the existence of such a deity, and I don't know of any RSes that do, so I'll probably AfD the article soon. A. Parrot (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This one's interesting. Google books here indicates at least a few reliable sources which talk about Anubis's wife, but they seem to indicate that she was never named, and don't seem to describe her in any particular depth. Nothing against proposing it for deletion, but it might not be bad to see if the relevant content, other than the name, which I can't find sourcing for, might be added to maybe propose a merger if any of the content isn't already at the Anubis article or elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've asked another editor about this and will look at it tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Westboro Baptist Church

I replied on my talk page. עבד יהוה talk 21:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

zecharia sitchin and skepdic

ok, i just checked it out. it is a book in fact, though paper edition is 40% smaller then web content. i still do not think it is good enough source to provide such a strong claim in the leading paragraph, discrediting this guy. skepdic seems to be a popular book, debunking 400 different subjects in short, lacking references, and language it uses is rather essay form. sitchin has been working 40 years on the subject, deserves much more attention and more scientific approach in critisizing him, before you tell wiki readers not to take his work seriously. Nen3ah (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this is my talk page I've got more leeway in discussing Sitchin himself rather than the article. Sitchin was a journalist without training in any of the disciplines he writes about (I have 5 of his books, by the way). I was personally told by a world-famous Professor that Sitchin had less understanding of Sumerian than his freshman students. His interpretations are unique to him = and not just of Sumerian. Have you noticed that despite his huge bibliographies it is difficult to impossible to actually figure out anything specific about the sources he uses? Here we expect our readers to know what page number of a book is being used to source something. With Sitchin you are lucky to know what book or article he is using. What I do know is that the stuff in his bibliograph contradicts his claims. Serious scholars have generally ignored him as his ideas are so preposterous. Our article needs to make all this very clear in the introduction (lead). Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a Barnstar

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thanks for reverting several additions of copyrighted material from Ali Assad. You deserve to have your first Copyright Cleanup Barnstar. Keep up the good work! Minima© (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


Copyright violation in Islamic view of...

You were kind enough to remove what you stated was a copyright violation in the article on the Islamic view of the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[21]

Some but not all other Islamic view of... articles also have the same feature: Abraham in Islam, Hud (prophet), Lot in Islam, Jacob in Islam, Moses in Islam, Solomon in Islam, Elijah, Zechariah (priest), John the Baptist. Should such sections all be removed as copyright violations? If so, how do we know what they were copyright violations of? Maybe some of them are editors' research.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

My error, I've reverted myself. Clearly editor's research (but I am not sure it can be reverted on that account), but so far as I can see not all copyvio although may be from this 2006 forum post[22]. But I don't have time for tracing this further. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Dougweller.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


Attacks

Hi, have you had any luck in dealing with the attacks mentioned here: Wikipedia:FTN#More_attacks? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Creation Science and Intelligent Design Listed Under Pseudoscience

Dear Mr. Dougweller, I am sorry for not responding sooner, but I was delayed by Spring Break and was out of town. I read your're reponse to my questions and am disturbed by the concept that you (at least in my mind) appear to hold sway over what is considered mainstream. Creationist view such as those listed under pseudoscience are mainstream. There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the conflict between creationism and evolution which illustrates that a great deal of people accept all or portions of the two views and thus the views are mainstream. Additionally, you requested a source for my deletion. May I assume that if I were to list a scientific source or two, then my deletions would be allowed? Dated: 4/2/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.93 (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)These topics remain as they were: pseudo-sciences, completely and totally in conflict with actual science as practiced by actual scientists. This is not going to change; and Wikipedia, which is by definition based on reliable sources, reflects that longstanding scientific consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. This refers to my reply[23] and the IP's edits at [24] and possibly [25] and the poast at Category talk:Obsolete biological theories. By mainstream I mean mainstream science. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You're response is quite rediculous for several reasons.
1. How is it you have come to appoint yourself the person to decide what is and what is not mainstream?
2. You blow of creationism as not being "actual science", but you failed to back up your claim. I can site real scientist that disagree with Darwinian theory.
3. Consensus doesn't make something true.
4. You have still failed to counter my point that Wikipedia is currently setup with a bias in favor of athiesm even though it requires articles to be unbiased.
5. I fail to see how not listing creation science and intelligent design under pseudoscience conflicts with you're stated goals. I'm not asking you to list creationism as fact or remove arguments against creationism. I'm just asking that you not mock it.
Dated: 4/3/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.122.1 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)174.22, your response, in turn, is semi-literate (failing in both grammar and spelling), and betrays a complete and utter ignorance of how actual science works. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Surprising to see that the IPs geolocate to Colorado. From their comments, I was sure they were from Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
IP, you should revisit point 3 and think long and hard about what that means. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I fixed point 3. Sorry, but spelling was never my forte. So far none of my points have been refuted and now I'm being insulted and Tennessee is being stereotyped. I'm going to wait another day or two for Dougweller to respond. Dated: 4/4/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.49 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll have you know that both Orlady and myself are from Tennessee! --Orange Mike | Talk 04:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
First, it should be noted that just because many people accept an idea, that does not make it other than pseudoscience. Many people believe in lots of things which have little if any real scientific support. Also, I have myself recently gotten a list of articles in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience together. That list can still be found at User:John Carter/Pseudoscience articles. Those topics are included in that encyclopedia, if not necessarily under those titles. \Therefore, honestly, I cannot see any reasonable explanation to change the listings. If independent reliable sources which meet WP:RS standards describe something in a given way, and that description is not contested by other reliable sources which meet those same standards, we are, more or less, obligated to follow their lead. If you believe that those topics should not be described as such, honestly, I, as one of the leading religion editors around here, and a rather staunch Christian at that, cannot see any reason supported by policies or guidelines which would say we shouldn't. You are of course free to produce reliable sources which would dispute that contention. In fact, if you wish to challenge that description, it is more or less your obligation, as per WP:BURDEN, which I suggest you read, to do so. Otherwise,, unfortunately, we cannot take contentions made by any editors which do not have reliable sources to back them up as reason to change anything around here. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Between what I've already said and what other editors have said here, I don't see anything I need to add. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I offered to list sources alongside my edits. Dated: 4/5/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.119.149 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It is more or less incumbent on you to present the sources first for material which seems to be basically controversial, such as this. So, under the circumstances, it would probably be best for you to start a discussion on the article talk page, where others can determine whether the sources meet the standards of independent reliable sources, and how much weight to give them. But, particularly for controversial changes, and this is one, it is best to receive some consensus for removing material which is already reliably sourced, as the statements of creation science qualifying as pseudoscience are. And, by the way, you might notice that as a Catholic, I included Fatima as what it is on the list of pseudoscience articles, one of the four longest and apparently most important articles in that reference work. We are obliged to give the greatest weight to the highest quality sources first, and until you actually have presented your sources there is absolutely no way for anyone to know how reliable they are. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The thing is that I had previously offered to provide sources, but Dougweller rejected them as being unreliable before I had even provided them. See paragraphs one and two of this conversation. I would be glad to provide sources written by members of the scientific and academic fields, but do not feel that I can be assured of that my evidence will be taken seriously and that you won't just dismiss it without consideration of its content.

FYI

I believe that I've confirmed my suspicions about the genesis of the Carpenter article as I posted here[26]. At the beginning of August 2012, Yeoberry was posting this text across multiple Wikipedia articles. and was rebuffed on the basis of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, etc.[27] In mid-September 2012, roughly 6 weeks later, Carpenter was posting this at "The Puritan Board" [28], writing he had joined that board for the purpose of publishing his views on the subject, noting that it needed some work, and that he was "working on polishing this for possible publication". Then, Carpenter's article was published by JISCA in 2013, and Yeoberry began adding text referenced to it across Wikipedia, leading the the recent denouement at WP:AN/I. Given the indefinite block and Yeoberry's "retirement", it's all water under the bridge, but I thought that you might be interested.Fladrif (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for your help. That's another example of using Wikipedia to push a real world agenda. For instance, if you look up "Gail Riplinger" and Yeoberry you'll find that he's having a go at her off-Wiki. He also tried to create a content fork via AfC attacking her that was deleted, and at [{Talk:Gail Riplinger]] you will find more. Curses and other swear words, he actually signed with his email address there, yeoberry@hotmail, so he outed himself and I didn't know that. See the last line at [29]. Or at least I think that's identifying himself onwiki. He has also edited Peter Ruckman, and see [30]. I'm sure there are more examples. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
In light of recent cases at ArbCom and AE, I tried to be very careful in what I said about this and not cross any lines. As I pointed out at COIN, Yeoberry added a link to Carpenter's church in an article. That link included Carpenter's bio and e-mail address, which matched the e-mail address that Yeoberry signed a post with, as you noted above. The relevant language in WP:OUTING is "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. (emphasis added) So, I was reasonably comfortable that by voluntarily posting that link, Yeoberry had self-identified. Fladrif (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is Imporant.

Hello, can you please help me? i want to report Irānshahr, for vandalism and removing very much info and sources on a page, also because of three revert rule, here is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011-2013_Iranian_protests&action=history, can you help me? i am not good as this as you are, and you are after all admin, thank you :).--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you assent to having your time wasted by this kid, please see my talk page and Talk:2011-2013 Iranian protests. Irānshahr (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Algorithmically Constructed News

I defend my querying of Alt View participants in this discussion as this issue goes beyond this single Sorcha Faal entry and attacks the very concept of what Notability even is anymore.

The reason for this is because any discussion involving anonymous bloggers in the 21st century (especially anti-establishment ones) must include the subject of algorithmically constructed news.

The British national daily newspaper The Guardian reported in 2010 that algorithms are already reporting the news in the US[31], the technology news site Wired has detailed[32] how the US company Narrative Science[33] is at the forefront of algorithmic news writing, and the tech blog Techdirt reported that the future of reporting is going to be algorithms, not people.[34]

The World Association of Newspapers And News Publishers[35] even quoted one of their senior news executive who said that the advent of robo reporters is a “coming apocalypse”.[36]

When you combine the FACT of algorithmically constructed news with the FACT that Business Insider reported last year that 6 corporations control 90% of the media (i.e. reliable sources) in America[37] and then blend in the FACT that Wikipedia only judges notability based on references to a subject/person/organization by these same 6 corporations, then anyone can plainly see that this apocalypse is already here when this unholy triad (Algorithms-Corporations-Wikipedia) have the potential (indeed is even doing so right now) to control information/truth any way they so choose.

Let me respectfully remind all of you of exactly what Wikipedia Values statement says: An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse.[38]

So please somebody tell me, how can you outright delete this entry, without first trying to improve it (using alt standards), and still abide by the values of: “Thriving open formats” and “Content not subject to restrictions of creation, use, and reuse”?

As I’ve stated before, any competent search[39] of this Sorcha Faal show her/it/them being mentioned hundreds of thousands of times the world over for over 10 years. Why is this so? And who or what wants to silence this prodigious commentator[40]?

Passing mention or not, it is a FACT that this Sorcha Faal has become a thread in the global fabric of public discourse as a dissenter against the powers be that, in my humble opinion, shouldn’t be silenced by Wikipedia working hand-in-hand with those powers always seeking to silence dissenting opinions.Kmt885 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

None of that is an excuses for your canvassing - everyone who canvasses thinks what they are canvassing about is important. And the values statement doesn't mean peoplel can ignore our polices (I have no idea what alt standards means). Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sovereign citizens

you undid certain changes I made to the Sovereign citizens page.

nothing I said was untrue. the page as it exists now is too broad. it phrases things in a manner that depicts ALL sovereign citizens as holding those beliefs. the wording of several passages needs to be altered to reflect that some of the people who engage in malicious criminal act claim to be sovereign, but not all.

this passage is hate mongering and paranoid, it needs to better reflect a broader range of views.

one of the key statements about sovereign citizens, is that they do not all follow the same set of views or beliefs. Given this, the page needs to reflect it, as it could be considered discriminatory and stereotyping a group.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.202.138.8 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you find some sources that meet our criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Pensacola Christian College

Thank you for reviewing my edit on the Pensacola Christian College page. I agree that the change your reverted was correct. Please review my other edits as well. I was attempting to bring the page up to date a bit with some new information. I also found that there were several grammatical edits. Unfortunately I am a bit out of practice, and some of my edits are re-edits to fix things I missed when I saved. Sloppy I know. Sorry.

It's folks like you who keep this site clean and readable. Thanks for all your hard work. Mortsey (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Abacus

I mistyped/misread the date information. I believe the corrected edit should suffice as the information I have read agrees with the dates set forth. But on a second note, why if you disagreed with the 542 BC date on abacus would you revert the entire edit as the majority of that edit was not related to that information. I understand a different editor has an issue, but even so, what I had added was IMHO a needed addition to a decidedly blank section of the history of the abacus with a caveat about the agreed upon scarcity of solid information. speednat (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediate

As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination)[41]. For an entity such as this who has gained global noterity to even be considered for deletion is beyond my understanding.Kmt885 (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(With this edit...)
I didn't mean to imply that Kmt885 had not violated WP:CANVASS, I agree with you that the tone is far from neutral. I only meant that it had not accomplished the disruption that Kmt885 seemed to be hoping for. The members of WikiProject Alternative Views did not fly to the defence of the piece, and instead stood for proper referencing. I suppose a person that imagines invisible conspiracies everywhere might hope that some might work for their own crazy ideas. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much. Str1977 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Integrity

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Integrity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbcomm Comment that involves you

As a neutral expert in the area can you please comment here: [42]. Specially since you were also involved with the topic recently..and the user actually did same something about you in another Wikipedia. --Xodabande14 (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Congrats Gramps! You might want to update your # on the list. You are 224. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations Doug, and thanks for your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Décolletage

An article that you have been involved in editing, Décolletage , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Little rename

Please rename Cyaxares the Great back to Cyaxares, it was changed by Kurdish fanboys. Cheers, Mr. O. --109.165.139.214 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

F0r bl0cked user

If you read it carefully, Un1c0rntr011z reads "Unicorntrollz". It is a reference to trolling, so should you hard block them for username violation, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre81ve master (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that but as they are indefinitely blocked with the IP autoblocked that's all that I think needs to be done. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop harassing

Please stop trying to intimidate me, and calling me a vandalizer for editing in Wikipedia. Yes Encyclopedia Iranica is a reliable source, no argue with that. Telling me that "I've noted that you reject sources that disagree with you" is ad hominem and your opinion. You are a major editor of the Cyrus Cylinder article which I commented on, and your behavior on it, which is clearly why you have decided to fill my user talk page just hours after. Furthermore I see you have been busy editing the Iranian-related articles with unsourced material just as you've done on the Cyrus Cylinder article. I won't go as far as you did to quote and link Wikipedia rules regarding these facts, because that would be a waste of my time. You also clearly have taken sides with Prioryman when editing Cyrus Cylinder and seem to have taken advantage of your administrator powers to shape the article and put unsourced and biased material which smears the name of Cyrus the great with fabricated lies. If you continue on doing this and harassing me I will report all of this to the administration board. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Copying my response at your talk page to here:"
I've called your changing a quotation vandalism. I don't know what else to call it. Perhaps the comment on your opinion of sources went to far. Your BLP violation and your other comments brought your edits to my attention. You do seem to have a pattern of changing Turkic to Iranian. If I've added unsourced material that's unusual - I'm pretty good at sourcing material. What have I added at Cyrus Cylinder that isn't sourced? If I actually have added unsourced material there that might be contentious or challenged I'll try to source or remove it. Just as I removed Lendering today. I'm not harassing you, I'm letting you know about problems with your edits. Surely you agree that you could have checked Baharlu before changing it, and I doubt that you want to justify changing a quotation. It's simply a fact that if you go through articles changing nationalities without sourcing them sooner or later you are likely to be blocked. I'd prefer that this didn't happen (both unsourced changes and a possible block). I wouldn't block you myself. The fact that I agree with another editor most of the time on this article proves what? And I have never "put unsourced and biased material which smears the name of Cyrus the great with fabricated lies." If you think I have, put your money where your mouth is and show where I've done this (at the talk page, not here or my talk page)." Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same accusations. Even quotations have to be sourced and have to be true. You also keep clinging on to the very few edits I've made to Wikipedia and amusingly calling them vandalism. All to distort the matter and fact which why this all started: You and Prioryman, and Jona Lendering apparently have been doing the vandalizing as you call it, not me. You've put very very biased material against Cyrus the great and his cylinder without a single shred of evidence to backup your claims. Jona Lendering's website Livius.org seem to be the major "source" you've put to back up your claims, which is of course not considered as a reliable source according to the Wikipedia rules. And you have as I mentioned before, used your administrator power to make your edits stick and reverted anyone who disagreed with your outrages edits of the articles in mention. You're still trying to harass and intimate me by calling my few edits vandalism, and filling my talk page with warnings, because of the fact that I commented and responded to you and the other editors I mentioned on Talk:Cyrus Cylinder. As I mentioned in that page, I hope someone who actually edits in Wikipedia takes this to the highest authorities of Wikipedia to show what you and the others mentioned have been doing all along, but if you continue to harass me, that person will be me. Lastly this is my final response to you regarding this. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to here you are withdrawing, I shall do also. I'm not adding Lendering, I'm removing Lendering which I did today, because it causes so much contention. As for being a reliable source, his published stuff as as well as his website is mentioned in various reliable sources, see [43] but use of his website should also be specifically attributed to him in the text of an article. Having said that, I'd still prefer other sources which is one reason I removed him today. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Doug

In order to head off an edit-war with Editoreditorman at articles Almah and Isaiah 7:14 I've started a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. As this is the first time I've done this, I'd be grateful if you could tell me anything I've done wrong or missed. (I've informed Editoreditorman but I'm not 100% sure I've done that correctly). Thanks. PiCo (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Random comments

Hiya. First, I have a bit of a strange question to ask you. As you have possibly/probably noticed, we have a few editors who are actively seeking to put forward the position of modern deism around here lately. That's fine, and I personally have no reservations about it whatsoever, other than the fact that I can find few reliable sources which actually discuss the matter to any length. Examiner.com has a whole slew of articles which are clearly written by people who adhere to the deist perspective, but that site has been blacklisted already, and I have no reason to think that many if any of those articles would meet RS standards anyway. One thing which might work, maybe, might be, somehow, to have one of the listed leaders of the modern movement, which includes at least several online "churches," submit for a Wikinews interview. But, I've never done such a thing, don't know exactly how to set up a phone interview, which would probably be preferable in any event, and have been told that my phone voice is kind of difficult at the best of times anyway. If such interviews would be acceptable as RS about the opinions of barely notable groups, like a lot of the fringey groups who have you on their hate list, that might be one way to get some independent material on them. Maybe. Like I said, curious about your opinion.

Also, just in general, I notice here that at least one editor seems to indicate that they have received an advance prepublication copy of a book that they want to add to an article. Having never dealt with such matters before, I'm not sure whether that sort of thing raises POV and/or, maybe, COI issues. If you have any better ideas as to whether they would or not, I think your input would be very welcome in that matter as well. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I know little about Wikinews, but the last time I can find this discussed we agreed it wasn't an RS (I participated in the discussion.[44] I don't think anything on Examiner.com should be used as a RS. As for the book, it can't be used until it's published as it's not verifiable, but Dunn is probably an RS. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess my question wasn't so much about whether Dunn is reliable, but whether an editor who has received a prepublication copy of a book and wants to use it might be seen as having some sort of POV problem regarding that work. I don't know, having never gotten a prepublication copy myself (a gross injustice, as I am of course one of the greatest minds on at least two planets, three if you count the quick trip to Jupiter), and of course certain people have never revealed their outside identity, like me. But, having never dealt with the matter before, I'm not sure whether there are any potential red flags regarding neutrality which might be raised by such. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's a problem, it does show they are involved in the field but that's not a pov problem normally. I've had at least one pre-publication copy of an academic book to review - not for a journal review but for the publisher so they had some idea of whether they should publish it - in any case do you mean COI? Anyway, whichever, I don't see a problem. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Plcoopr

Thanks I appreciate this information Plcoopr (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh!

Agricolae (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for all the work you have done to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism! LatinWolf (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletions

WP:BAN: "If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." You completely ignored an ongoing discussion, instead choosing to arbitrarily delete notable, well-sourced articles. Articles should be judged on their content, not their author. 124.148.212.42 (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting you're singling me out like this despite the facts. And on the general point, with possibly hundreds of articles created by this blocked user, a few minor edits and removing speedy delete tags are not something anyone should spend time on - Bedson's wasting enough editor's time now and in the past with first his bad editing and now his crusade to create socks and multiple new articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to respond to the perfectly plausible sounding statement " Articles should be judged on their content, not their author." As a community, we have reached a different conclusion. I don't know the nature of the reason for the block of Paul Bedson, so I'll comment generally. Our experience is that sometimes editors fail to follow the policies and guidelines. If this is persistent, the editor is eventually blocked. Even though some of the content may be perfectly fine, some is not, and it is not always easy to tell without investigation. As an example, if an editor has a bad habit of copy-pasting material subject to copyright, or worse, lightly paraphrasing it so that copy detection bots may miss it, then we have an editor who is literally jeopardizing the project, even if not all edits are problematic. I can personally attest that checking for copyright infringement is tedious, boring and hard work. If we allowed such an editor to continue contributing, the manpower needed to do thorough reviews would greatly exceed the value of the useful content. As a consequence, it is best for the project that the editor cease editing.
This means, of course, that editing under a new name is also prohibited. If we adopted, as a policy, that Articles should be judged on their content, not their author" then we would have to divert substantial resources to thorough review of any such editors edits. That would be bad for the project. As a consequence, we have loosely followed a rule that a blocked editors edits can be removed, and such removal doesn't have to be accompanied by other violations of policy. It is my understanding that we try to be reasonable about this. If a blocked editor made a de minimis contribution to a decent article, we do not want to throw out the entire article. I have not looked at Doug's removal. I will only speak for the one's I did. I looked at each article, and tried to make sure that edits form anyone other than the sock were gnomish in nature. I believe that was true of all of the deletions I carried out.
If you think there are articles which should get special consideration, please point them out, but there has to be a good rationale, such as substantial contributions by others.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion which led to his community ban is here[45]. His misuse of sources was a serious problem and not always easy to detect. He's continuing to do this with his socks. I did look at the article histories to check they hadn't been more than trivially edited by anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Duly note that there was no option for topic or sourcing bans given in that deletion discussion highlighting serious problems with the administration procedures. It's all good for my cause, which is simply advertising and promoting the central site of the neolithic revolution in an attempt to save the area from all the construction being caused by refugees from the Syrian Civil War. Hopefully my efforts will highlight the devastation being caused to the original site of our culture, my apologies to anyone frowning on my "crusade" to do this. I don't have any better ideas, and it's for your own good, and your children's good. Also note that it is not "blackmail" as I tried to explain to Jimbo yesterday, it's better thought of as an act of God. [46] Hugo Dracs (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Talking about race without talking about race.

Hey Doug, The reason I made the deletion to the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, is because the paragraph attempts to negate the entire purpose of the preceding article by saying race does not exist. While the information presented in the introduction are interesting, and may have merit, it is a different discussion point and distracts from the spirit of the article which is to explain that different groups argue that either Europeans, Africans or Asians were responsible for ancient Egypt, and the basis as to why they have they make their claims.

Also this broad statement that racial groups do not exist is discredited through modern genetic science which has attributed specific haplotypes to specific races; so rather than make take on the exhausting task of tackling heavily cited "junk science," a deletion is more proper to avoid confusion that will create an argument over genetics.

If you feel this information is important to the article, it may be better classified in a subsection entitled "Contemporary Opinions" or something along those lines. Please let me know if you would like to make the edit or would like me to make it or give me an explaination as to why this is an inappropriate change. I'll check back tomorrow for your response.

Respectfully, J.Reiter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was tangentially involved in that but it was mainly other editors who were involved. This should really be at the talk page. 2 points in a rush - I've already said we can't talk about race without knowing what we mean. The other is that a lot of the history of the discussion (which is what this article is about, it is not actually about the race of Egyptians) is covered by this material - when the AE are referred to by modern writers as Black, this doesn't always or even often mean something genetic. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RSN question re Richard L. Thompson

My apologies for not having put a notice on the talk page of the article. I've posted this note on RSN in response to yours:

You're obviously right. My first time on RSN, but common sense should have told me. By coincidence, yesterday before seeing your note on RSN I posted on the article talk page a summary of the responses here. I leave it to you to guide us how to proceed. My apologies again.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to reply there tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A recently banned editor

has apparently found a place more compatible with his objectives, where he can vent his frustration over his ban from Wikipedia. It looks like they preemptively deleted his earliest submissions and imposed a block for simply copying content previously deleted from Wikipedia , so this may not go as smoothly there as he may have hoped. Fladrif (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. He's all about himself, isn't he? I hadn't realised just how egocentric he is until I saw this. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sheba

Will do but how am i suppose to discuss with someone who thinks the British museum and Britannica are racists? read the German article and i will see how i can debate someone believing scientists are racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendite (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Difficult. He thinks I'm one of the worst racists on Wikipedia, although I'm not sure why. He's a young earth creationist who thinks a lot of Old World people got to the Americas before the Vikings. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mors Martell vs Echigo mole

Hi Doug, those posts were by an Echigo mole sock already confirmed by checkuser. The large number of socks confirmed by CU have not yet been blocked. Mathsci (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Icelandic cuisine has now been blocked by FPaS. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Worried about a sock puppet

I have no experience of such things, but I was trying to work out how to tackle some of the aftermath of the vast number of Can%27tCopeWon%27tCope Archaeology articles, and noticed that an identical pattern of file creations is now going on from User:Robin Whood. As I had come across your name in connection to this, I thought you might know what to do about it. If you can guide me on the likely long term fate of all the existing articles, it will help in working out what best to do about them (and how to improve coverage of Scheduled Monuments generally). Thanks, RobinLeicester (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 gold price collapse

Hi, I noticed you deleted the 2013 gold price collapse article due to the creator violating a sanction. I hope you don't mind but can you please provide me with the wikicodes for that article, as I intend to recreate it. It is adequately referenced and seems to meet notability guidelines. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikicodes? Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Uhhh, I meant the latest revision history for that article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Can't do that, but The gold price crash is further evidence of market rigging, The Telegraph, Thomas Pascoe, April 16th, 2013 [47]. Given the past history of this editor, I wouldn't trust him to represent the sources sorrectly. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. Thanks anyways. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

no bias

so I looked over the things you sent, on what wiki is and is not

specifically, the no-bias aspect. the changes I made to the article on sovereign citizens, was specifically to remove bias. I stated nothing untrue, in fact, the addition of the word some to the statement 'sovereign citizens believe', inherently makes the statement more true than it previously was, and removes bias and controversy from the paragraph.

this is the thing Im talking about. I was acting in accordance with wiki policies, but they were arbitrarily removed without good cause.

The article in question, reads like propaganda, not an unbiased article that explains all significant major and minor points of view, as described in wiki policies. If this were about a religion, it would be considered hate speech. It is an ideology, that is poorly understood, and only one aspect of it is represented.

It is difficult to find sources on it, and I understand not representing unverifiable information. However, what is written, is slanted heavily to create or represent a bias and paints an incorrect picture of people who may believe in a form of sovereignty.

I do not deny that there are extremists, who corrupt the ideology for malicious and criminal purposes. But not everyone who believes in this ideology does. What is conveyed here, is that anyone who follows this philosophy or world view, is a dangerous criminal.

What is written here, is equivalent to an article about a religion, that conveyed the message, that everyone who practiced this religion, was a terrorist or murderer.

How can one begin to write an more clear article, when the clarifying word, some is removed outright as a quantifier that denotes only part of a group engages in 'bad acts'?

I look forward to understanding wiki policy, but I think some consideration of the article in question is in order. I will be going through and making a specific list of proposed changes over the next few weeks, and discussing them with you, and others in order to best convey information on this subject, without the bias that is present there.

Rqpaine (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AN/I thread related to Ten Lost Tribes

Doug, since you have been active editing and maintaining the article in question and at least one related article (BI), you might be interested in the thread here.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 02:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Elephantine papyri

Unfortunately, your recent edits to that page have a mysterious word ("texts") and an enclosed quote. AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. The word was 'texts'. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Madoc and Moon-eyed people

Hi, I can't help but notice you seem to paying a lot of attention to Doug Coldwell's work and removing a great deal of the work he's done. I don't know how valid your claims and edits are, but I know that a lot of editors can easily be deterred from contributing to wikipedia if they feel that their work is being victimized and become afraid to contribute any longer as they feel that the editor will just remove everything. If it came down to one article apparently having POV or losing somebody like Dougie, I'd pick the article. Can't you discuss the issues on the talk page without removing so much initially? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have left edit summaries extensively at Madoc and have posted to his talk page about the Moon-eyed people article. He is commenting on DYK about other people's articles and saying (correctly) that they are using reliable sources, but he isn't for this article he doesn't seem to have tried to find them - a quick search on Moon-eyed people on G books turns up sone good stuff. Look at Talk:Madoc where you can see me making a lot of comments without much response from him. Some of those are about sources and I wish he'd applied them to this new article which as I've said should possibly be a redirect to Adena culture. It isn't even a question so much of pov as of using bad sources - use good ones and most of the pov at least will go away. But hopefully he'll respond to my post on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from, but I think this works both ways. And I hope I can find time tomorrow to add some more good sources. If Paul Bedson stops creating so many sock puppets and so many bad articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. We do have to be careful with such articles of course. Like with ghosts we can't claim certain questionable things to be facts, there is an art to legendary writing isn't there. Perhaps some encouragement to look for better sources or something might help him, and try to seem more like you're working with him to try to produce something better by helping him. I just don't want him to give up in despair and leave wikipedia. He was quiet all last week and it really worried me he'd had enough.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora page, issues of neutrality and WP:UNDUE

This discussion has been ongoing for several months, and we have not reached any progress up until now. I feel that it has reached the point where we require the involvement of some administrators to help sort this out, as I have reason to believe that a number of the editors involved are pushing a non-neutral POV. I was also warned for WP:EDIT WARRING, despite only reverting once, and the fact that others have been reverting it before I stepped in again. I, in turn, have warned him that if he abuses his privileges in this manner again, that I will seek administrative/punitive action against him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_diaspora#Neutrality_issues

Evildoer187 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

UltimateBoss

Obviously Mikemikev, especially given his latest edits. I've filed a CU/SPI report. You might be amused, if that's the right word, by this and this. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocking

Why did you block me for one week? I just made some mistakes and I intended to fix that, that's all. Thanks, and sorry for the misconception! -Bil

I got a question to ask you; Do you think that I was putting wrong information? -Bil P.S.: I knew and checked all of my sources that I had found. -Bil

If you reply to me, please post you're reply on my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.229.239.155 or reply to my comment/question here on this page/section, please. Thanks for you're time to help me! -Bil

Hello, Dougweller? What's you're answer to all my questions? -Bil

Dougweller, are you online? --Bil68.229.239.155 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And P.S.: I did not vandalize any article. I was just helping to contribute to the article. So, please do not take it personal, O.K.? --68.229.239.155 (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC) -Bil

142.30.73.5 at Sovereign citizen movement

Block him? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Block who? -Bil

Pending release of Notifications

Hey Doug Weller :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.

If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

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

Anat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nubian
Elephantine papyri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nubian
Yahweh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nubian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Warning

O.K., thank you! -Bil--68.229.239.155 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC) :-) You explained a lot of that to me ;-)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Substantiating the Political Correctness article.

Dear Mr. Dougweller:

Thank you, for your supportive comment about my edits to the Political correctness article, however, the addition of substantiating quotations, in stead of "Herbert Kohl said in a 1992 essay" is within the rules, regulations, laws and ordinances of Wikipedia. That it is in the first person is irrelevant to the FACT that it was published in a journal, The Lion and the Unicorn, thus, it is a secondary source.

The skeletal and personal, in-crowd nature of the current version is uninformative, that is to say, it does not answer the questions Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How? of the subject; I read just the opinions of editors, not substantiating sources; hence, I have added them. As it stands, the article is a collection of thematically unrelated sections and subsections; there is no narrative coherence, there is no beginning, no middle, and no concluding end, just some paragraphs; good stuff, nonetheless. So, please wait until I complete my edits, and then revert them, if you wish, but, I cannot, realistically, ask the opinion (permission?) of others about an editorial contribution that does not exist . . . thus, I ask that you wait. Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Misread the edit, sorry. But the quote was copyvio due to it's length so I've trimmed it. I haven't looked at all of your edits since, just concentrated on the copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

disruptive activity?

Hi,

I Recently got a notice from you regarding "disruptive editing". How am I vandalizing Wikipedia? I added a page on my production company, which contains the same information as all other pages about other christian production companies, yet it was deleted, for a reason, which I don't quiet understand.

Can you explain to me why the page was deleted? It followed the guidelines of a new article. How does it have no significance (section A7)? And if so, why do other pages such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Entertainment differ from what I have added.

If you could shed some light, I would appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.shehata (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, that was the wrong warning, I meant to warn you about using Wikipedia for promotion and your conflict of interest. I've replied on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Odyssey related book

I saw your edit to Template:Odyssey navbox. I kind of disagree. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome#Template:Odyssey_navbox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to raise it at your talk page, but I've been dealing with idiots (one of them raised a blatantly stupid SPI on me). Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You should know...

about this. LadyofShalott 20:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Christianity

I can see that there are issues with the contributions of User:Doug Christian, but the article Encyclopedia of Christianity has been heavily rewritten by other editors and there is now an overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Christianity that the article are rewritten should be kept. Accordingly, please revert your deletion of this article. Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this is now an entirely different article I've agreed and explained at the AfD page. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, it's appreciated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Christianity and racism

Sorry, I was a bit doubtful about it but I didn't know the history.Deb (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please guide me

Hi Doug, I need to ask, my talk page has piled up alot of old messages/posts/talk. I want to get red of it all. How do I do that? do I delete my talk page or......... Thanks. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can, it's allowed, and things will still be retrievable from the history. But it's preferable to put all the old stuff in an archive. This page explains how to do so manually and how to ask a bot to come by and do it periodically. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Marbury

I'm not sure whether you've looked here again, but two editors are sure they have found enough sources to document notability. As I say there, I'd undelete the article and rewrite it myself, but I'm overcommitted right now (see my talk page for me juggling plates) and it's not up any of my many alleys. If either of them is willing to take responsibility for it, would you consider userfying it? I'm at work and can't be online much longer. If neither of them says aye, I will probably give it the necessary heavy expansion next week. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson socks

Not a fan of wikidrama, so I was quite clueless about Bedson and his socks until after TrippingHippy was blocked. I'll try not to feed the troll if I ever run into it again! - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Book of Kings

I don't think you're on solid ground here. Have you looked at this author's publications, and blurbs for his books? He has articles published in Free Inquiry, American Rationalist, Popular Electronics, Journal of Fire Sciences, American Atheist and Nature -- there is no higher standard than Nature magazine. And look at which authors are regularly published at Free Inquiry and American Rationalist. Each have A-List writers. His recent book got rave reviews from S. T. Joshi for crying out loud -- and you say this author is not a reliable source for this WP article? See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS -- "self-published media... are largely not acceptable... Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Clearly Free Inquiry, American Rationalist, and American Atheist are definitely more than relevant, and more than reliable sources. Please undo your modifications. (What do you have against a NASA scientist anyway?) Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got me all wrong. I don't disagree with his idea, it's interesting and I'd like to see it in the article. I certainly think NASA is a fantastic organisation although I think some of its earlier policies may have been wrong and ironically may have help up a base on the moon and Mars, but I may be all wet about that. The problem is that none of those journals deal with the subject of his self-published work - he is not an established expert on Egyptology or biblical studies, and those are the relevant fields, right? By all means take this to WP:RSN if you think policy and guidelines favor you, but I think you'll get the same response - not an expert in these fields. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug - at first I thought you were being unreasonable but I can see you really care about the integrity of WP articles. But you wrote "The problem is that none of those journals deal with the subject of his self-published work" - not at all true. Of the three articles that Free Inquiry published by him, all were about Christianity and the Bible and even Egyptian belief systems (primarily the 2012 article). The American Rationalist articles were about Christianity, and American Atheist publishes his articles, all about the Bible and Christianity. Perhaps I'll undo your edits, and if you disagree (can't imagine you would, if you see the articles) then why don't you take it to WP:RSN. Remember who the associate editors and peers who review articles at those journals are: Tom Flynn, Robert M. Price, S. T. Joshi, Frank Zindler, etc. Clearly since his articles were vetted by those experts, they accept him as an expert. I think I trust their judgment! (Darn, I hate to see edit wars, but your statement about those journals is completely wrong: they all deal with religion on a regular basis.) Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You could be right, although I don't see this as about religion. You didn't actually give any details of the articles. It would be better if you started this at RSN as you know the details. Dougweller (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully endorse Doug's removal of this nonsense. It is really sad that the good name of NASA is conflated with such "New Atheist" nonsense. The mission of NASA is to fly, not to publish religious pamphlets, and if some of their engineers to so in their free time, this isn't NASA's problem. The sad phenomenon of "New Atheism" (Anglo-Saxon "redneck" or pop-atheism as I would describe it) is increasingly becoming the scourge of both religious studies and actual (educated) atheism. They don't have anything to contribute, but they manage to shout everyone down who can, just because they are louder.

If this guy wants to argue that "that 2 Kings 18:27, as well as Malachi 2:1-7 are plagiarisms of Egyptian Spell 53", let him publish his idea in some peer-reviewed journal on Old Testament studies, Semitology or Egyptology and see how it is received. There are experts on this kind of thing, and while it is possible to be a NASA engineer and still get up to speed in Semitology in your free time, it is a daunting task and I seriously doubt this guy has even begun to scratch the surface of the fields he writes self-published pamphlets about. If he is that good, let's see some academic Semitologist reviewing his work first. There is a reason people are experts on things, spend their entire career on becoming so, and that Wikipedia prefers to listen to such people if at all possible. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That's really the point here. It's a field in which sometimes amateur work is acknowledged, but until it is acknowledged in the field, it's just amateur hackwork. The truth is, Gekritzl, that biblical textual study tends to be "atheistic", at least from the viewpoint of the kind of believers that the New Atheists like to ridicule. If people in the field thought those kinds of connections were plausible, they would certainly make them. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

AMERICAN FREE PRESS

Your information on AMERICAN FREE PRESS has many errors, is outdated, incomplete, misleading & is absolutely not a service to a reader looking to learn about this institution. How can we correct these errors?

Dgahary (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's "our" information, not mine. You're an editor here also. Discuss it on the article's talk page. Read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Don't try to remove material that is critical but well-sourced simply because you think it's wrong. Dougweller (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong, I KNOW it's wrong. I work there!

Dgahary (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then you have yet another problem, a conflict of interest, which I've explained on your talk page. I don't think you could have read WP:VERIFY or you'd realise that our own knowledge can't be used in an article, and we rely on what sources say about a subject (I've already given you the WP:RS link. You can challenge sources at WP:RSN. We also have a policy at WP:NPOVN that you should read and you can raise NPOV issues at WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, then a source can be someone else who works there, right? Dgahary (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS again. I'd rather not summarise it for you as you need to read both pages completely. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that.

Dgahary (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Why still marked Advertisement?

Hi Dougweller,

The Columbia International College page you've edited is now entirely your version. My questions are:

1) why is it still marked "written like an advertisement" and "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject"。

2）university admission stats are facts, on what bases should they be deleted?

It'll be appreciated if you could help me better understand your editing style.

Thanks

Harvey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higherhigherhigher (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)
  • 1.) Because it still reads like an advertisement, there is still an IP editing the article that appears to have COI issues.
  • 2.) The basis of removing the "university admission stats" must have reliable sources.

Hope this helps. Cheers, Mlpearc (powwow) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see this. I did remove the tag, which I didn't add (I'm replacing it now since because of the above), and it's ridiculous to call it my version as Greyfell and an IP from the school made huge changes, making it less than half the size of it was when I last edited it, see [48]. I'm not responsible for their edits or the present version. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Christianity redux

Encyclopedia of Christianity is back at AfD even though it just closed to keep two days ago. Ansh666 raised the possibility that the nom could be a continuation of the sock implicated in the last AfD, since the nominator's account was just created today and is solely pursuing Benson reverts. I wanted to run it past you since you know more about the case. czar · · 17:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Blatant Bedson. He can't avoid Aisha, that's why he's here, the other stuff is just dressing. Blocked. Ignore the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Why on earth did you delete the articles Hypatopa vox and Hypatopa verax? Although they might have been made by a blocked user, I later changed about everything about these articles...! I am quite shocked articles are so recklessly discarded Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That's standard procedure. This is an editor that is at times reckless about his sources, and is trying to force us to unblock him. You are free to recreate them. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. I recreated them.. Would it be an idea to inform people who worked on these kind of articles so they can salvage them? Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Great idea, impractical because the number is just too large. But anyone who has them on their watchlist will see them being deleted. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Further to your thread on my talk page on the PC article

Hello, Dougweller,

Further to your thread on my talk page, I wrote on Mhazard9's talk page, and got a finger-waving rant, and he said that you are my sponsor, and that I'm doing your bidding; and he copied both, so it is on his page and mine. You might want to take a look at his posting on my talk page. He has been making so many edits, without any real edit summaries, that I can't keep up, and have only been watching the lead and the lead picture.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm edging into a break, but I've removed it from the PC talk page, as it doesn't belong there and commented on his talk page briefly. If he continues to accuse you of harassment or refuse to discuss edits, you might want to go to dispute resolution. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I tend to just want to get the problem fixed. Hammering in his changes again and again, while refusing to discuss them is the main problem.

That first sentence could use some improvements, but this environment prevents the mutual work to do that.North8000 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Response

Dear boys:

Here is some more of that negative attention for which you have craved; oh brother. Following your example, I have corrected your writing into Standard English. You are his sponsor, because you have given him orders. (above) Remember, all this is written, thus, there is no room for disingenuousness. Moreover, his last response confirms the veracity of my statements: you is the self-appointed Page Owners of the Political Correctness article.

Thanks, you have proved my EDITORIAL point. I asked both of you specific questions, straight questions ABOUT the subject matter; instead, you put on your boater hats and gave me a Bob-Hope-Bing-Crosby schtick. If what you claimed were true, I would not be replying to you, Mr. Friendly Neighborhood Administrator. If you are not the sponsor of North8000 in this Page-owner Edit War, then, why are we talking again, about everything, but the SUBJECT MATTER? You've entangled yourself in your web of (self) deceit. Why have you told North8000 what to do, in hope of blocking me for deleting the incorrect, Dougweller-POV lead sentence? It is very poorly written, and you give your personal opinion about the adjectival forms. That is incorrect; you are not the subject of the article; how solipsistic of you people.

That you do not practice what you preach is too obvious, and pointless to discuss. I shall await until you doze-off, in ennui, and finish the project piecemeal; Raǘl was correct.

Having addressed North8000 in Standard English, and his not having responded on-topic, proves my factual statements (per the Edit History). It is unsurprising that you and he claim to be politically unrelated in this Page-owners Edit War, yet you concentrated upon personalities, rather than the SUBSTANCE of the work; claims, but no examples; rule-enforcing egotism, but no intellectual or editorial contributions.

Flouting the rules that you, as an Administrator, wear a badge to enforce, you deleted my LEGITIMATE communication to North8000, from the pertinent Talk Page (Political Correctness), as he ordered or you ordered, or both of you ordered; so many badges, so many spangled epaulets, so many truncheons. After all, North8000's orders to me that I consult with him, for his permission, just like you earlier had ordered me to first consult with you, back in the day in April, BEFORE expanding and factually improving the article. Now, in unison, both of you, Dougweller and North8000, have openly established yourselves as the Page Owners of Political Correctness; thus, you, The Administrator Dougweller gave orders (above) to North8000 to resort to threats and to report me to Authority; you do know your limitations. Why not participate editorially? Why not do the reading, and CONTRIBUTE to the substance of the article?

Again, I shall await until you beardless lads tire of guard duty at the gate, and then I shall finish substantiating the article. Please, do not take umbrage, I speak only facts.

Diploma mills are so over-priced, are they not?

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Yale and LSE are diploma mills has no business editing academic articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_27&oldid=1204691795"