![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Hi, I am glad you got involved in the dispute at Southern Poverty Law Center article. I wanted to indicate in the article that the SPLC has received criticism from the right-wing. There is a reliable sources debate is posted at [ [1]] on this topic. Your input would be appreciated. thx. Mrdthree ( talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me download some pictures to finish my article and then post it??
awwsurf Awwsurf ( talk) 00:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Following on from the ANI discussion " Unresponsive editor with 50 warnings on his talk page", which is now archived, I've just noticed IP edits on four pages where RoyalPains11 added images without appropriate FURs. [2] [3] [4] [5] I had added {{ deletable image-caption}} to each of the pages and the edits made by the IP deleted these templates from each page without fixing the image problems. Since the IP is from the same pool used by RoyalPains11, I assume he's avoiding his block by using another IP so I've reverted the edits. This has resulted in restoration of prod notices on two of the pages but I believe this is appropriate in the circumstances as he shouldn't be editing while blocked. That he didn't remove the AfD notice from one of the pages and removal of the prod was a separate act to deletion of {{ deletable image-caption}} on another page indicates that these were deliberate acts and not simply random deletions of {{ deletable image-caption}}. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 07:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to use the template for a length-of-time block, but couldn't get the template to function properly. I initially was inclined to give him a 31-hour; but his pattern of edits and the apparent sock-puppeting leave me less lenient. I've now gone to an indef block. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I see our Sinai editor is back with a new name: User:Eye2EyeIIIV. Should I log an SPI case or can I just ask you to block him? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 08:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug, it's probably a bit late now, but I thought you might be interested in this [7] comment I left on a matter you recently handled. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently removed as vandalism the phrase "Niko is very hot and elle smells." from the end of the Isaiah 40:22 section of the Flat Earth article. However, this phrase has now appears to have been restored. Please take another look at this. Thanks. UnpopularTruth ( talk) 10:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller,
On July 6th, you deleted an article I had written on a marketing firm called Layerbit. I am a marketing student at North Harris College in the Houston area. I would like to write an article about this firm because I met the manager when he came to speak at our school. I would also like to write about other firms that I know about here in Houston. There is a good deal of talent in this city that no one knows about and I am researching some of them for a paper.
Is the best way to go about this to write the article in a sub directory folder and then have you review it before I submit it? (Any details would be appreciated. still a bit confused about protocol) Also, where did the article go? Is it in some wiki purgatory?
Thank you for any help you can offer.
Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinclubman ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I've noticed that you appear on a lot of the articles I've got on my watchlist, taking care of dubious material and editors. I need some help with an article/editor. I don't know exactly how to describe the situation. The article talkpage is a mess, because the editor keeps putting up walls of words that have little to do with questions about the validity of certain sources, and what those sources specifically say. The editor consistently adds information into the article that is not covered in the sources, but I've only been able to double-check a few of these sources. But it goes even further than that. I'm certain that this editor is editing in bad faith, and mainly concerned with advancing his off-wiki aims. I posted a thread concerning some of the issue on on WP:RS/N: [9]; and alluded to it on WP:Village pump (policy): [10]. Please see the last discussion thread on my talkpage, to see how things tie together. What can I do? The article is like a slow edit war now. The editor just reverts me. The heraldry/clan stuff is total misinformation. I don't know how to describe the whole thing, it's a mess.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doug,
Thank you for the resources. I did read over the criteria and believe that you are correct. Many of the firms I was planning on writing about may not be eligible. I do still believe that there are some small boutique firms that do. I did more research on these guys and found a number of awards for design. Community for Entertainment Artists, Flash Forward, Flash Focus are a few. These may not be Emmys but they're pretty big in the design community.
What I was hoping to do was take the original article and just take out everything that sounds promotional or commercial.
Sorry to keep bothering you but thanks for your help Kevin Kevinclubman ( talk) 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for responding to my request for help on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and adding the needed weight at Talk:Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada#Quotation_marks_around_.22British_monarchy.22.3F. On my own, I really wasn't having much success getting them to respect the core content policies. Already the same editors are planning other ways to question or remove the content that doesn't fit their point of view, but I guess that'll be a bridge to cross when we get to it ... 65.92.158.145 ( talk) 05:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance. AussieGreen&Gold ( talk) 23:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You did, in fact, miss the point. List of red-light districts includes historical areas, so removing entries on that basis is not valid. With the wikilink (this one) he could have fixed the link rather than removing material and a ref. I later fixed the wikilink. There are more questionable edits by this user, those were just examples. This editor has been and continues to be a problem; I'm doing my best to believe you're not targeting me and ignoring him because of some personal bias, but reporting him for his 3RR violations and continuing behavior is a necessary step in confirming that. I won't do that, because I prefer to try and work with other editors rather than going straight to admin action, but since you do then not doing the same for him is a double-standard. Thanks. TJ Black ( talk) 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Related to your post on my talk page - see User talk:Antigrandiose#Inappropriate content and associated MFD. FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
could you please unprotect the article? i want to readd content that was removed. in NO WAY were my edits vandalism...i insulted user sulmues because of his inability to understand a simple matter so he reported me for 'personal attacks' and users with no idea regarding the article kept removing good content because i was a 'vandal'...if you feel unwilling to unprotect (fair) could you ask admin future perfect at sunrise to take a look at it since he knows both my edit history AND the article well? i dont have an account so i cant ask him myself...thanks 87.202.23.90 ( talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
my bad...i just saw future perfects comment towards you in this case sorry i missed it earlier so you can scratch most of my above comment...just to add one more thing so i can make my case i WASNT block-evading i just have a dynamic IP so if i disconnect it changes...at the time it changed i WASNT aware of sulmues report and i kept editing normally. so ill have to only request of you: can you unblock the article so i can edit it? 87.202.23.90 ( talk) 00:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
yeah that doesnt bother me too much ill just try to avoid the user as much as possible since badfaith and complete lack of understanding characterize him...my only real concern is the article i just have a couple of sentences to add 87.202.23.90 ( talk) 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a legitimate conspiracy theory I have been investigating recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.110.251 ( talk) 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've re-written (from scratch) this article here so that it hopefully isn't a copyvio anymore - can you have a look and confirm that it is OK? Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Doug, On the article Adam there's an editor who quite seriously wants to have a section reconciling the idea of a 6,000 year old creation of man (Adam) with modern science. He has a dozen sources to back the idea that this is a serious idea. all from unknown rabbis and the like. It's the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. What to do? Is there any point going to the admin forums? Any suggestions? PiCo ( talk) 12:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll check out that discussion. The maintainers of the list ought to have been notified of the discussion prior to the move. There are some people on the list who would identify themselves as nontheists. I'm not sure there is a BLP issue with identifying the others as nontheists, given the verifiable and uncontroversial definition of the word, and the other sources that confirm that they have views consistent with that definition. The problem with atheist as an identifier is that it has a dysphemistic sense that nontheist does not have--hence the nonbelievers in God who object to being called atheists. Also, the matter of whether or not one must assert the nonexistence of deities to truly be an atheist comes down to one's point of view as to how the word should be applied (dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy identify divergent usages, without settling which is the "correct" one). This also accounts for those nonbelievers who assert that they are not atheists (Carl Sagan being a notable example).
If consensus shifts such that one must specifically identify by a term (whether nontheist or atheist) to be so identified here, then a significant purge of the list will be in order, because many of those listed currently have not gone on record as to the label they prefer. Nick Graves ( talk) 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's become clear to me that I'm far too invested in Wikipedia right now than is healthy, so I'm taking a break. Sorry to bail on the discussion so soon after making such an issue of the move. I apologize for the indignant tone of my original response to that move, by the way. Take care. Nick Graves ( talk) 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
IP vandal is back again after the block. Teapot george Talk 17:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller,
I noticed that you blocked User:159.182.1.4 for repeatedly removing prod tags without giving a reason for the removal. While I can understand that this IP's actions are annoying, I personally think that they are allowed by policy. Though the proposed deletion process says that users are encouraged to provide a reason for the removal of prod tags, it does not actually require that a reason be given. If this user's actions are sufficiently annoying that you think they shouldn't be allowed, then I think the appropriate action is to start a discussion to amend the prod rules to require a reason be given when removing a prod. However, until a change to the prod rules of that sort is agreed upon, I don't think it is appropriate to block someone for removing prods without giving a reason. Calathan ( talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the warning. For the time being, I will refrain from making further edits to pseudohistory. I would appreciate, however, not being labeled an SPA. I have edited hundreds of articles, including reverting obvious vandalism on scores of articles. It's absolutely true that I have an interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, but my recent edits (pseudohistory excepted) have had more to do with restoring content that is being systematically deleted from Wikipedia - basically I am up against 2 editors who are moving from article to article removing any and all mentions of the Authorship question from the site. Is this to be condoned? Smatprt ( talk) 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Please check Obama (footnotes number 76, 212, 220) and Hillary Clinton (213) --sourced on Pdf files. The Pdf link I used on Matriacrhy fully discusses Python and Tiamat. 187.21.128.77 ( talk) 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't spot it, another editor has re-added that controversial photo to Sex tourism, claiming that there was no consensus to remove it. I've reverted it. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Doug. Can you please impose a second 6-month semi-protection on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article? As expected, anoymous vandalism is become regular problem again... -- Loremaster ( talk)
I felt that the information about mitt romney was inaccurate as far he really didn't endorsed her as much as sarah palin and did not deserved to be on the profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessex ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well he did not gave as much money as sarah palin nor helped Nikki in deflection allegations at her. That why i felt mitt didn't need to be metioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessex ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller - Thanks for letting me know about the block on this user. I'm a bit baffled by it, though. I met this guy at Wikimania in Poland - he came all the way from the US to be there - and his big thing is this anti-vandalism tool he worked on, Wikipedia:STiki. I looked at his contributions, and nearly all he seems to do is vandalism patrol using STiki - he doesn't seem to be annoying anyone, rigging RfA votes or anything like that. We were thinking of using his anti-vandalism tool to help us spot vandalism in preparing offline releases. What did he use sockpuppets for? Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Of what benefit was it to remove the external links on the Cheryl Dunn page? I'm not associated with the article, though I did add a maintenance tag once. Just curious. Pianotech Talk to me!/ Contribs 12:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
i find the external links relevant, as they all link to art or press directly related to the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunhea ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite campus a few days ago. The article Satellite campus is now greatly expanded. I wonder if the changes would cause you to reconsider your nomination. -- Orlady ( talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller,
Did you undo my edit replacing sun with moon? Why? Malco5114 Malco5114 ( talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A quick question I can't find the answer to: If I removed cut-and-paste content from an article, and tagged it as copyvio, then the creator puts the content back stating on talk: I' am the webmaster and administrator of http://outjoss.webs.com that includes http://outjoss.webs.com/aboutus.html", do we still need proof? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Please use the discussion page and don´t revert before discussion. If you pages need to be cited please help me with taht but don´t delete nor revert before using the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.128.77 ( talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Why just three months? He seems to have been warned independently for just about every policy we have. J Milburn ( talk) 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Wang Jinghong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Bigvernie (
talk)
19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Prove your point or don't comment if you have any evidence against my claim present it otherwise leave it off my talk page. Tomgazer ( talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Consensus was reached for Paul the octopus. It was just moved]. Thanks Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the talk page of the American Old West WikiProject. Why did you do this? The Raptor Let's talk/ My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 19:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind reminding Smatprt about his disruptive editing? Nothing I say has any effect. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. An editor has moved the article to Dog (food) without consensus. It is a very contentious article, and a large debate over several issues, some related to the name of the article, were/are in progress at the time.
Right after the editor moved the page, s/he made a RfC to help determine whether the main image should be of dog meat, or a prepared dog dish. (strike not really relevant info)
This doesn't seem quite right. Is it possible to change the name back to what it was until consensus is reached? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I'm one of the people in the debate, so I don't know if I am allowed to tell anybody about this. Sorry if I am breaking the rules. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. We will continue to struggle toward consensus. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Potentially violating the three revert rule on Matriarchy. 187.21.128.77 ( talk) 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm swiftstar and I've been editing your indigo children page. I recently read "What color is your aura?" and thought, oh cool, Indigo is closest to the way I think and interact with the world I want to find out more about it. I disagree with a lot of the psychic whatever that is out there, but I also dislike being told my personality type is a pseudoscience that doesn't exist. So I pulled out a few of the true things from the book and tried to kill some of the mysterious physic aura that was obviously mis interpreted and edited the article here before. I don't know how cite "what color is your aura" but I re-wrote most of it so I didn't infringe on copyright. Anyway I'll go research it and do it right this time if that was what was bugging you.
Thanks! Swiftstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftstar1142 ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I've unblocked the two accounts, but please have a look at the version history of July 30. It looked exactly like 122.57.81.48 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) had created Dude with old man glasses ( talk · contribs) and Eddiehendo64 ( talk · contribs) (within a minute of each other) to have fun. Favonian ( talk) 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a comment on your query on Setalvad on WP:RSN. -- Soman ( talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to completely redo this article because, as you said, there are multiple problems with it but was going to draft it in a subpage first so that visitors can still see the information that's already there without much disruption. I know if you draft new articles you can move the edit history into the main namespace but would I still be able to do this here? Would it matter if the article didn't have the edit history for the changes I'd made to my draft? Also, do you know why this page doesn't have the full name? (it's just Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi) -- tb240904 Talk Contribs 21:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yongle the Great's back again. See User:Tie Mole. This time, he's using the name of a novel character. (Tie Mole is a character in Datang Youxia Zhuan, an article created by me! LOL). It appears that he has proposed for deletion several articles created by him. What shall we do this time? 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to get a range block. Dougweller ( talk) 05:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Dieu et mon droit ( talk · contribs) ? Dougweller ( talk) 05:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ana the IP just reverted at Matriarchy without talk page discussion. Just a heads up. If you need me, let me know. I'm around. Anna Frodesiak ( talk)
In your recent edit at Moses, you imply that the early settlers to America, i.e. puritans and pilgrims, are the same as native Americans, i.e. indians. Is that what you are claiming? Some might consider the two terms as direct opposites, far from the same meaning. But since your edit was based on your equating them, can you explain? Thanks. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I missed which interaction you wanted me to look at, but the only interaction I appeared to have had with this person was back in November 2002 when I suspected some text he added was a copyright violation. (This was back in the early mists of Wikipedia when I was just one raw newbie who didn't realize everyone else was just as lost as me; No wonder I didn't recognize the name!) I don't think his return or his edits have will involve me -- the only way I would get involved in any of the articles you mentioned is if I stumbled on a book or article worth including there -- but I hope he realizes how much Wikipedia has changed since that time, & the need to cite sources & other authorities isn't too hard for him to understand. Thanks for the head's up in any case. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please warn Cumanche about his behavior? Please mention that you're an admin if you do. Lechonero ( talk) 12:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Going back I realized that I changed his edits on Golden Retriever by mistake.. But on Dock jumping he made 12 edits..changing picture placement,size,links....now doesn't that need discussion?...{if you really want to know why certain changes were made, discuss them calmly without reverting them first.}isn't this a two way street? gd8man ( talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Granas article up for speedy deletion... What exactly are you looking for in terms of notability in an article about a video game character? What can I do to provide such a notability claim?? Jove ( talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Do me a favour and have another word with Gd8man ( talk · contribs) who has ignored everything he/she was told and has restored images back to 300 pixels without explaining why, and has repeatedly deleted my well-sourced addition to the article. I really don't want to get into an edit war or fall foul of 3RR, but this user is still exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour. -- Simple Bob ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Gd8man did another mass-revert overnight, then reverted someone else who undid his/her work. I'm sick of this and despite your admirable efforts to tone down his/her behaviour it still continues. As such I've opened another ANI thread seeking assistance and guidance on a way forward (RFC perhaps?) See this ANI request. -- Simple Bob ( talk) 07:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right that ANI is the place for this. This is a user who refuses to play by the rules, and regards everyone else as a hindrance to his getting his way. Take care and get some rest. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If you would of seen on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dock_jumping that there is a disussion on the subject. I am sorry that I put a burr under your saddle.... gd8man ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with completely dropping "Dr." from this musician's name. Quite a lot of Nigerian musicians use titles in their names, such as Sir Shina Peters, General Prince Adekunle and King Sunny Adé. Maybe "Dr." could be put in quotes before his name in the lead section, e.g. "Dr." Victor Abimbola Olaiya is a Nigerian trumpeter... Dr. seems to part of his name to me. Aymatth2 ( talk) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I sort of did that, a bit clumsy but o.k. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 01:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I warned him. If you have a moment can you read the article on Emic and etic and consider whether further comment is needed on the talk page? Or, if you feel the article deserves fleshing out perhaps you have constructive (significant view/reliable source - based) ideas? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm former editor Jel, details still accessible probably. If my details aren't accessible, please contact me on my anonymous LiveJournal blog Rahere. My chef d'oeuvre was annotating the Albigensian Crusade page, until a crass monitor decided to insult me personally. I'm working with Laura Smoller of Arkansas Uni, who's probably the world's leading expert on the history of late mediaeval cosmology, and in particular of Pierre d'Ailly's version of it. d'Ailly inspired Columbus directly, and indirectly through Nicholas of Cues ("Cusanus") Kepler and Copernicus, all of whom realised that it was inevitable not only that the spherical geocentric model was inaccurate (Cusanus, for example, realised that orbits are eliptical, so tightly-nested spheres couldn't be possible, collapse of the music of the spheres) but that precession of other planets meant the Earth is spherical, and probably not at the centre of the Universe. I've been following up the relationship between Cusanus' later boss, Pope Eugenius IV, and Prince Henry the Navigator whilst on holiday in Portugal and have found the Portuguese are taking the subject places not done before, using their internal documentation - it's not just Colon. Colon's argument about the nobility is halfway credible, he's just not used to your rules about original work. Like me, he'll probably stop editing because that rule disqualifies the competent: you end up with an encyclopaedia built by noncompoops catering to the lowest common denominator. The Britannica built theirs using experts. Therefore, I'm dropping Colon a similar note to discover what he's published. His arguments make sense but may have overshot: I'll talk it through with him. In the mean time, I'd suggest going easy because he's doing more than simply regurgitating books.
Doug, hey there.
I am not sure what to do to keep the Hydrogen Economy page current with this new technology and I certainly don't want to get into the ***t list.
So in your opinion what do I need to list the MagneGas technology as a production process in the Hydrogen economy, I have tried to keep the same text and related references at the Dry Plasma Arc process but still you know it down. I would appreciate your help
Globalreach1 ( talk) 10:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Globalreach1 ( talk) 12:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Doug, you have been really helpful and I can't tell you how much I appreciated it as I am new to this. Nothing like working all day on something and then an editor (not you) signs on and in 5 seconds reverts to a prior version. I'll take your advice and start anew, thanks once again. Your "Green" and eager student!
You appear to have been the last admin to have had to deal with this mess. Can you salt the page? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
i was the original user moutray2010 . whoever this is , is a copycat . i have better things to do with my time. after i was blocked , i have not been involved since the 18 th of may . i admit i did rant on initially , but i was unfamiliar and a new user . after getting blocked a few times , i gave up . i'd suggest considering removing all reference to moutray2010 , as it only appears to encourage disgruntled users , to become a nuisance and waste your time. just for your information . i dont even have a wikipedia account , and am very happy for you to block all the variants . why would i sign a name? why would i use obvious variants ? why would i advertise the fact ? why would i keep repeating behaviour ? just for your information , it is not me . I have too little time to get involved in petty nonsense . i learny my lesson after the first few weeks . bbye
Dear Dougweller, I am responding to your suggestion to elucidate or cross out the comments about Lechoneros intentions. I wrote that comment in good faith as I am dumbfounded as to why Lechonero would want to take the word "indian" out of an article that is about American Indians. If you look at the long list of references, some of which I have contributed, they all address the topic of Genizaro Indians. I beleive Wikipedia is a great site and I have tried to do my part to contribute to the accuracy of the Genizaro page for the benefit of readers. In the past when suggestions have been made I have enjoyed them. My only contention with Lechonero is that he has changed the entry in such a way as to alter the accuracy of the page. Lechonero has himself admitted that he knows nothing about the topic. In response to my suggestion that he develop at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject he wrote the following in the discussion section:
Cumanche: Before, I simply found you annoying. Now, I'm actually angry at you. Let's get a few things straight. 1) I don't have to read so much as a single sentence on this subject to contribute to this article as long as my edits are in good faith. The only knowledge I need is a basic familiarty of Wikipedia policy.
I have a legitimate question as to Lechoneros intentions. I would absolutely love to assume that he/she is acting in good faith. However, the fact that he/she altered the meaning of the entry, and then requested that you freeze it after his/her misquided edit (please realize that I use misguided cautiously, but with confidence). You can attest to this yourself if you look at the comment about genizaraos being comprised of groups from New Mexico. This is clearly not the case and Lechonero him/herself has attested to the point that he/she knows nothing about the topic. I was under the assumption that Wikipedia was a shared website in which editors contribute to the accuracy and validity of the topic.
I ask you as an administrator to please consider editing the first paragraph of the article to read as follows:
Genízaros were Indian Slaves who served as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s.[3] Please take a look at the references below. Sir, Genizaros were American Inidan Slaves. This is an important aspect of this article. Removing "American Indian" from the first paragraph alters the meaning of the peice and as I mentioned earlier....I question why someone would want to alter the meaning of such an important topic.
In good Faith 207.114.147.200 ( talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Bailey, L.R. Indian Slave Trade in the Southwest. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1996.
Ebright, Malcolm and Rick Hendricks. The Witches of Abiquiú: The Governor, the Priest, the Genízaro Indians and the Devil. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2006.
Gallegos, Bernardo, "'Dancing the Comanches', The Santo Niño, La Virgen (of Guadalupe) and the Genizaro Indians of New Mexico," In Indigenous Symbols and Practices in the Catholic Church: Visual Culture, Missionization and Appropriation. Kathleen J. Martin, Editor. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishers, 2010.
Rael Galvan, Estévan, "Identifying and Capturing Identity: Narratives of American Indian Servitude, Colorado and New Mexico, 1750-1930." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2002.
What information do you need? I probably can't, and almost certainly shouldn't, just cut and paste the whole article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
D, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug, cf. your recent edit to Creationism, I've posted a question here. Can you help? Cheers, -- PLUMBAGO 10:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
Rachaf is Chefrens (or sometimes spelled Khafras) correct name reading it specifically from ancient egyptian, like Cheops name is really Chufu.
I learned this from a professor in egyptology, the reference lies in learning how to read egyptian hieroglyphs.
This is the resault of recent european findings in egyptian research. The hieroglyphs have been read in the wrong order for centuries. Up till now. All well educated egyptologists up to date knows this, but I haven't found a printed source to this precise effect. This information is so new it doesn´t appear in regular encyclipeadias yet, it´s only available through studies in egyptology and deciphering hieroglyphs. Help on finding these refrences is much appreciated. Stringence ( talk) 18:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It´s OK to redirect. For the time being.
I started this page hoping that those who know more, and have access to pictures, would continue building it.
This mansion is truly magnificent, and I think it deserves a place of it´s own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringence ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
An IP has left a long, rambling comment about you at WP:WQA. SnottyWong gossip 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 08:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Article Genesis 1:1 covers ground already covered in Creation according to Genesis or whatever it's name is today) and Creation ex nihilo. It adds nothing to what's said in those two. On the other hand, it evidently affords hours of harmless entertainment to a dedicated band of home-based biblical scholars with too little in the way of a social life. Is this a candidate for deletion? If so, how's it done? PiCo ( talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller, I noticed an edit request for the fully protected page Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010, which led me to examine the article history. To refresh your memory, you had protected the page due to vandalism. In reviewing the history, it seems the vandalism was from anonymous editors, and there was a history of productive page edits from named users before the protection was implemented. I think it would be suitable to semiprotect the page instead, if you determine there is continuing need for the protection. [I'll monitor your talk page for your reply here.] -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
i dont add promotional material to Wikipedia ararat anomaly page. i add link which was there one year. it is nice article for mount ararat (mountain ararat anomaly on it) nohas ark (which people belive what ararat anomaly is) and etc. if this is promotional material cnn link is more promotional material then that link. Please read before you delete something from wikipedia. if something wrong with external link rule please write to i learn it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.175.10.171 ( talk) 21:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your message on my talk page. I generally avoid making POV edits. In both cases you cited, I was simply undoing the edits by the user, Thesaakaja, who is clearly a spammer if you look at the various edits he has made. I was reverting it to the previous versions because Thesaakaja did not justify the changes he made, where as the previous users had. I hope that clears things up. Foreverknowledge ( talk) 07:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Foreverknowledge
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
thank you for your feedback on my revisions of various articles. I obviously have much more to learn about the policies and mechanics. just for the record, all the additional material represented verifiable scholarly information and my revisions were done in good faith. DomenicoStefano ( talk) 15:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. As far as radio stations, I do not agree with the claim that they are all notable. They are not. WP:BCAST is very clear that some radio stations are not notable. It says the 3 criteria to meet notability, of which only one has to be met. Either a long history, big audience, or special format. A radio station in a small town with a small audience and not much history or special format is, by definition, not notable. However, a big radio station with a lot of history is notable. The BBC and WBBM would easily qualify. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 21:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Zhang Zishan (张子山). I live and work in South Vietnam. I specialize in the history of the Ming dynasty, as well as in pre-modern Chinese legal and medical history-- Lonelyking ( talk) 06:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Next time, have a quick glance around to see if suggestions are being followed. 1084 is indeed discussing that edit and I can't say for sure we're not going to reach a compromise. He's edit warring and pushing POV, and I suppose the block was appropriate, but I don't think I'm dealing with a genuinely bad faith actor. For that matter, I probably pushed too hard trying to get a discussion going. Şłџğģő 15:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I wrote to you in Talk:Mitanni regarding what you quoted/suggested from User:Paul_Barlow:
("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both." (and also had the same problem I'm having). So do that, explain his views, put them into historical context..
Do you mean something like this:
It has been suggested by Prof. Petrie and Henry Hall, that Mitanni was of Armenian origin<-Petrie ref here->. And in which part of the page of Mitanni can we add this? Aryamahasattva ( talk) 17:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Right before he was blocked, Forsts/AA was suggesting that some of my edits were vindictive retribution for his revert war on Mitanni, like this: [17]. What I find interesting is that Aryamahasattva had made a similar accusation, [18] although forsts himself hadn't actually made that accusation with his account yet. Not only is Aryamahasattva qualified to explain what Forsts was thinking, they've never directly engaged each other's statements, but seem to tag team off each other to pursue an identical agenda. Beyond this, Aryamahasattva only showed up after Forsts was told any more edit warring would lead to a ban.
Forsts, AA, and Aryamahasattva all speak in broken English (I assume their first language is Armenian), and have worse punctuation, so it's hard to get a feel for their style, since you never know what's a personal trait and what's a consequence of English as a second language. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect Aryamahasattva is a Forsts/AA sock, or at least a meatpuppet. AA is not the kind of person to let a ban get in his way. Thanatosimii ( talk) 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Thanatosimii, I'm not the banned user AA, and I'm not a meatpuppet. This is my first and only account I created in Wikipedia on January 2010. You can verify it and check the IP etc. Is this how Thanatosimii wins arguments in a discussion page like Talk:Mitanni. Right above here, I wrote to Dougweller regarding his and Paul_Barlows, (oh and not to mention Til_Eusispegiel's) comments regarding the historical context of the Petrie and Henry Hall sources. I myself am working on our history related pages also. If you look at my earliest edits, I tried to include my artwork in the Tigran the Great page. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm trying to create a page for the band Macklemore using non-trivial references to assert their notability, but since you have deleted a similarly-named article, etiquette dictates I ask you about it. May I ask what the problems with the previous article were, and might it be possible to see a copy of the deleted page? -- Hojimachong talk 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page a couple of days ago (even though the edited text was in a wikibreak template that is currently hidden and I just noticed the removed vandalism). Regardless, it had to be removed sometime by someone. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe Levin Zhang is another one of Yongle the Great's sockpuppets. I've reported him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levin Zhang. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on what I have posted here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to contact you via email? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I already posted cyrusace a comment as well. However the youtube link is afaik not a copyright violation itself, but a link to a potential copyright violation which is not quite the same though WP forbids the latter as well of course. Just mentioning that because the template you've posted to cyrusace userpage deals with "real" copyright violations and hence might confuse them.
There is a potential issue with the revert as well, as long as the content addition itself and the citation seem ok, there is no need to revert the whole edit, instead it is sufficient to remove the youtube link only.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller, I am not quite sure what you are trying to say at the above paragraph..! However, I got your message on my talkpage and will revise the text so it will not be a CR issue. Moreover, if you think that the text belongs to another section of the article other than "Politics and Management", then suggest one, as to be constructive, instead of reverting the whole thing. Other than that, the "Paradisia" gardens are historically an undeniable part of Cyrus' life and not having it in his article would be a major lack of information. Thanks. Cyrusace ( talk) 08:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I simply copied it from the user's talk page. Did I forget to change something? Surtsicna ( talk) 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Now I see, I forgot to change the archive parameter to User talk:Surtsicna/Archive1. That's why it did not actively archive anything. Is that the only thing I have to change to make the bot work? Surtsicna ( talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller this is Ararat_arev here. One of the first things that I did in Wikipedia when I joined in Dec. 3 2006 was upload the Mitanni seal [19]. Please, dont let them remove this. First of all I didnt even put the copyright template, the Copyright admin/handler User:Jkelly, who has won a lot of prizes for his work also, even a image of a king's crown for his work in Wikipedia, he is the one that put the correct Copyright template. At that time Thanatosimii was there, and he didnt attempt to put a disputed tag on it. The only reason he is putting this now is the edit wars I had with him recently, which is not a reason to remove the Image. Also, the explanation that he is giving in the discussion page of the Image doesnt even give any source of what he is saying, how do you even know he is not making it up? [20] Even if he is giving the right reasons, the copyright template that User:Jkelly put says, "In most cases..", before 1923. So this is the key part of the copyright template, it is not an issue, he is making this an issue because of other info about Eupolemus, and the Petrie source issues. He never attempted to remove this before, and now he decides because of what I explained just now. So please, verify the copyright more carefully, and if what he is saying is actually correct, or if he is making up reasons without sources to back it up. Please dont remove the Image. 76.250.10.97 ( talk) 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Please read the claim carefully,and then check the verse 34:31 you will what the writer is trying to tell.The word quran has been translated by Translator and not the word Book. Kitab, Quran, Tawrat, Injil are different words and have different meanings.in 34:31 The word Quran is written in Arabic Text of quran but one translator has translated it as scripture that is why people are taking his translation as reference where as the rest two translators have used the same word Quran in their tranlation. which should be the verifiable source ? the Abdullah yousuf ali or Pickthal and shakir? That is why it is very necessary to check and compare the translation with arabic text of quran , because Quran is in arabic and not written by translator. YUSUFALI: The Unbelievers say: "We shall neither believe in this scripture nor in (any) that (came) before it." Couldst thou but see when the wrong-doers will be made to stand before their Lord, throwing back the word (of blame) on one another! Those who had been despised will say to the arrogant ones: "Had it not been for you, we should certainly have been believers!" PICKTHAL: And those who disbelieve say: We believe not in this Qur'an nor in that which was before it; but oh, if thou couldst see, when the wrong-doers are brought up before their Lord, how they cast the blame one to another; how those who were despised (in the earth) say unto those who were proud: But for you, we should have been believers. SHAKIR: And those who disbelieve say: By no means will we believe in this Quran, nor in that which is before it; and could you see when the unjust shall be made to stand before their Lord, bandying words one with another! Those who were reckoned weak shall say to those who were proud: Had it not been for you we would certainly have been believers.[34:31].: Waqala allatheena kafaroo lannu/mina bihatha alqur-ani wala biallatheebayna yadayhi walaw tara ithi alththalimoonamawqoofoona AAinda rabbihim yarjiAAu baAAduhum ilabaAAdin alqawla yaqoolu allatheena istudAAifoolillatheena istakbaroo lawla antum lakunnamu/mineena
وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَن نُّؤْمِنَ بِهَذَ الْقُرْآنِا وَلَا بِالَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَلَوْ تَرَى إِذِ الظَّالِمُونَ مَوْقُوفُونَ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يَرْجِعُ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ الْقَوْلَ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا لِلَّذِينَ اسْتَكْبَرُوا لَوْلَا أَنتُمْ لَكُنَّا مُؤْمِنِينَ Yousuf Ali
The Unbelievers say: "We shall neither believe in this scripture nor in (any) that (came) before it." Couldst thou but see when the wrong-doers will be made to stand before their Lord, throwing back the word (of blame) on one another! Those who had been despised will say to the arrogant ones: "Had it not been for you, we should certainly have been believers!"
-- Farrukh38 ( talk) 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller,
Can you please explain to me, in more detail, why the Blombos Cave article by Umfiki (1. aug) was reverted? You mention copyright violation as the main reason, but where exactly does this occur? Who is violated?
The current, older version is too simplistic and at many places wrong. I can agree with you that the newer version might be somewhat dense, but at least its up to date and is correct. With some revising I this should be the article to keep..
IamGM ( talk) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
---
OK, you see I did not write the new article, Henshilwood did. So in a way he copied his own work. I am a student of his, and he was somewhat annoyed that his article was deleted, and asked me if I could check what had happened. Does this change anything in this case?
IamGM ( talk) 13:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
--- Yes, I see your points and and thank you for clarifying this. I will foreward your answer to Henshilwood and we will publish a new and correct one when time permits.
IamGM ( talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, according to his own exact words: "I own the copyright to all the Blombos material.", but I am not sure whether this would include papers published in Journals? Anyway, I will forward the last info to him as well and we will try to sort it out. As for the current article; first and foremost I think the first 3 paragraphs stand out as awful. Its badly written (a few sentence does not make sense) and there are several errors or simplifications:
1. "Limestone Cliff" - should be dune limestone cliff, aka calcarenite cliff. 2. "...two pieces ochre engraved with abstract designs" - there have been found additionally 13 pieces with engravings. 3. "The engraved pieces of ochre dated 70,000 BC" - A mean date of 77,000 years was obtained for the layers containing the two pieces of engraved ochres that were originally discoverd. With the new pieces its between 72-100KA. 4. "The date of engraved orche is not firmly confirmed" The chronology of Blombos Cave has been verified by 2 independent labs in two different continents (Europe & Australia) and is not generally challenged by any serious scientist.
The rest of the article is, as far as I can see, good enough, but lacks details about the latest finds.
IamGM ( talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) Since you're very familiar with this article I thought I'd try to save some time: does this look like a usable rewrite to you? It's up for review at CP. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Good catch, I completely missed them. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just em... trying to remember how... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
May I ask how much you actually know about the American theatre? Knowledge is the key here, not vandalism. InternetHero ( talk) 05:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Dougweller I'm just double confirming my intentions to remove the Latin style naming from the introduction of the Sulla and Marius articles. It will be moved to the infobox. What would be the best way to create a "full name" section in the info box above the date of birth? Once again sorry for hastily removing the references I did not intend this much time to lapse. -- Tataryn77 ( talk) 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Or else I'll get my friend to ge a new IP. InternetHero ( talk) 07:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey. I jut saw that you blocked that other sock of Wyvren. A few days ago I opened an SPI case for it, so maybe that case should be closed out? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your "M" thing: Yesterday I un-checked that in "My Preferences", but I'm so used to it that I clicked it, anyway. Anyway, I've been trying to fix that on Huggle, but I can't figure out how. If I un-check "reverts" in "Mark as minor" in the "Editing" tab in Huggle's "Options" section, it doesn't mark warnings as minor, but reverts stay marked a minor. The other issue is that when I close Huggle it doesn't save the changes. How can I fix this? - Donald Duck ( talk) 15:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd reverted those last changes at the Akins piece, and given the gist of them, figured it was Wyvren up to his old tricks. Glad you've blocked. Thanks. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of work needed on some articles and I very much appreciate the care and attention you're giving to some of the more challenging ones. I've started a new item on the talk page of one we discussed recently and I'm warming to one of your earlier suggestions about mergers Zagubov ( talk) 23:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem with the warning. But, please, note that my only revert is here [24]. Here I've deleted tried a new version [25], based on the conclusions in the talk page. D. reverted me. I tried something different [26], (see also [27]. D. reverted me. I did my 1st real revert, and D. rv me back. So 1 rv for me and 3 for D. And D. do not want to present sources. That my version. I repeat: no problem with you. All "warnings" are welcome. My only suggestion (if I can do suggestion) is: invite D. to present sources for his "POVs". See you around!-- IP IP Hurra! ( talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the link to the archive on Barry [ [29]]. It's obvious from his edits and his pointed attacks at me in particular that Barry is back. Smatprt ( talk) 22:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As the topic is covered in news as "alleged", a name change of the article would be sensible. I did add three two book sources to the article in question.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hallo. There is a big discussion (at least 4 years old) about Marco Polo birhplace. There are 2 claims:
User Brutal wants to impose a POV. This POV is to present the theory B as trust-able, on the same level of A, but he does not present sources. In the article is written that "the exact birthplace (of Marco) is unknown". That is no true: all the scholars says "born in Venice". Where does this claim come from? I was just asking a source. That why I've inserted CN tags, which are refused as a "POV" by my antagonist. With no discussion! Now, I', going (sadly) to start an edit war. This is the story (check here [31])
Now my antagonist was supposed to discuss in the article talk page, but he refuse. According to me he broke the rules So that: 8) Brutal revert me without discussion 9) I inform you (with this message) 10) I restore my edit.
Let me know if I did and if I do something wrong. Sorry for the disturb, but I have no aim to break rules. Thank you again.-- IP IP Hurra! ( talk) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This and this look like anyone we know? Vsmith ( talk) 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've left User:Meeso a message here [36] about the reversions to his preferred version, with the irrelevant info sourced to a letter to the editor. I'd rather not take him to Ani or 3rr if it can be avoided, but I'm not sure what else to do. I've probably hit 3rr myself, or will very soon if he re-inserts it. I'd appreciate any help you can give in dealing with this situation. Thanks and sorry to be a bother, lol. He iro 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
According to your edit summary, you reverted my good faith edit and said that you were going to move the comment to another page using Twinkle. But you didn't say where. Could you give me a link?-- *Kat* ( talk) 06:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I asked this of
Amory only to realize she was on vacation and unable to respond in a timely fashion, so my query falls to you:
Now that it's posted, if I have a comment on the merits of the
proposed decisions in the climate change arbitration, is it acceptable for me to post on the talk page there or is the discussion limited only to involved parties at this point? (I learned of the case too late to submit
prima facia evidence, but do have some relevant input)
--
K10wnsta (
talk)
21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Outrageous. Please do your research before you start throwing baseless accusations of plagarism. The article that I formatted clearly states that it comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. See the bottom: "This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain." There is even a Wikipedia template for this: {{JewishEncyclopedia}} Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Your response on my page:
My response on my page:
This could be Grundle. Unless I'm mistaken, this is a new user tagging new users' talks with sockpuppet. Also posted this at Iridescent. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot the link (as I am slow-witted). It was User talk:Jonas Grumby, who is now blocked. Sorry to bother you. I freaked because I didn't know if the new accounts were grundle-created or not. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You're an Administrator, right? Can you please tell User:Tryde to stop vandalizing my work just because he thinks subsisiary titles can only appear on the titles' articles and not on the holders' articles? It's arbitrary, it's destructive and it's not very smart either. He demanded a block above all!... Phoebus de Lusignan ( talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Mongo added a new section
It didn't go well (and I added a sharp comment wondering if people actually read Carcharoth's plea)
lateer, TS appeared to agree it was badly off-topic and archived it here
So far, so good.
But then I saw my post again, and attached to one of the statements. It appears MONGO resurrected his narrative from the archive and posted it as a statement. As far as I'm concerned, that's OK by me - I don't see the value, but that's not my call. However, it appears he resurrected it with all the attached comments. Now some might think that is not just polite, but required - however, it is quite clear that the statements are not supposed to contain threads or commentary " No discussion here (threaded or otherwise). Limit of 500 words (as at requests for arbitration)." A new visitor will think that several people are quite rudely ignoring that direction.
Can you take some action? I'm equally happen with re-archiving it, and inviting MONGO to make a statement, or excising all the comments, but I don't think it is my call to take that action.-- SPhilbrick T 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not really a subject I can imagine I'd be much help with, but I'd be willing to stick around. I can see there are some good editors who have an interest in the article- I'm sure if a few people were willing to throw a bit of time at it, it could improve drastically. What I can say is that if I remain fairly detached from it, I could be the one to offer a second GA review once some work has been done. J Milburn ( talk) 10:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I restructured a load of miscellaneous discussions under the existing case structure which had been proposed earlier in the case. As I've been asked to leave that kind of thing to clerks I'll do so from now on.
I suggest that it might be a good idea to try to keep the existing structure in place, and to aggressively archive discussions that don't have any contributions in the past 48 hours. The page is still a quite obscene 450kb in size and 400kb of that is in the discussion section. -- TS 14:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There are several edits made to Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll that to me seem like blatant original research and self promotion. I have tried to raise the problem of original research with the author but he persists. The "references" given for the statements are websites and blogs written by the author. I have looked to see if I can find any references to the claims made in the existing literature and cannot corroborate the claims made. An additional problem is that the edits are so badly written that the article becomes rather worse for wear (in my opinion). I do not feel like getting in an editing battle over something like this. Besides the fact that it's not appropriate, I feel that's a total waste of my time. Can you or another admin look at this? -- AnnekeBart ( talk) 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that most zoologists do not accept Cryptozoology as a legitimate branch of Zoology, however, if we are going to have the statement "Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of the science of Zoology" in the article, we need to have a source to back up that statement, otherwise it must be removed per WP:References.--Gniniv ( talk) 05:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:Verifiability, all statements should have backing that are challenged or likely to be challenged.....--Gniniv ( talk) 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
Thanks for keeping cool in our debate despite POV realities! Gniniv ( talk) 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
Ok, thanks.
Dougweller (
talk)
09:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
A few days ago you extended the block for the puppeteer of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Squeezdot/Archive because they persisted in the error of their ways. Today, A-me-kaltner ( talk · contribs) appeared and quacked so convincingly that I blocked them indef. Do you think there is a basis for indef'ing Squeezdot at well? Favonian ( talk) 20:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Your help responding to this issue would be beneficial. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. This is, I think, the third time Minor4th has forced a full protection of the article.
FYI, I will be making a few editprotected requests over the next few days to make some (hopefully uncontentious) changes. -- ChrisO ( talk) 09:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Doug, you warned me, but I'm not "doing", I'm "undoing". Tony Sidaway has been collapsing sections for several days now based on his reading of relevance, and he's an involved editor in this case. He needs to stop clerking this case and leave it to the arbs and clerks themselves. ATren ( talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller: Please stop TS from clerking. Multiple people have complained. You may want to investigate prior history. TS was a clerk himself quite some time ago. No longer. If you cannot or will not stop TS from clerking, please do not complain when others undo his inappropriate actions. ++ Lar: t/ c 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Lar doesn't seem to have read my recent statement addressed to Carcharoth on my talk page. -- TS 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Please let me know if the change I made is acceptable. I don't want to be out of line. Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have absolutely no interest in the climate change fiasco, but coming from a BLP stance, this article clearly is biased - containing OR, selective quotations etc. I'm not quite understanding why you've reverted to a problematic article and protected. I realise there's an ongoing arbcom case (I've no dog in that fight), but we normally remove problematic BLP material pending consensus, we don't protect it until inhouse processed are complete. A quick glance at the case, and it seems to me this is precisely the type of BLP that's been a victim of agenda-pushing.-- Scott Mac 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a particularly difficult BLP and I think it might benefit from a stubbing. On one hand he presents himself as an "honorary" member of the House of Lords. On the other hand officials in charge of the Parliamentary seal have asked him to stop using a coat of arms resembling it and those in charge of the House of Lords have stated unequivocally that there is no such thing as an honorary member, and he's not a member and has never been a member of the House of Lords. On the science, there is a similar, even more humiliating story. Getting consensus on the details within the context of our BLP needs patience, but it could perhaps be done if the article was started from scratch. -- TS 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you commented here. I'm going offline now so I don't have a moment to take care of this. Feel free to just remove with my permission. I have nothing there that is that important. Thanks for letting me know. I just iVoted because there was one there and I wanted to make sure my opinion as an outsider was known. Thanks again, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I went back and looked at the section where you told me to remove my vote. I note that there are several editors there who have "voted" on varioua proposals, but it seems you only advised me and Greg and Cla68 to remove our votes. Am I mistaken? If not, why would you only make that instruction to a handful of editors and not everyone who voted? Minor 4th 18:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing Wis's recent personal attack against me at Talk: The Political Cesspool and warning him about it. I looked through his edit history and found that he has a long history of posting inflammatory statements about Jews and Arabs on article talk pages; I posted links to some of them here. The fact that he would accuse me of being a "raving splc zionist" comes as no surprise given his previous behavior. Stonemason89 ( talk) 19:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Pls comment here: Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Very_disappointed after my 21:36 post. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, Globalreach1 back for more abuse. I have spent much time looking at the history and Santilli on Wikipedia and I think I know why he is such a lightning-rod for posts lacking neutrality from pundits (fuscilla) and editors (rubin) alike. There seems to have been a pattern from both parties of totally one sided comments. I am working through them now and have made some progress with your support, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalreach1 ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doug, i just got your message. I'll try and address your concerns because i do not think the article i created in question should be deleted considering its huge archeological importance to Ecuador. Im new to Wikipedia and ive tried to follow all the rules ive read so far, so im sorry if ive inadvertantly broken any.
I started writing the Punay article about five weeks ago or so and kept the draft on my userspace page until i thought it was of high enough quality to post, i wasn't aware there was a way to get someone to proof read it. To write the draft i not only spent considerable time looking at the format of similar archeological sites and trying to replicate them, reading the article development turotials, but also trawling through obscure and popular Ecuadorian websites in Spanish and translating it into English.
The photo i took myself and released under the creative commons, i hope to upload more of my photos of the pyramid soon including ones of the desecration of the pyramid, its really sad that because the Ecuadorian Government does not have the money to promote tourism to the temple and protect it we have people (mainly poor farmers in the surrounding villages) going to the temple and digging holes in it in hope that they can find gold and artifacts they can sell on the international black market.
So much has already been robbed from the pyramid and we really have no idea how to save whats left other than trying to increase an awareness of its existence on sites like wikipedia and sacredsites.com in the hope that the increase in international awareness will make the Ecuadorian government realise its importance and invest the money to excavate and protect the temple. Had any similar desecration happened in Egypt or Macchu Picchu there would be an international outcry but unfortunately this place is not as well known yet (as i wrote in the article it was only discovered in 2002)
with regards to the conflict of interest, you are right there, i am an australian living in ecuador working for the non-profit volunteer agency www.ecuadorecovolunteer.org which has close ties with the ecotourism agency www.ecuadorecoadventure.com, one of only two companies that take people to the pyramid and protect it from grave robbers because the government has not yet stepped up. i am only one person, Jake Ling, but i can see the wisdom in using my real name instead of the username ecuadorecoadvice because its more professional, i have worked as a journalist in australia and i really enjoyed writing this article and hope to develop it further more information becomes available. I'm assuming by talk pages you mean the one that says 'Discussion'? Do i just put Ecuadorecoadvice ( talk) 19:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Jake Ling and nothing else?
in one of my very last edits of the article which i made today i can see the conflict of interest, ill quote it:
"In 2003 Eudoro Flores the former mayor of the nearby city of Chunchi was noted as saying "If you want gold, go to Puñay" but added he was impelled to promote the place for tourism to help its conservation and prevent grave robbers from further desecrating the site.[6] In 2010 Audrey Rose Goldfarb of Portland Oregon in conjunction with the ecotourism company Ecuador Eco Adventure took the first camera crew to Puñay as part of a documentary on "The Hidden Secrets of Ecuador" to promote the pyramid as a site of great archeological importance to help protect it from further desecration. The documentary is currently in post production. [7]"
i added "in conjunction with the ecotourism company ecuador eco adventure" today along with the photo i uploaded (i had written the majority of the the article about three weeks ago) now while i believe that this company that has been trying to protect the pyramid deserves a bit of a pat on the back for their efforts you are right that it creates a conflict of interest. i believe however there is nothing else i wrote in the article that is biased other than that sentence, should we delete everything from: "In 2010 Audrey Rose Goldfarb of Portland...." onwards to preserve the non-partisan nature of the article at least until the documentary has been released and is available for download? neither Audrey or ecuadorecoadventure will mind, they dont even know i wrote this wiki yet.
i hope i have made myself and my intentions clear and that you will reconsider deleting this article and i look forward to contribute to the wikipedia community in the future :)
cheers, jake
Hey Doug,
i believe there wont be a problem with this article reaching notability, it is one of (if not the) biggest archeological finds of the decade, if you already checked out most of the references i put on the article they lead to big Ecuadorian news sites like http://www.explored.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/el-punay-guarda-los-secretos-de-la-edad-de-la-tierra-170286-170286.html
here is the spanish and english translation: "arqueológicos en la cima del cerro Puñay, en Chimborazo, podrían ser los más antiguos del país." - ENGLISH: archeological remains on the peak of the mountain Punay in Chimborazo could be the most ancient in the country.
"Las pirámides truncadas que se descubrieron anteriormente formarían parte de un gran complejo en forma de una guacamaya (animal mítico de la cultura Cañari)" ENGLISH: the truncated pyramids that were discovered were once a part of a great complex in the form of a Macaw (sacred animal to the Cañari)
from another big ecuadorian site: http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/el-cerro-punay-si-fue-un-centro-ceremonial-186113-186113.html
"De acuerdo a la investigación, la pirámide sería una de las más grandes del mundo y con la particularidad de encontrarse en la cima de una montaña, -- ENGLISH: "Its true that in the investigation, the pyramid may be one of the biggest in the entire world with the peculiar attribute that it is found on the peak of a mountain"
"sus dimensiones son gigantes. Tucumera (Señor de Sipán), que se encuentra en el Perú, es considerada la más larga del planeta, y el Puñay lo supera con 120 metros más" -- ENGLISH: "the dimensions are giant. Tucamera (Sir of Sipan) that is found in Peru is considered to be the largest on the planet, this Puñay surpasses it by 120 meters"
--- So i hope the people who do review this are able to read the Spanish references, because in my opinion one of the biggest pyramids ever constructed by human beings on the planet is somewhat notable and worthy of wikipedia :)
---
with regards to the documentary, i know that the film Audrey has just completed (different to the documentary) is being shown in cinemas in Portland Oregan, i have no idea if the documentary will be broadcasted or not. but that doesn't matter as ive already deleted that paragraph to persevere the non-partisan integrity of the article.
---
if i have seven days before its up for review ill endeavor to search the 12 pages of results on google for Puñay to find more info thats from news outlets instead of tourist blogs etc, and ill ask around at the University Politecnica of Chimborazo which did the original excavations and measurements about any hard copy archeological findings that surely must exist somewhere offline.
thanks for the advice, time to get researching ;)
````jake ling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecuadorecoadvice ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Doug, thank you for your omniscient judgments on Wikipedia... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess he changed the numbers of the Lombards from those of the primary source (Paulus the Deacon) to those esitmated by modern historians (as Jurgen Jarnut), and the same in the other voices, probably one should explain to Amodio how to edit correctly the voices with appropriate references and explanation of his reasons Cunibertus ( talk) 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
On my talk page, you state "the article is promoting a commercial site, which is why I removed the links", but that is not what you said in edit notes at the time of making the edits: you cast doubt on the very existence of the feature in your editnotes. The article has evidence from a government department and a tertiary education institute. Apart from anything else, leaving the links allows people to contribute to the AfD discussion, which seems desirable: isolating the article under discussion can only impoverish the input to the decision. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
HI, I guess this edit (and most of the history of that particular article) is a spillover from the CC case. I'm not really following that, but I thought I should bring this to the attention of a sysop familiar with that case. -- Crusio ( talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
As a former clerk, one of the first draft, I don't envy you. A few days ago I remarked on the then-obscene size, at over 400kb, of the discussion page on the climate page arbitration proposed decision, and made a couple of suggestions to alleviate the problem.
Since then the page has doubled in size. This will continue.
Would it not be feasible to split the discussion into structured subpages? I think it would have been better to do so much earlier, so perhaps in this arbitration case it isn't going to happen. But perhaps bear it in mind for future cases that may turn up (and I hope you don't ever run into a more controversial case than this). Careful consideration of case page structure may pay dividends. -- TS 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry that's turned out the way it has. I really hoped James would follow my advice and it wouldn't escalate further. The thing is, I had this exact conversation regarding sourcing and communication with him back in February, so it's not like this is a new issue.-- Cúchullain t/ c 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the one noted at ANI, the obvious one is Steelhaven which is currently at DRV. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemesis (Transformers) fooled an admin until a bit of meatpuppetry was pointed out to them. There's a few more on the go at the moment, which I'm keeping an eye on. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Just wondering why I can't make references to my own work? If I am the person who has complete bibliographies of this on my website, and it would seem useful to users. I've been working on this stuff for 30 years, and the website is based on a book published in the 1990s by Garland. Happy to do this as it should be done. Just let me know. Thanks. Egardiner0 ( talk) 13:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)egardiner0
Thanks. I did check that page out (somewhat after the fact), but I will go back and make some notes about what I'm doing and why, and I'll be more conscious in the future about how I do this. Thanks for calling my attention to it. Egardiner0 ( talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Egardiner0
Can you please take a look at this and if you agree, hat that divergent section off? ATren ( talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw your message on Bgalleg's talk page regarding my sock puppetry accusation. I've already posted a request at SPI. The editing patterns are identical. My theory is that the puppet master created the user:Cumanche account before the name change was denied and simply stopped using the user:Bgalleg account. Lechonero ( talk) 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
When you are in a content dispute you should not be reverting labelling something as vandalism. Pico explained why he removed the section, it wasn't vandalism. Dougweller ( talk) 07:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll say it doesn't follow Wikipedia rules or that I'm to sentimental about the issue, but should we put some header in article Battle of Marathon to mark 2,500th anniversary of that battle (till September 10)? It's kind of unique opportunity in lifetime. ;) -- 93.142.146.26 ( talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)
haha good point! I think I'll write a separate article about Kab and Judaism. Because, although it has existed within Judaism, it's not a part of it. Judaism is a religion based on kabbalah. Thanks a lot for your help. Workin' on it together :) Lechaim66 ( talk) 16:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In some cases he is adding links - this is inoccuous enough. But I have not yet found his content to square with my knowlege o the field and he is not citing the major authorities - on Kabbalah, Martin Buber, Gerschon Scholem, Arthur Green, Daniel Matt, Moshe Idel, Betty Rojtmann ... a GREAT article will require contributors who know the works of these scholars and can cite them and use them in context. An edit that uses one of these people as a source is at least a significant iew. I do not know this literature, I just know these guys are the experts and if we had an article improvemenmt drive it would be by people using these sources. But Lechaim is not only not using these sources, and not providing sources, he is basicaly taking arcane claims made by the most fringe views and presenting them as truth. Feel free to cut and paste anything I wrote at Wikiproject. I think the article as it exists is actually prety good but the road to improvement would be including these shcolars' views, not personal fringe theories. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you chimed in over at this talk page a few days ago. I've been trying to work patiently to explain this issue with Jimmyjam as well as a related issue of citing his new additions to the text. He rarely responds, usually only after I've left several messages. I don't think I'm getting through. We've already had one minor edit war, where we both reached 3rr. I took it to the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Pine Bluff, Arkansas to try and get some outside input several days ago, but haven't gotten any responses. I'm trying to avoid WP:ANI and work with this editor, as I realize they are relatively new and inexperienced with our editing procedures and policies. But per this note on my talk page [40] ( I responded here on their talk) I think they may assume I'm just screwing with them. I dont want this to come off as my one man war against this editor and drive them from the project. Any help you could give would be appreciated, I believe they could be a valuable asset to the 'pedia. He iro 00:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the harassment on my
talk page by
User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being involved in the SPI in question and know that we were cleared. I would hope that you can warn him off this subject, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on the Admins that make difficult blocks list - the ones that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards,
GregJackP
Boomer!
05:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Re [41]. I've no doubt you've done the right thing, but it would be nice to know your authority for so doing. Personal email? IRC? I can't see any on-wiki evidence, though I could easily have missed it. I've put a section on the case talk page William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs)
Is so unseemly. [42] Could you please put an end to it? Jehochman Talk 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller,
Yes, I am frustrated with you and your czar circle of Wikipedia editors. While I have been making some changes now for a few months to articles which needed grammatical improvements, I am new to the Wikipedia process. Learning the citation process is tedious as it does not easily correlate to a simple APA style. Also, I am just learning to navigate these talk boards to provide responses to persons like yourself. Hence, there has been a delay in both responding to questions and providing citations for material over the last three days. Nonetheless, my intention has been to do so because I want the articles strengthened and I want more clarity on the process.
My primary interest is in my hometown, Pine Bluff, Arkansas and the Arkansas Delta. Your last reversion back to the previous czar's format excluded a number of prominent citizens in the history of our city. More than any pruning of descriptions, I am totally perplexed and angered by the omission of persons relevant to our local history. For example, the last edit excludes Isaac Scott Hathaway. He has a building in the city named after him because of his accomplishments. Another exclusion from this previous edit is Jeff Donaldson who is the first African American in his field to achieve a Ph.D and whose works are displayed at major art galleries all over the country. Several others were excluded as well with notable backgrounds.
I am unclear on what Wikipedia's "notable persons" standard is now. How can individuals outside a community determine its relevant or notable leaders without assistance? I worked at great length to add names to the Notables list which had been started before I came along. I made sure the people I incorporated had some sort of relevant accomplishments or distinctions in their fields and also had Wikipedia articles already established.
You folks make well intended individuals like myself want to simply leave Wikipedia and let you have it. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will withhold my comments regardng the "John Horse" article as it is assumed that all of my source information for that article lacks credibility based on the feedback provided in an earlier post.
Anyway, I am rambling and you all have other strike missions to engage.
Thanks,
Jimmy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmyjam ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You guys need to stop deleting the real history. Not sure why you guys keep thinking you know what you are deleting. Malik Tajuddin was the founder of the APP and I added the history as per his words. You keep editing it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalik786 ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read carefully beforehand. I posted a reply to someone else who'd complained about being blocked. I agree that that person had posted the remarks in the wrong place, & have no objection to your deletion. Peter jackson ( talk) 08:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed you're one of those people who prefer replies in the same place. Peter jackson ( talk) 08:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you have a look at the current situation on the CC talk page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision.
M4th has taken it upon himself to hat the discussion there [45] - I object to this; and there is no reason for M4th to do so.
Further, M4th has re-inserted the PA in the section header [46] and introduced one against me [47]. I'd like those removed William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read the "discussion" User:Kauffner has started here. Despite my response, a posting to the BLP noticeboard, and a warning issued by an editor from the noticeboard, Kauffner persists. Am I within my rights to remove the entire discussion from Kagan's talk page? No one else has. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for the message on my page. Not sure if it's automated, or you sent personally, but either way thanks lol. I was wondering if you could just give me your top 5 tips (or so) you would give a new Wikipedia contributor. It all seems so overwhelming and that remembering all the polices and their application, etc could be daunting. Thanks for any help you can give! SuperAtheist ( talk) 22:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Can you ban this fellow [ [49]]. I really think there needs to be power to ban such a user on first sight. There are patriotic users than there are simply illogical nationalist users like this one. Thank you-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
any chance you can tell me which revision has been revoked?````glyncharles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyncharles ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Due to a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV, an editor trying to "balance" the fringe vs. mainstream views has since become entrenched in a slow edit war. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology.--Gniniv ( talk) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard ( talk) 07:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [50], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller
you have just reverted my edits on the Aubrey Circle, you say because of lack of verifiable references. Would you please do me the courtesy of being more explicit.I have numerous published references in support of my edits but tried to be concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David gregg ( talk • contribs)
About my edit to the article on baramin ;for the record, I do not make edits,for the fun of it,but rather to maintain objectivity and neutrality, as much as possible. Sochwa ( talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried to avoid it... but it seems this issue was brought to ANI for me. I just wanted to inform you of the ANI report. If you wish to take part, you're more than welcome. All the best, Jess talk| edits 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought I might revert [51] but then thought I'd take my own advice [52]. Could you take a look? Thanks, William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
Do you know any reliable Persian Admins or contributors who may be able to identify this plant? If there is a wiki article on it, it would be helpful. My google translate search turns up the strange word 'Byba' whatever that means but I can't add cats to it on Commons so it remains unused. If you can't help, that's OK. Goodnight from Canada, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Kudos for an appropriately neutral pointer to the WT:AfD discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I will support you if you wish to take further action againt Colon-el-Nuevo and his other guises. - Eb.hoop ( talk) 16:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Scope is a sensible discussion rapidly turning into silliness. Could you had the fluff, please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
text moved to Talk:Chuck Missler. Dougweller ( talk) 15:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
From genetics articles on my watchlist I notice a User:Desertscorpio who has only made edits which revert one other user.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doug. Sorry have been offline a whiles, so only now have picked up on your request to look into here. I've added what comments / findings I can to the discussions at Talk:Puñay. An interesting one; while there is perhaps a tale here (not the one in the article originally), it's not clear there'd be sufficient notability if the story is recast, as I feel it should be. Have suggested some options at the AfD also. Cheers, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I see the article's been kept now as 'no consensus'. The orig contributor Jake/Ecuadorecoadvice seems fine with the idea to change article focus to the place itself and qualify/put into proportion the pyramid claims, so hopefully something more solid can be worked out.
ps. Looks like Aguirre's presentation to the Ecuadoran arch. conference is included in the published proceedings (Memorias de los Encuentros Nacionales III de "Arqueología" y IV de "Antropología" "Nela Martínez Espinosa", 2007). I missed it before as was looking at the wrong vol., the proceedings were published in two parts. See this snippet from googlebooks [55]. From what I can see the info, even some of the wording, is along the same lines as the reporting in those Hoy articles. But its appearance in the proceedings doesn't say anything as to how it was received, or whether the claims check out or not, of course. It's still info from the same/only claimant, nothing corroborating as yet. Cheers, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I wondered if you'd mind weighing in on the Talk page of the Yale Debate Association. An editor is insisting that the Yale Debate team and the Yale Political Union are the same thing. Thanks much. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller. Thanks for your message. I have no idea whom this Desertscorpio might be. Probably some IP vandal I reverted and who came back with a grudge. His only goal seems to revert me, that's quite obvious, since some of the edits he reverted were only just clean up ( such as this). Given that his 1st edit was in Spanish language I suspect he is an editor with some POV on that issue, namely the question of the Philippines being a Spanish speaking country. It might be that he is even a sock of Qidrusselle? This is just a though, not an accusation.
By the way, regarding the Cervantes source about the Philippines, long time ago I had several discussions at the Commons (about world maps of the Spanish language) were this question came up. I researched the stuff and my reply can be seen here.
Again, thanks for your concern. I'll try to keep an eye on this. The Ogre ( talk) 12:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for moving my complaint re Barry Wellman to ANI. The unWP para (BLP, Outing, Research) by an IP user has already been deleted by Admin Black Kite, who also deleted the possibly-associated attempt by User:MultimediaGuru]] to delete the entire article under AFD. So, this issue may be moot -- for now. I have no way of knowing (without a chkuser) if these almost simultaneous moves were from the same users Bellagio99 ( talk) 12:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It's very clear that for some reason, there are forces working to keep the Bosnian pyramids from being espoused as genuine pyramids. There is sufficient evidence which is very detailed, but I see none of it on the page. I would like to edit it, but I know you would just cite me as uninformed, and undo everything I add. Therefor, I believe it only fair that both sides should be presented. One section labeled as evidence against (which to me is hear-say because no formal expedition of outside archeologists has summoned up the courage to swallow their pride and investigate), and one section labeled as evidence for (which, I was a skeptic until I watched footage of the excavation process, and the structural foundation of the "hill" does not resemble anything I have naturally seen). It is my conclusion that the research published on Wikipedia is biased against the observable, and replicable, facts indicated by his research. And yes, just you know, he has a Ph.D in history, 2 B.A.s, and one Master's degree. Please feel free to e-mail me (joshuatorelli@att.net), as I know from experience that editing an article comes with complications, and I would like to work with you in regards to the subject content of the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.155.105 ( talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
To help clean up the Yogi Bhajan series? I tried working on the main article a few times, but the SPAs are relentless. I've sought the help of a few others but a couple tried and left, a couple looked and knew better. It was initially just two articles, Harbhajan Singh Yogi and 3HO that resembled a fansite, but now the problem is going across many articles (just see what links to the main ones), with a lot of these fringy thingies getting too much visibility on other articles, and sometimes articles of their own. If you have the time and interest to work on this set, I can give you some background info. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller, sorry to disturb you, but there seems to be another one. It's user Rondovenezziano... The Ogre ( talk) 09:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I don't know where he gets that stuff from, but it is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH if I ever saw one. I tried to read the House of Keglević but got a headache after a couple of paragraphs. I cannot make head or tails of it, as his English is atrocious and the text itself incoherent. I didn't check the citations, but if it is anything like here, it will be full of (deliberate?) misquotations and errors, interspersed with irrelevant passages. Either this is some kid trying to write a fantasy essay on his family, or a deliberate hoax. Given that he is active in the Croatian version too, I suspect the former. I'd definitively support reverting this crap to this version, preferably even deleting the article and then re-creating it from scratch. Constantine ✍ 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
He's removed most of the blatantly outlandish claims, but problems still remain. Since he uses chiefly old German sources, I tried a search of my own for the family (with the variants "Keglewitsch" and "Keglevich"), and found several short mentions of some of its members. The subject definitively has substance ( [56]), but given Budija's track record he's not the one to write it. Constantine ✍ 23:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on RMP 43 and RMP 47 ... TOO BUSY for Wikipedia ... Milogardner ( talk) 12:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The 2 or 3 new paragraphs are heavily reliant on just 2 authors, which is a bit biased by its nature. I don't want to discourage people from editing though - I might drop him a note suggesting he cut it back to 1 para, expand his sources, and go for tertiary sources instead of primary ones. The sources he uses are good in themselves, but I think our editor, like so many (the majority?) is trying to discover The Truth instead of just reflecting the range of views. PiCo ( talk) 01:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
H Doug, I had a quick question. On the admin noticeboard re the Eversman discussion you commented "This bothers me a bit coming so shortly after the notice, but it's hopefully a coincidence." I'm wondering what notice you were referring to. Thanks. Spangle ( talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In regard to this [57]. I just got the message, I've been extremely busy, then had to deal with some flooding and now I'm traveling. I will get to the request and cut back the statement as soon as I can.
However, the simple reason why my statement is long is because it is a response to Skapperod's own very long statement (about 2000 words by my count), which he has been making even longer recently - and for sake of clarity I quote him in several places. Could you please ask Skapperod to cut back his statement as well so that I know what I'm responding to? radek ( talk) 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, I follow the bot instruction and look into the tag page, but i dont understand, anyway please tell me how to add license for existing upload image. Thanks for your help. Kungkang ( talk) 02:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller,
It seems that you removed two links that I added. These are simply for more information about Anastasius Sinaita (also called Anastasios of Sinai) and his important work the Hexaemeron. The external sites are intended primarily for students and scholars.
More importantly, the information about the Hexaemeron has disappeared from the Wiki page. That is one of his most important works. If there seems to be some copyright infringement with the Anastasios of Sinai site, don't worry: I'm the author of that.
Please let me know what else I can do - or should do - to add these informative links and to put back the paragraph about the Hexaemeron on the Wiki page.
Thanks for your help,
Clementkuehn ( talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementkuehn ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller,
I'm sorry about the crossed emails and for taking your time. I will look at the link that you suggested about copyrights. We'll see what we can do to set this right.
Thanks for your patience,
Clementkuehn ( talk) 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller,
I have changed the problem paragraph on the Hexaemeron and made it original. At the end, I still make a reference to my book, where such topics are discussed, in order to avoid any copyright questions.
Can I put back the two links to my outside websites? They contain more extensive information about the author and his works: but the wording is now different.
Thanks again for your careful eye. I am impressed by your comment: "It's been confusing from an outsider's point of view (ie you've copied stuff from other sources and cited it to your work)." As an author of books and websites, I do respect your vigilance.
Clement Clementkuehn ( talk) 17:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
I don't want to become a burden. But I guess I could use your advice and guidance here. I read the Conflict of Interest article and I also think I understand your copyright concerns. I am the author of most of the Wikipedia article Anastasius Sinaita, and also the author of the websites to which I link. I am also the editor of the book to which I refer. I work closely with Rev. Dr. Joseph Munitiz and am in frequent communication with the other Anastasian scholars. So you will find similar ideas and vocabulary in the external websites, the books, and the Wiki article.
But I do want to do things right here. I have changed the wording in the Wiki Anastasius Sinaita article a bit, to make it more original. Please let me know if I should still make further adjustments.
And again I am sorry for my obfuscations. I am trying to learn to be an upstanding Wiki citizen.
Clementkuehn ( talk) 02:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Dougweller,
Before you get mad at me please let me assure you that my comments to you here is humor only.
Best regards,
68.197.144.38 ( talk) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Best I can remember, I haven't seen the variant "Diʿamat" before. But I'm not surprised: every proper name related to Ethiopia has a lot of variant spellings, if not variant names. One example is "Addis Ababa" vs. "Addis Abeba", but also "Finfinne". BTW, thanks for fighting the good fight against the crazies. -- llywrch ( talk) 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Hi, I am glad you got involved in the dispute at Southern Poverty Law Center article. I wanted to indicate in the article that the SPLC has received criticism from the right-wing. There is a reliable sources debate is posted at [ [1]] on this topic. Your input would be appreciated. thx. Mrdthree ( talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me download some pictures to finish my article and then post it??
awwsurf Awwsurf ( talk) 00:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Following on from the ANI discussion " Unresponsive editor with 50 warnings on his talk page", which is now archived, I've just noticed IP edits on four pages where RoyalPains11 added images without appropriate FURs. [2] [3] [4] [5] I had added {{ deletable image-caption}} to each of the pages and the edits made by the IP deleted these templates from each page without fixing the image problems. Since the IP is from the same pool used by RoyalPains11, I assume he's avoiding his block by using another IP so I've reverted the edits. This has resulted in restoration of prod notices on two of the pages but I believe this is appropriate in the circumstances as he shouldn't be editing while blocked. That he didn't remove the AfD notice from one of the pages and removal of the prod was a separate act to deletion of {{ deletable image-caption}} on another page indicates that these were deliberate acts and not simply random deletions of {{ deletable image-caption}}. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 07:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to use the template for a length-of-time block, but couldn't get the template to function properly. I initially was inclined to give him a 31-hour; but his pattern of edits and the apparent sock-puppeting leave me less lenient. I've now gone to an indef block. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I see our Sinai editor is back with a new name: User:Eye2EyeIIIV. Should I log an SPI case or can I just ask you to block him? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 08:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug, it's probably a bit late now, but I thought you might be interested in this [7] comment I left on a matter you recently handled. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently removed as vandalism the phrase "Niko is very hot and elle smells." from the end of the Isaiah 40:22 section of the Flat Earth article. However, this phrase has now appears to have been restored. Please take another look at this. Thanks. UnpopularTruth ( talk) 10:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller,
On July 6th, you deleted an article I had written on a marketing firm called Layerbit. I am a marketing student at North Harris College in the Houston area. I would like to write an article about this firm because I met the manager when he came to speak at our school. I would also like to write about other firms that I know about here in Houston. There is a good deal of talent in this city that no one knows about and I am researching some of them for a paper.
Is the best way to go about this to write the article in a sub directory folder and then have you review it before I submit it? (Any details would be appreciated. still a bit confused about protocol) Also, where did the article go? Is it in some wiki purgatory?
Thank you for any help you can offer.
Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinclubman ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I've noticed that you appear on a lot of the articles I've got on my watchlist, taking care of dubious material and editors. I need some help with an article/editor. I don't know exactly how to describe the situation. The article talkpage is a mess, because the editor keeps putting up walls of words that have little to do with questions about the validity of certain sources, and what those sources specifically say. The editor consistently adds information into the article that is not covered in the sources, but I've only been able to double-check a few of these sources. But it goes even further than that. I'm certain that this editor is editing in bad faith, and mainly concerned with advancing his off-wiki aims. I posted a thread concerning some of the issue on on WP:RS/N: [9]; and alluded to it on WP:Village pump (policy): [10]. Please see the last discussion thread on my talkpage, to see how things tie together. What can I do? The article is like a slow edit war now. The editor just reverts me. The heraldry/clan stuff is total misinformation. I don't know how to describe the whole thing, it's a mess.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 05:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doug,
Thank you for the resources. I did read over the criteria and believe that you are correct. Many of the firms I was planning on writing about may not be eligible. I do still believe that there are some small boutique firms that do. I did more research on these guys and found a number of awards for design. Community for Entertainment Artists, Flash Forward, Flash Focus are a few. These may not be Emmys but they're pretty big in the design community.
What I was hoping to do was take the original article and just take out everything that sounds promotional or commercial.
Sorry to keep bothering you but thanks for your help Kevin Kevinclubman ( talk) 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for responding to my request for help on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and adding the needed weight at Talk:Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada#Quotation_marks_around_.22British_monarchy.22.3F. On my own, I really wasn't having much success getting them to respect the core content policies. Already the same editors are planning other ways to question or remove the content that doesn't fit their point of view, but I guess that'll be a bridge to cross when we get to it ... 65.92.158.145 ( talk) 05:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance. AussieGreen&Gold ( talk) 23:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You did, in fact, miss the point. List of red-light districts includes historical areas, so removing entries on that basis is not valid. With the wikilink (this one) he could have fixed the link rather than removing material and a ref. I later fixed the wikilink. There are more questionable edits by this user, those were just examples. This editor has been and continues to be a problem; I'm doing my best to believe you're not targeting me and ignoring him because of some personal bias, but reporting him for his 3RR violations and continuing behavior is a necessary step in confirming that. I won't do that, because I prefer to try and work with other editors rather than going straight to admin action, but since you do then not doing the same for him is a double-standard. Thanks. TJ Black ( talk) 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Related to your post on my talk page - see User talk:Antigrandiose#Inappropriate content and associated MFD. FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
could you please unprotect the article? i want to readd content that was removed. in NO WAY were my edits vandalism...i insulted user sulmues because of his inability to understand a simple matter so he reported me for 'personal attacks' and users with no idea regarding the article kept removing good content because i was a 'vandal'...if you feel unwilling to unprotect (fair) could you ask admin future perfect at sunrise to take a look at it since he knows both my edit history AND the article well? i dont have an account so i cant ask him myself...thanks 87.202.23.90 ( talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
my bad...i just saw future perfects comment towards you in this case sorry i missed it earlier so you can scratch most of my above comment...just to add one more thing so i can make my case i WASNT block-evading i just have a dynamic IP so if i disconnect it changes...at the time it changed i WASNT aware of sulmues report and i kept editing normally. so ill have to only request of you: can you unblock the article so i can edit it? 87.202.23.90 ( talk) 00:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
yeah that doesnt bother me too much ill just try to avoid the user as much as possible since badfaith and complete lack of understanding characterize him...my only real concern is the article i just have a couple of sentences to add 87.202.23.90 ( talk) 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a legitimate conspiracy theory I have been investigating recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.110.251 ( talk) 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've re-written (from scratch) this article here so that it hopefully isn't a copyvio anymore - can you have a look and confirm that it is OK? Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Doug, On the article Adam there's an editor who quite seriously wants to have a section reconciling the idea of a 6,000 year old creation of man (Adam) with modern science. He has a dozen sources to back the idea that this is a serious idea. all from unknown rabbis and the like. It's the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. What to do? Is there any point going to the admin forums? Any suggestions? PiCo ( talk) 12:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll check out that discussion. The maintainers of the list ought to have been notified of the discussion prior to the move. There are some people on the list who would identify themselves as nontheists. I'm not sure there is a BLP issue with identifying the others as nontheists, given the verifiable and uncontroversial definition of the word, and the other sources that confirm that they have views consistent with that definition. The problem with atheist as an identifier is that it has a dysphemistic sense that nontheist does not have--hence the nonbelievers in God who object to being called atheists. Also, the matter of whether or not one must assert the nonexistence of deities to truly be an atheist comes down to one's point of view as to how the word should be applied (dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy identify divergent usages, without settling which is the "correct" one). This also accounts for those nonbelievers who assert that they are not atheists (Carl Sagan being a notable example).
If consensus shifts such that one must specifically identify by a term (whether nontheist or atheist) to be so identified here, then a significant purge of the list will be in order, because many of those listed currently have not gone on record as to the label they prefer. Nick Graves ( talk) 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's become clear to me that I'm far too invested in Wikipedia right now than is healthy, so I'm taking a break. Sorry to bail on the discussion so soon after making such an issue of the move. I apologize for the indignant tone of my original response to that move, by the way. Take care. Nick Graves ( talk) 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
IP vandal is back again after the block. Teapot george Talk 17:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller,
I noticed that you blocked User:159.182.1.4 for repeatedly removing prod tags without giving a reason for the removal. While I can understand that this IP's actions are annoying, I personally think that they are allowed by policy. Though the proposed deletion process says that users are encouraged to provide a reason for the removal of prod tags, it does not actually require that a reason be given. If this user's actions are sufficiently annoying that you think they shouldn't be allowed, then I think the appropriate action is to start a discussion to amend the prod rules to require a reason be given when removing a prod. However, until a change to the prod rules of that sort is agreed upon, I don't think it is appropriate to block someone for removing prods without giving a reason. Calathan ( talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the warning. For the time being, I will refrain from making further edits to pseudohistory. I would appreciate, however, not being labeled an SPA. I have edited hundreds of articles, including reverting obvious vandalism on scores of articles. It's absolutely true that I have an interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, but my recent edits (pseudohistory excepted) have had more to do with restoring content that is being systematically deleted from Wikipedia - basically I am up against 2 editors who are moving from article to article removing any and all mentions of the Authorship question from the site. Is this to be condoned? Smatprt ( talk) 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Please check Obama (footnotes number 76, 212, 220) and Hillary Clinton (213) --sourced on Pdf files. The Pdf link I used on Matriacrhy fully discusses Python and Tiamat. 187.21.128.77 ( talk) 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't spot it, another editor has re-added that controversial photo to Sex tourism, claiming that there was no consensus to remove it. I've reverted it. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Doug. Can you please impose a second 6-month semi-protection on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article? As expected, anoymous vandalism is become regular problem again... -- Loremaster ( talk)
I felt that the information about mitt romney was inaccurate as far he really didn't endorsed her as much as sarah palin and did not deserved to be on the profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessex ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well he did not gave as much money as sarah palin nor helped Nikki in deflection allegations at her. That why i felt mitt didn't need to be metioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessex ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller - Thanks for letting me know about the block on this user. I'm a bit baffled by it, though. I met this guy at Wikimania in Poland - he came all the way from the US to be there - and his big thing is this anti-vandalism tool he worked on, Wikipedia:STiki. I looked at his contributions, and nearly all he seems to do is vandalism patrol using STiki - he doesn't seem to be annoying anyone, rigging RfA votes or anything like that. We were thinking of using his anti-vandalism tool to help us spot vandalism in preparing offline releases. What did he use sockpuppets for? Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Of what benefit was it to remove the external links on the Cheryl Dunn page? I'm not associated with the article, though I did add a maintenance tag once. Just curious. Pianotech Talk to me!/ Contribs 12:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
i find the external links relevant, as they all link to art or press directly related to the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunhea ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite campus a few days ago. The article Satellite campus is now greatly expanded. I wonder if the changes would cause you to reconsider your nomination. -- Orlady ( talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller,
Did you undo my edit replacing sun with moon? Why? Malco5114 Malco5114 ( talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A quick question I can't find the answer to: If I removed cut-and-paste content from an article, and tagged it as copyvio, then the creator puts the content back stating on talk: I' am the webmaster and administrator of http://outjoss.webs.com that includes http://outjoss.webs.com/aboutus.html", do we still need proof? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Please use the discussion page and don´t revert before discussion. If you pages need to be cited please help me with taht but don´t delete nor revert before using the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.128.77 ( talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Why just three months? He seems to have been warned independently for just about every policy we have. J Milburn ( talk) 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Wang Jinghong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Bigvernie (
talk)
19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Prove your point or don't comment if you have any evidence against my claim present it otherwise leave it off my talk page. Tomgazer ( talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Consensus was reached for Paul the octopus. It was just moved]. Thanks Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the talk page of the American Old West WikiProject. Why did you do this? The Raptor Let's talk/ My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 19:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind reminding Smatprt about his disruptive editing? Nothing I say has any effect. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. An editor has moved the article to Dog (food) without consensus. It is a very contentious article, and a large debate over several issues, some related to the name of the article, were/are in progress at the time.
Right after the editor moved the page, s/he made a RfC to help determine whether the main image should be of dog meat, or a prepared dog dish. (strike not really relevant info)
This doesn't seem quite right. Is it possible to change the name back to what it was until consensus is reached? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I'm one of the people in the debate, so I don't know if I am allowed to tell anybody about this. Sorry if I am breaking the rules. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. We will continue to struggle toward consensus. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Potentially violating the three revert rule on Matriarchy. 187.21.128.77 ( talk) 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm swiftstar and I've been editing your indigo children page. I recently read "What color is your aura?" and thought, oh cool, Indigo is closest to the way I think and interact with the world I want to find out more about it. I disagree with a lot of the psychic whatever that is out there, but I also dislike being told my personality type is a pseudoscience that doesn't exist. So I pulled out a few of the true things from the book and tried to kill some of the mysterious physic aura that was obviously mis interpreted and edited the article here before. I don't know how cite "what color is your aura" but I re-wrote most of it so I didn't infringe on copyright. Anyway I'll go research it and do it right this time if that was what was bugging you.
Thanks! Swiftstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftstar1142 ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I've unblocked the two accounts, but please have a look at the version history of July 30. It looked exactly like 122.57.81.48 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) had created Dude with old man glasses ( talk · contribs) and Eddiehendo64 ( talk · contribs) (within a minute of each other) to have fun. Favonian ( talk) 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a comment on your query on Setalvad on WP:RSN. -- Soman ( talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to completely redo this article because, as you said, there are multiple problems with it but was going to draft it in a subpage first so that visitors can still see the information that's already there without much disruption. I know if you draft new articles you can move the edit history into the main namespace but would I still be able to do this here? Would it matter if the article didn't have the edit history for the changes I'd made to my draft? Also, do you know why this page doesn't have the full name? (it's just Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi) -- tb240904 Talk Contribs 21:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yongle the Great's back again. See User:Tie Mole. This time, he's using the name of a novel character. (Tie Mole is a character in Datang Youxia Zhuan, an article created by me! LOL). It appears that he has proposed for deletion several articles created by him. What shall we do this time? 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to get a range block. Dougweller ( talk) 05:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Dieu et mon droit ( talk · contribs) ? Dougweller ( talk) 05:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ana the IP just reverted at Matriarchy without talk page discussion. Just a heads up. If you need me, let me know. I'm around. Anna Frodesiak ( talk)
In your recent edit at Moses, you imply that the early settlers to America, i.e. puritans and pilgrims, are the same as native Americans, i.e. indians. Is that what you are claiming? Some might consider the two terms as direct opposites, far from the same meaning. But since your edit was based on your equating them, can you explain? Thanks. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I missed which interaction you wanted me to look at, but the only interaction I appeared to have had with this person was back in November 2002 when I suspected some text he added was a copyright violation. (This was back in the early mists of Wikipedia when I was just one raw newbie who didn't realize everyone else was just as lost as me; No wonder I didn't recognize the name!) I don't think his return or his edits have will involve me -- the only way I would get involved in any of the articles you mentioned is if I stumbled on a book or article worth including there -- but I hope he realizes how much Wikipedia has changed since that time, & the need to cite sources & other authorities isn't too hard for him to understand. Thanks for the head's up in any case. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please warn Cumanche about his behavior? Please mention that you're an admin if you do. Lechonero ( talk) 12:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Going back I realized that I changed his edits on Golden Retriever by mistake.. But on Dock jumping he made 12 edits..changing picture placement,size,links....now doesn't that need discussion?...{if you really want to know why certain changes were made, discuss them calmly without reverting them first.}isn't this a two way street? gd8man ( talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Granas article up for speedy deletion... What exactly are you looking for in terms of notability in an article about a video game character? What can I do to provide such a notability claim?? Jove ( talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Do me a favour and have another word with Gd8man ( talk · contribs) who has ignored everything he/she was told and has restored images back to 300 pixels without explaining why, and has repeatedly deleted my well-sourced addition to the article. I really don't want to get into an edit war or fall foul of 3RR, but this user is still exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour. -- Simple Bob ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Gd8man did another mass-revert overnight, then reverted someone else who undid his/her work. I'm sick of this and despite your admirable efforts to tone down his/her behaviour it still continues. As such I've opened another ANI thread seeking assistance and guidance on a way forward (RFC perhaps?) See this ANI request. -- Simple Bob ( talk) 07:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right that ANI is the place for this. This is a user who refuses to play by the rules, and regards everyone else as a hindrance to his getting his way. Take care and get some rest. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If you would of seen on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dock_jumping that there is a disussion on the subject. I am sorry that I put a burr under your saddle.... gd8man ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with completely dropping "Dr." from this musician's name. Quite a lot of Nigerian musicians use titles in their names, such as Sir Shina Peters, General Prince Adekunle and King Sunny Adé. Maybe "Dr." could be put in quotes before his name in the lead section, e.g. "Dr." Victor Abimbola Olaiya is a Nigerian trumpeter... Dr. seems to part of his name to me. Aymatth2 ( talk) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I sort of did that, a bit clumsy but o.k. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 01:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I warned him. If you have a moment can you read the article on Emic and etic and consider whether further comment is needed on the talk page? Or, if you feel the article deserves fleshing out perhaps you have constructive (significant view/reliable source - based) ideas? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm former editor Jel, details still accessible probably. If my details aren't accessible, please contact me on my anonymous LiveJournal blog Rahere. My chef d'oeuvre was annotating the Albigensian Crusade page, until a crass monitor decided to insult me personally. I'm working with Laura Smoller of Arkansas Uni, who's probably the world's leading expert on the history of late mediaeval cosmology, and in particular of Pierre d'Ailly's version of it. d'Ailly inspired Columbus directly, and indirectly through Nicholas of Cues ("Cusanus") Kepler and Copernicus, all of whom realised that it was inevitable not only that the spherical geocentric model was inaccurate (Cusanus, for example, realised that orbits are eliptical, so tightly-nested spheres couldn't be possible, collapse of the music of the spheres) but that precession of other planets meant the Earth is spherical, and probably not at the centre of the Universe. I've been following up the relationship between Cusanus' later boss, Pope Eugenius IV, and Prince Henry the Navigator whilst on holiday in Portugal and have found the Portuguese are taking the subject places not done before, using their internal documentation - it's not just Colon. Colon's argument about the nobility is halfway credible, he's just not used to your rules about original work. Like me, he'll probably stop editing because that rule disqualifies the competent: you end up with an encyclopaedia built by noncompoops catering to the lowest common denominator. The Britannica built theirs using experts. Therefore, I'm dropping Colon a similar note to discover what he's published. His arguments make sense but may have overshot: I'll talk it through with him. In the mean time, I'd suggest going easy because he's doing more than simply regurgitating books.
Doug, hey there.
I am not sure what to do to keep the Hydrogen Economy page current with this new technology and I certainly don't want to get into the ***t list.
So in your opinion what do I need to list the MagneGas technology as a production process in the Hydrogen economy, I have tried to keep the same text and related references at the Dry Plasma Arc process but still you know it down. I would appreciate your help
Globalreach1 ( talk) 10:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Globalreach1 ( talk) 12:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Doug, you have been really helpful and I can't tell you how much I appreciated it as I am new to this. Nothing like working all day on something and then an editor (not you) signs on and in 5 seconds reverts to a prior version. I'll take your advice and start anew, thanks once again. Your "Green" and eager student!
You appear to have been the last admin to have had to deal with this mess. Can you salt the page? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
i was the original user moutray2010 . whoever this is , is a copycat . i have better things to do with my time. after i was blocked , i have not been involved since the 18 th of may . i admit i did rant on initially , but i was unfamiliar and a new user . after getting blocked a few times , i gave up . i'd suggest considering removing all reference to moutray2010 , as it only appears to encourage disgruntled users , to become a nuisance and waste your time. just for your information . i dont even have a wikipedia account , and am very happy for you to block all the variants . why would i sign a name? why would i use obvious variants ? why would i advertise the fact ? why would i keep repeating behaviour ? just for your information , it is not me . I have too little time to get involved in petty nonsense . i learny my lesson after the first few weeks . bbye
Dear Dougweller, I am responding to your suggestion to elucidate or cross out the comments about Lechoneros intentions. I wrote that comment in good faith as I am dumbfounded as to why Lechonero would want to take the word "indian" out of an article that is about American Indians. If you look at the long list of references, some of which I have contributed, they all address the topic of Genizaro Indians. I beleive Wikipedia is a great site and I have tried to do my part to contribute to the accuracy of the Genizaro page for the benefit of readers. In the past when suggestions have been made I have enjoyed them. My only contention with Lechonero is that he has changed the entry in such a way as to alter the accuracy of the page. Lechonero has himself admitted that he knows nothing about the topic. In response to my suggestion that he develop at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject he wrote the following in the discussion section:
Cumanche: Before, I simply found you annoying. Now, I'm actually angry at you. Let's get a few things straight. 1) I don't have to read so much as a single sentence on this subject to contribute to this article as long as my edits are in good faith. The only knowledge I need is a basic familiarty of Wikipedia policy.
I have a legitimate question as to Lechoneros intentions. I would absolutely love to assume that he/she is acting in good faith. However, the fact that he/she altered the meaning of the entry, and then requested that you freeze it after his/her misquided edit (please realize that I use misguided cautiously, but with confidence). You can attest to this yourself if you look at the comment about genizaraos being comprised of groups from New Mexico. This is clearly not the case and Lechonero him/herself has attested to the point that he/she knows nothing about the topic. I was under the assumption that Wikipedia was a shared website in which editors contribute to the accuracy and validity of the topic.
I ask you as an administrator to please consider editing the first paragraph of the article to read as follows:
Genízaros were Indian Slaves who served as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s.[3] Please take a look at the references below. Sir, Genizaros were American Inidan Slaves. This is an important aspect of this article. Removing "American Indian" from the first paragraph alters the meaning of the peice and as I mentioned earlier....I question why someone would want to alter the meaning of such an important topic.
In good Faith 207.114.147.200 ( talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Bailey, L.R. Indian Slave Trade in the Southwest. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1996.
Ebright, Malcolm and Rick Hendricks. The Witches of Abiquiú: The Governor, the Priest, the Genízaro Indians and the Devil. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2006.
Gallegos, Bernardo, "'Dancing the Comanches', The Santo Niño, La Virgen (of Guadalupe) and the Genizaro Indians of New Mexico," In Indigenous Symbols and Practices in the Catholic Church: Visual Culture, Missionization and Appropriation. Kathleen J. Martin, Editor. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishers, 2010.
Rael Galvan, Estévan, "Identifying and Capturing Identity: Narratives of American Indian Servitude, Colorado and New Mexico, 1750-1930." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2002.
What information do you need? I probably can't, and almost certainly shouldn't, just cut and paste the whole article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
D, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug, cf. your recent edit to Creationism, I've posted a question here. Can you help? Cheers, -- PLUMBAGO 10:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
Rachaf is Chefrens (or sometimes spelled Khafras) correct name reading it specifically from ancient egyptian, like Cheops name is really Chufu.
I learned this from a professor in egyptology, the reference lies in learning how to read egyptian hieroglyphs.
This is the resault of recent european findings in egyptian research. The hieroglyphs have been read in the wrong order for centuries. Up till now. All well educated egyptologists up to date knows this, but I haven't found a printed source to this precise effect. This information is so new it doesn´t appear in regular encyclipeadias yet, it´s only available through studies in egyptology and deciphering hieroglyphs. Help on finding these refrences is much appreciated. Stringence ( talk) 18:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It´s OK to redirect. For the time being.
I started this page hoping that those who know more, and have access to pictures, would continue building it.
This mansion is truly magnificent, and I think it deserves a place of it´s own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringence ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
An IP has left a long, rambling comment about you at WP:WQA. SnottyWong gossip 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 08:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Article Genesis 1:1 covers ground already covered in Creation according to Genesis or whatever it's name is today) and Creation ex nihilo. It adds nothing to what's said in those two. On the other hand, it evidently affords hours of harmless entertainment to a dedicated band of home-based biblical scholars with too little in the way of a social life. Is this a candidate for deletion? If so, how's it done? PiCo ( talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller, I noticed an edit request for the fully protected page Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010, which led me to examine the article history. To refresh your memory, you had protected the page due to vandalism. In reviewing the history, it seems the vandalism was from anonymous editors, and there was a history of productive page edits from named users before the protection was implemented. I think it would be suitable to semiprotect the page instead, if you determine there is continuing need for the protection. [I'll monitor your talk page for your reply here.] -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
i dont add promotional material to Wikipedia ararat anomaly page. i add link which was there one year. it is nice article for mount ararat (mountain ararat anomaly on it) nohas ark (which people belive what ararat anomaly is) and etc. if this is promotional material cnn link is more promotional material then that link. Please read before you delete something from wikipedia. if something wrong with external link rule please write to i learn it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.175.10.171 ( talk) 21:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your message on my talk page. I generally avoid making POV edits. In both cases you cited, I was simply undoing the edits by the user, Thesaakaja, who is clearly a spammer if you look at the various edits he has made. I was reverting it to the previous versions because Thesaakaja did not justify the changes he made, where as the previous users had. I hope that clears things up. Foreverknowledge ( talk) 07:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Foreverknowledge
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
thank you for your feedback on my revisions of various articles. I obviously have much more to learn about the policies and mechanics. just for the record, all the additional material represented verifiable scholarly information and my revisions were done in good faith. DomenicoStefano ( talk) 15:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. As far as radio stations, I do not agree with the claim that they are all notable. They are not. WP:BCAST is very clear that some radio stations are not notable. It says the 3 criteria to meet notability, of which only one has to be met. Either a long history, big audience, or special format. A radio station in a small town with a small audience and not much history or special format is, by definition, not notable. However, a big radio station with a lot of history is notable. The BBC and WBBM would easily qualify. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 21:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Zhang Zishan (张子山). I live and work in South Vietnam. I specialize in the history of the Ming dynasty, as well as in pre-modern Chinese legal and medical history-- Lonelyking ( talk) 06:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Next time, have a quick glance around to see if suggestions are being followed. 1084 is indeed discussing that edit and I can't say for sure we're not going to reach a compromise. He's edit warring and pushing POV, and I suppose the block was appropriate, but I don't think I'm dealing with a genuinely bad faith actor. For that matter, I probably pushed too hard trying to get a discussion going. Şłџğģő 15:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I wrote to you in Talk:Mitanni regarding what you quoted/suggested from User:Paul_Barlow:
("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both." (and also had the same problem I'm having). So do that, explain his views, put them into historical context..
Do you mean something like this:
It has been suggested by Prof. Petrie and Henry Hall, that Mitanni was of Armenian origin<-Petrie ref here->. And in which part of the page of Mitanni can we add this? Aryamahasattva ( talk) 17:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Right before he was blocked, Forsts/AA was suggesting that some of my edits were vindictive retribution for his revert war on Mitanni, like this: [17]. What I find interesting is that Aryamahasattva had made a similar accusation, [18] although forsts himself hadn't actually made that accusation with his account yet. Not only is Aryamahasattva qualified to explain what Forsts was thinking, they've never directly engaged each other's statements, but seem to tag team off each other to pursue an identical agenda. Beyond this, Aryamahasattva only showed up after Forsts was told any more edit warring would lead to a ban.
Forsts, AA, and Aryamahasattva all speak in broken English (I assume their first language is Armenian), and have worse punctuation, so it's hard to get a feel for their style, since you never know what's a personal trait and what's a consequence of English as a second language. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect Aryamahasattva is a Forsts/AA sock, or at least a meatpuppet. AA is not the kind of person to let a ban get in his way. Thanatosimii ( talk) 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Thanatosimii, I'm not the banned user AA, and I'm not a meatpuppet. This is my first and only account I created in Wikipedia on January 2010. You can verify it and check the IP etc. Is this how Thanatosimii wins arguments in a discussion page like Talk:Mitanni. Right above here, I wrote to Dougweller regarding his and Paul_Barlows, (oh and not to mention Til_Eusispegiel's) comments regarding the historical context of the Petrie and Henry Hall sources. I myself am working on our history related pages also. If you look at my earliest edits, I tried to include my artwork in the Tigran the Great page. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm trying to create a page for the band Macklemore using non-trivial references to assert their notability, but since you have deleted a similarly-named article, etiquette dictates I ask you about it. May I ask what the problems with the previous article were, and might it be possible to see a copy of the deleted page? -- Hojimachong talk 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page a couple of days ago (even though the edited text was in a wikibreak template that is currently hidden and I just noticed the removed vandalism). Regardless, it had to be removed sometime by someone. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe Levin Zhang is another one of Yongle the Great's sockpuppets. I've reported him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levin Zhang. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on what I have posted here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to contact you via email? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I already posted cyrusace a comment as well. However the youtube link is afaik not a copyright violation itself, but a link to a potential copyright violation which is not quite the same though WP forbids the latter as well of course. Just mentioning that because the template you've posted to cyrusace userpage deals with "real" copyright violations and hence might confuse them.
There is a potential issue with the revert as well, as long as the content addition itself and the citation seem ok, there is no need to revert the whole edit, instead it is sufficient to remove the youtube link only.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller, I am not quite sure what you are trying to say at the above paragraph..! However, I got your message on my talkpage and will revise the text so it will not be a CR issue. Moreover, if you think that the text belongs to another section of the article other than "Politics and Management", then suggest one, as to be constructive, instead of reverting the whole thing. Other than that, the "Paradisia" gardens are historically an undeniable part of Cyrus' life and not having it in his article would be a major lack of information. Thanks. Cyrusace ( talk) 08:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I simply copied it from the user's talk page. Did I forget to change something? Surtsicna ( talk) 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Now I see, I forgot to change the archive parameter to User talk:Surtsicna/Archive1. That's why it did not actively archive anything. Is that the only thing I have to change to make the bot work? Surtsicna ( talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller this is Ararat_arev here. One of the first things that I did in Wikipedia when I joined in Dec. 3 2006 was upload the Mitanni seal [19]. Please, dont let them remove this. First of all I didnt even put the copyright template, the Copyright admin/handler User:Jkelly, who has won a lot of prizes for his work also, even a image of a king's crown for his work in Wikipedia, he is the one that put the correct Copyright template. At that time Thanatosimii was there, and he didnt attempt to put a disputed tag on it. The only reason he is putting this now is the edit wars I had with him recently, which is not a reason to remove the Image. Also, the explanation that he is giving in the discussion page of the Image doesnt even give any source of what he is saying, how do you even know he is not making it up? [20] Even if he is giving the right reasons, the copyright template that User:Jkelly put says, "In most cases..", before 1923. So this is the key part of the copyright template, it is not an issue, he is making this an issue because of other info about Eupolemus, and the Petrie source issues. He never attempted to remove this before, and now he decides because of what I explained just now. So please, verify the copyright more carefully, and if what he is saying is actually correct, or if he is making up reasons without sources to back it up. Please dont remove the Image. 76.250.10.97 ( talk) 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Please read the claim carefully,and then check the verse 34:31 you will what the writer is trying to tell.The word quran has been translated by Translator and not the word Book. Kitab, Quran, Tawrat, Injil are different words and have different meanings.in 34:31 The word Quran is written in Arabic Text of quran but one translator has translated it as scripture that is why people are taking his translation as reference where as the rest two translators have used the same word Quran in their tranlation. which should be the verifiable source ? the Abdullah yousuf ali or Pickthal and shakir? That is why it is very necessary to check and compare the translation with arabic text of quran , because Quran is in arabic and not written by translator. YUSUFALI: The Unbelievers say: "We shall neither believe in this scripture nor in (any) that (came) before it." Couldst thou but see when the wrong-doers will be made to stand before their Lord, throwing back the word (of blame) on one another! Those who had been despised will say to the arrogant ones: "Had it not been for you, we should certainly have been believers!" PICKTHAL: And those who disbelieve say: We believe not in this Qur'an nor in that which was before it; but oh, if thou couldst see, when the wrong-doers are brought up before their Lord, how they cast the blame one to another; how those who were despised (in the earth) say unto those who were proud: But for you, we should have been believers. SHAKIR: And those who disbelieve say: By no means will we believe in this Quran, nor in that which is before it; and could you see when the unjust shall be made to stand before their Lord, bandying words one with another! Those who were reckoned weak shall say to those who were proud: Had it not been for you we would certainly have been believers.[34:31].: Waqala allatheena kafaroo lannu/mina bihatha alqur-ani wala biallatheebayna yadayhi walaw tara ithi alththalimoonamawqoofoona AAinda rabbihim yarjiAAu baAAduhum ilabaAAdin alqawla yaqoolu allatheena istudAAifoolillatheena istakbaroo lawla antum lakunnamu/mineena
وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَن نُّؤْمِنَ بِهَذَ الْقُرْآنِا وَلَا بِالَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَلَوْ تَرَى إِذِ الظَّالِمُونَ مَوْقُوفُونَ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يَرْجِعُ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ الْقَوْلَ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا لِلَّذِينَ اسْتَكْبَرُوا لَوْلَا أَنتُمْ لَكُنَّا مُؤْمِنِينَ Yousuf Ali
The Unbelievers say: "We shall neither believe in this scripture nor in (any) that (came) before it." Couldst thou but see when the wrong-doers will be made to stand before their Lord, throwing back the word (of blame) on one another! Those who had been despised will say to the arrogant ones: "Had it not been for you, we should certainly have been believers!"
-- Farrukh38 ( talk) 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller,
Can you please explain to me, in more detail, why the Blombos Cave article by Umfiki (1. aug) was reverted? You mention copyright violation as the main reason, but where exactly does this occur? Who is violated?
The current, older version is too simplistic and at many places wrong. I can agree with you that the newer version might be somewhat dense, but at least its up to date and is correct. With some revising I this should be the article to keep..
IamGM ( talk) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
---
OK, you see I did not write the new article, Henshilwood did. So in a way he copied his own work. I am a student of his, and he was somewhat annoyed that his article was deleted, and asked me if I could check what had happened. Does this change anything in this case?
IamGM ( talk) 13:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
--- Yes, I see your points and and thank you for clarifying this. I will foreward your answer to Henshilwood and we will publish a new and correct one when time permits.
IamGM ( talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, according to his own exact words: "I own the copyright to all the Blombos material.", but I am not sure whether this would include papers published in Journals? Anyway, I will forward the last info to him as well and we will try to sort it out. As for the current article; first and foremost I think the first 3 paragraphs stand out as awful. Its badly written (a few sentence does not make sense) and there are several errors or simplifications:
1. "Limestone Cliff" - should be dune limestone cliff, aka calcarenite cliff. 2. "...two pieces ochre engraved with abstract designs" - there have been found additionally 13 pieces with engravings. 3. "The engraved pieces of ochre dated 70,000 BC" - A mean date of 77,000 years was obtained for the layers containing the two pieces of engraved ochres that were originally discoverd. With the new pieces its between 72-100KA. 4. "The date of engraved orche is not firmly confirmed" The chronology of Blombos Cave has been verified by 2 independent labs in two different continents (Europe & Australia) and is not generally challenged by any serious scientist.
The rest of the article is, as far as I can see, good enough, but lacks details about the latest finds.
IamGM ( talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) Since you're very familiar with this article I thought I'd try to save some time: does this look like a usable rewrite to you? It's up for review at CP. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Good catch, I completely missed them. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just em... trying to remember how... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
May I ask how much you actually know about the American theatre? Knowledge is the key here, not vandalism. InternetHero ( talk) 05:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Dougweller I'm just double confirming my intentions to remove the Latin style naming from the introduction of the Sulla and Marius articles. It will be moved to the infobox. What would be the best way to create a "full name" section in the info box above the date of birth? Once again sorry for hastily removing the references I did not intend this much time to lapse. -- Tataryn77 ( talk) 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Or else I'll get my friend to ge a new IP. InternetHero ( talk) 07:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey. I jut saw that you blocked that other sock of Wyvren. A few days ago I opened an SPI case for it, so maybe that case should be closed out? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your "M" thing: Yesterday I un-checked that in "My Preferences", but I'm so used to it that I clicked it, anyway. Anyway, I've been trying to fix that on Huggle, but I can't figure out how. If I un-check "reverts" in "Mark as minor" in the "Editing" tab in Huggle's "Options" section, it doesn't mark warnings as minor, but reverts stay marked a minor. The other issue is that when I close Huggle it doesn't save the changes. How can I fix this? - Donald Duck ( talk) 15:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd reverted those last changes at the Akins piece, and given the gist of them, figured it was Wyvren up to his old tricks. Glad you've blocked. Thanks. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of work needed on some articles and I very much appreciate the care and attention you're giving to some of the more challenging ones. I've started a new item on the talk page of one we discussed recently and I'm warming to one of your earlier suggestions about mergers Zagubov ( talk) 23:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem with the warning. But, please, note that my only revert is here [24]. Here I've deleted tried a new version [25], based on the conclusions in the talk page. D. reverted me. I tried something different [26], (see also [27]. D. reverted me. I did my 1st real revert, and D. rv me back. So 1 rv for me and 3 for D. And D. do not want to present sources. That my version. I repeat: no problem with you. All "warnings" are welcome. My only suggestion (if I can do suggestion) is: invite D. to present sources for his "POVs". See you around!-- IP IP Hurra! ( talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the link to the archive on Barry [ [29]]. It's obvious from his edits and his pointed attacks at me in particular that Barry is back. Smatprt ( talk) 22:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As the topic is covered in news as "alleged", a name change of the article would be sensible. I did add three two book sources to the article in question.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hallo. There is a big discussion (at least 4 years old) about Marco Polo birhplace. There are 2 claims:
User Brutal wants to impose a POV. This POV is to present the theory B as trust-able, on the same level of A, but he does not present sources. In the article is written that "the exact birthplace (of Marco) is unknown". That is no true: all the scholars says "born in Venice". Where does this claim come from? I was just asking a source. That why I've inserted CN tags, which are refused as a "POV" by my antagonist. With no discussion! Now, I', going (sadly) to start an edit war. This is the story (check here [31])
Now my antagonist was supposed to discuss in the article talk page, but he refuse. According to me he broke the rules So that: 8) Brutal revert me without discussion 9) I inform you (with this message) 10) I restore my edit.
Let me know if I did and if I do something wrong. Sorry for the disturb, but I have no aim to break rules. Thank you again.-- IP IP Hurra! ( talk) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This and this look like anyone we know? Vsmith ( talk) 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've left User:Meeso a message here [36] about the reversions to his preferred version, with the irrelevant info sourced to a letter to the editor. I'd rather not take him to Ani or 3rr if it can be avoided, but I'm not sure what else to do. I've probably hit 3rr myself, or will very soon if he re-inserts it. I'd appreciate any help you can give in dealing with this situation. Thanks and sorry to be a bother, lol. He iro 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
According to your edit summary, you reverted my good faith edit and said that you were going to move the comment to another page using Twinkle. But you didn't say where. Could you give me a link?-- *Kat* ( talk) 06:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I asked this of
Amory only to realize she was on vacation and unable to respond in a timely fashion, so my query falls to you:
Now that it's posted, if I have a comment on the merits of the
proposed decisions in the climate change arbitration, is it acceptable for me to post on the talk page there or is the discussion limited only to involved parties at this point? (I learned of the case too late to submit
prima facia evidence, but do have some relevant input)
--
K10wnsta (
talk)
21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Outrageous. Please do your research before you start throwing baseless accusations of plagarism. The article that I formatted clearly states that it comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. See the bottom: "This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain." There is even a Wikipedia template for this: {{JewishEncyclopedia}} Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Your response on my page:
My response on my page:
This could be Grundle. Unless I'm mistaken, this is a new user tagging new users' talks with sockpuppet. Also posted this at Iridescent. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot the link (as I am slow-witted). It was User talk:Jonas Grumby, who is now blocked. Sorry to bother you. I freaked because I didn't know if the new accounts were grundle-created or not. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You're an Administrator, right? Can you please tell User:Tryde to stop vandalizing my work just because he thinks subsisiary titles can only appear on the titles' articles and not on the holders' articles? It's arbitrary, it's destructive and it's not very smart either. He demanded a block above all!... Phoebus de Lusignan ( talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Mongo added a new section
It didn't go well (and I added a sharp comment wondering if people actually read Carcharoth's plea)
lateer, TS appeared to agree it was badly off-topic and archived it here
So far, so good.
But then I saw my post again, and attached to one of the statements. It appears MONGO resurrected his narrative from the archive and posted it as a statement. As far as I'm concerned, that's OK by me - I don't see the value, but that's not my call. However, it appears he resurrected it with all the attached comments. Now some might think that is not just polite, but required - however, it is quite clear that the statements are not supposed to contain threads or commentary " No discussion here (threaded or otherwise). Limit of 500 words (as at requests for arbitration)." A new visitor will think that several people are quite rudely ignoring that direction.
Can you take some action? I'm equally happen with re-archiving it, and inviting MONGO to make a statement, or excising all the comments, but I don't think it is my call to take that action.-- SPhilbrick T 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not really a subject I can imagine I'd be much help with, but I'd be willing to stick around. I can see there are some good editors who have an interest in the article- I'm sure if a few people were willing to throw a bit of time at it, it could improve drastically. What I can say is that if I remain fairly detached from it, I could be the one to offer a second GA review once some work has been done. J Milburn ( talk) 10:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I restructured a load of miscellaneous discussions under the existing case structure which had been proposed earlier in the case. As I've been asked to leave that kind of thing to clerks I'll do so from now on.
I suggest that it might be a good idea to try to keep the existing structure in place, and to aggressively archive discussions that don't have any contributions in the past 48 hours. The page is still a quite obscene 450kb in size and 400kb of that is in the discussion section. -- TS 14:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There are several edits made to Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll that to me seem like blatant original research and self promotion. I have tried to raise the problem of original research with the author but he persists. The "references" given for the statements are websites and blogs written by the author. I have looked to see if I can find any references to the claims made in the existing literature and cannot corroborate the claims made. An additional problem is that the edits are so badly written that the article becomes rather worse for wear (in my opinion). I do not feel like getting in an editing battle over something like this. Besides the fact that it's not appropriate, I feel that's a total waste of my time. Can you or another admin look at this? -- AnnekeBart ( talk) 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that most zoologists do not accept Cryptozoology as a legitimate branch of Zoology, however, if we are going to have the statement "Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of the science of Zoology" in the article, we need to have a source to back up that statement, otherwise it must be removed per WP:References.--Gniniv ( talk) 05:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:Verifiability, all statements should have backing that are challenged or likely to be challenged.....--Gniniv ( talk) 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Civility Award | |
Thanks for keeping cool in our debate despite POV realities! Gniniv ( talk) 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
Ok, thanks.
Dougweller (
talk)
09:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
A few days ago you extended the block for the puppeteer of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Squeezdot/Archive because they persisted in the error of their ways. Today, A-me-kaltner ( talk · contribs) appeared and quacked so convincingly that I blocked them indef. Do you think there is a basis for indef'ing Squeezdot at well? Favonian ( talk) 20:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Your help responding to this issue would be beneficial. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. This is, I think, the third time Minor4th has forced a full protection of the article.
FYI, I will be making a few editprotected requests over the next few days to make some (hopefully uncontentious) changes. -- ChrisO ( talk) 09:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Doug, you warned me, but I'm not "doing", I'm "undoing". Tony Sidaway has been collapsing sections for several days now based on his reading of relevance, and he's an involved editor in this case. He needs to stop clerking this case and leave it to the arbs and clerks themselves. ATren ( talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller: Please stop TS from clerking. Multiple people have complained. You may want to investigate prior history. TS was a clerk himself quite some time ago. No longer. If you cannot or will not stop TS from clerking, please do not complain when others undo his inappropriate actions. ++ Lar: t/ c 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Lar doesn't seem to have read my recent statement addressed to Carcharoth on my talk page. -- TS 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Please let me know if the change I made is acceptable. I don't want to be out of line. Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have absolutely no interest in the climate change fiasco, but coming from a BLP stance, this article clearly is biased - containing OR, selective quotations etc. I'm not quite understanding why you've reverted to a problematic article and protected. I realise there's an ongoing arbcom case (I've no dog in that fight), but we normally remove problematic BLP material pending consensus, we don't protect it until inhouse processed are complete. A quick glance at the case, and it seems to me this is precisely the type of BLP that's been a victim of agenda-pushing.-- Scott Mac 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a particularly difficult BLP and I think it might benefit from a stubbing. On one hand he presents himself as an "honorary" member of the House of Lords. On the other hand officials in charge of the Parliamentary seal have asked him to stop using a coat of arms resembling it and those in charge of the House of Lords have stated unequivocally that there is no such thing as an honorary member, and he's not a member and has never been a member of the House of Lords. On the science, there is a similar, even more humiliating story. Getting consensus on the details within the context of our BLP needs patience, but it could perhaps be done if the article was started from scratch. -- TS 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you commented here. I'm going offline now so I don't have a moment to take care of this. Feel free to just remove with my permission. I have nothing there that is that important. Thanks for letting me know. I just iVoted because there was one there and I wanted to make sure my opinion as an outsider was known. Thanks again, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I went back and looked at the section where you told me to remove my vote. I note that there are several editors there who have "voted" on varioua proposals, but it seems you only advised me and Greg and Cla68 to remove our votes. Am I mistaken? If not, why would you only make that instruction to a handful of editors and not everyone who voted? Minor 4th 18:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing Wis's recent personal attack against me at Talk: The Political Cesspool and warning him about it. I looked through his edit history and found that he has a long history of posting inflammatory statements about Jews and Arabs on article talk pages; I posted links to some of them here. The fact that he would accuse me of being a "raving splc zionist" comes as no surprise given his previous behavior. Stonemason89 ( talk) 19:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Pls comment here: Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Very_disappointed after my 21:36 post. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, Globalreach1 back for more abuse. I have spent much time looking at the history and Santilli on Wikipedia and I think I know why he is such a lightning-rod for posts lacking neutrality from pundits (fuscilla) and editors (rubin) alike. There seems to have been a pattern from both parties of totally one sided comments. I am working through them now and have made some progress with your support, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalreach1 ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doug, i just got your message. I'll try and address your concerns because i do not think the article i created in question should be deleted considering its huge archeological importance to Ecuador. Im new to Wikipedia and ive tried to follow all the rules ive read so far, so im sorry if ive inadvertantly broken any.
I started writing the Punay article about five weeks ago or so and kept the draft on my userspace page until i thought it was of high enough quality to post, i wasn't aware there was a way to get someone to proof read it. To write the draft i not only spent considerable time looking at the format of similar archeological sites and trying to replicate them, reading the article development turotials, but also trawling through obscure and popular Ecuadorian websites in Spanish and translating it into English.
The photo i took myself and released under the creative commons, i hope to upload more of my photos of the pyramid soon including ones of the desecration of the pyramid, its really sad that because the Ecuadorian Government does not have the money to promote tourism to the temple and protect it we have people (mainly poor farmers in the surrounding villages) going to the temple and digging holes in it in hope that they can find gold and artifacts they can sell on the international black market.
So much has already been robbed from the pyramid and we really have no idea how to save whats left other than trying to increase an awareness of its existence on sites like wikipedia and sacredsites.com in the hope that the increase in international awareness will make the Ecuadorian government realise its importance and invest the money to excavate and protect the temple. Had any similar desecration happened in Egypt or Macchu Picchu there would be an international outcry but unfortunately this place is not as well known yet (as i wrote in the article it was only discovered in 2002)
with regards to the conflict of interest, you are right there, i am an australian living in ecuador working for the non-profit volunteer agency www.ecuadorecovolunteer.org which has close ties with the ecotourism agency www.ecuadorecoadventure.com, one of only two companies that take people to the pyramid and protect it from grave robbers because the government has not yet stepped up. i am only one person, Jake Ling, but i can see the wisdom in using my real name instead of the username ecuadorecoadvice because its more professional, i have worked as a journalist in australia and i really enjoyed writing this article and hope to develop it further more information becomes available. I'm assuming by talk pages you mean the one that says 'Discussion'? Do i just put Ecuadorecoadvice ( talk) 19:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Jake Ling and nothing else?
in one of my very last edits of the article which i made today i can see the conflict of interest, ill quote it:
"In 2003 Eudoro Flores the former mayor of the nearby city of Chunchi was noted as saying "If you want gold, go to Puñay" but added he was impelled to promote the place for tourism to help its conservation and prevent grave robbers from further desecrating the site.[6] In 2010 Audrey Rose Goldfarb of Portland Oregon in conjunction with the ecotourism company Ecuador Eco Adventure took the first camera crew to Puñay as part of a documentary on "The Hidden Secrets of Ecuador" to promote the pyramid as a site of great archeological importance to help protect it from further desecration. The documentary is currently in post production. [7]"
i added "in conjunction with the ecotourism company ecuador eco adventure" today along with the photo i uploaded (i had written the majority of the the article about three weeks ago) now while i believe that this company that has been trying to protect the pyramid deserves a bit of a pat on the back for their efforts you are right that it creates a conflict of interest. i believe however there is nothing else i wrote in the article that is biased other than that sentence, should we delete everything from: "In 2010 Audrey Rose Goldfarb of Portland...." onwards to preserve the non-partisan nature of the article at least until the documentary has been released and is available for download? neither Audrey or ecuadorecoadventure will mind, they dont even know i wrote this wiki yet.
i hope i have made myself and my intentions clear and that you will reconsider deleting this article and i look forward to contribute to the wikipedia community in the future :)
cheers, jake
Hey Doug,
i believe there wont be a problem with this article reaching notability, it is one of (if not the) biggest archeological finds of the decade, if you already checked out most of the references i put on the article they lead to big Ecuadorian news sites like http://www.explored.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/el-punay-guarda-los-secretos-de-la-edad-de-la-tierra-170286-170286.html
here is the spanish and english translation: "arqueológicos en la cima del cerro Puñay, en Chimborazo, podrían ser los más antiguos del país." - ENGLISH: archeological remains on the peak of the mountain Punay in Chimborazo could be the most ancient in the country.
"Las pirámides truncadas que se descubrieron anteriormente formarían parte de un gran complejo en forma de una guacamaya (animal mítico de la cultura Cañari)" ENGLISH: the truncated pyramids that were discovered were once a part of a great complex in the form of a Macaw (sacred animal to the Cañari)
from another big ecuadorian site: http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/el-cerro-punay-si-fue-un-centro-ceremonial-186113-186113.html
"De acuerdo a la investigación, la pirámide sería una de las más grandes del mundo y con la particularidad de encontrarse en la cima de una montaña, -- ENGLISH: "Its true that in the investigation, the pyramid may be one of the biggest in the entire world with the peculiar attribute that it is found on the peak of a mountain"
"sus dimensiones son gigantes. Tucumera (Señor de Sipán), que se encuentra en el Perú, es considerada la más larga del planeta, y el Puñay lo supera con 120 metros más" -- ENGLISH: "the dimensions are giant. Tucamera (Sir of Sipan) that is found in Peru is considered to be the largest on the planet, this Puñay surpasses it by 120 meters"
--- So i hope the people who do review this are able to read the Spanish references, because in my opinion one of the biggest pyramids ever constructed by human beings on the planet is somewhat notable and worthy of wikipedia :)
---
with regards to the documentary, i know that the film Audrey has just completed (different to the documentary) is being shown in cinemas in Portland Oregan, i have no idea if the documentary will be broadcasted or not. but that doesn't matter as ive already deleted that paragraph to persevere the non-partisan integrity of the article.
---
if i have seven days before its up for review ill endeavor to search the 12 pages of results on google for Puñay to find more info thats from news outlets instead of tourist blogs etc, and ill ask around at the University Politecnica of Chimborazo which did the original excavations and measurements about any hard copy archeological findings that surely must exist somewhere offline.
thanks for the advice, time to get researching ;)
````jake ling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecuadorecoadvice ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Doug, thank you for your omniscient judgments on Wikipedia... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess he changed the numbers of the Lombards from those of the primary source (Paulus the Deacon) to those esitmated by modern historians (as Jurgen Jarnut), and the same in the other voices, probably one should explain to Amodio how to edit correctly the voices with appropriate references and explanation of his reasons Cunibertus ( talk) 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
On my talk page, you state "the article is promoting a commercial site, which is why I removed the links", but that is not what you said in edit notes at the time of making the edits: you cast doubt on the very existence of the feature in your editnotes. The article has evidence from a government department and a tertiary education institute. Apart from anything else, leaving the links allows people to contribute to the AfD discussion, which seems desirable: isolating the article under discussion can only impoverish the input to the decision. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
HI, I guess this edit (and most of the history of that particular article) is a spillover from the CC case. I'm not really following that, but I thought I should bring this to the attention of a sysop familiar with that case. -- Crusio ( talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
As a former clerk, one of the first draft, I don't envy you. A few days ago I remarked on the then-obscene size, at over 400kb, of the discussion page on the climate page arbitration proposed decision, and made a couple of suggestions to alleviate the problem.
Since then the page has doubled in size. This will continue.
Would it not be feasible to split the discussion into structured subpages? I think it would have been better to do so much earlier, so perhaps in this arbitration case it isn't going to happen. But perhaps bear it in mind for future cases that may turn up (and I hope you don't ever run into a more controversial case than this). Careful consideration of case page structure may pay dividends. -- TS 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry that's turned out the way it has. I really hoped James would follow my advice and it wouldn't escalate further. The thing is, I had this exact conversation regarding sourcing and communication with him back in February, so it's not like this is a new issue.-- Cúchullain t/ c 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the one noted at ANI, the obvious one is Steelhaven which is currently at DRV. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemesis (Transformers) fooled an admin until a bit of meatpuppetry was pointed out to them. There's a few more on the go at the moment, which I'm keeping an eye on. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Just wondering why I can't make references to my own work? If I am the person who has complete bibliographies of this on my website, and it would seem useful to users. I've been working on this stuff for 30 years, and the website is based on a book published in the 1990s by Garland. Happy to do this as it should be done. Just let me know. Thanks. Egardiner0 ( talk) 13:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)egardiner0
Thanks. I did check that page out (somewhat after the fact), but I will go back and make some notes about what I'm doing and why, and I'll be more conscious in the future about how I do this. Thanks for calling my attention to it. Egardiner0 ( talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Egardiner0
Can you please take a look at this and if you agree, hat that divergent section off? ATren ( talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw your message on Bgalleg's talk page regarding my sock puppetry accusation. I've already posted a request at SPI. The editing patterns are identical. My theory is that the puppet master created the user:Cumanche account before the name change was denied and simply stopped using the user:Bgalleg account. Lechonero ( talk) 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
When you are in a content dispute you should not be reverting labelling something as vandalism. Pico explained why he removed the section, it wasn't vandalism. Dougweller ( talk) 07:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll say it doesn't follow Wikipedia rules or that I'm to sentimental about the issue, but should we put some header in article Battle of Marathon to mark 2,500th anniversary of that battle (till September 10)? It's kind of unique opportunity in lifetime. ;) -- 93.142.146.26 ( talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)
haha good point! I think I'll write a separate article about Kab and Judaism. Because, although it has existed within Judaism, it's not a part of it. Judaism is a religion based on kabbalah. Thanks a lot for your help. Workin' on it together :) Lechaim66 ( talk) 16:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In some cases he is adding links - this is inoccuous enough. But I have not yet found his content to square with my knowlege o the field and he is not citing the major authorities - on Kabbalah, Martin Buber, Gerschon Scholem, Arthur Green, Daniel Matt, Moshe Idel, Betty Rojtmann ... a GREAT article will require contributors who know the works of these scholars and can cite them and use them in context. An edit that uses one of these people as a source is at least a significant iew. I do not know this literature, I just know these guys are the experts and if we had an article improvemenmt drive it would be by people using these sources. But Lechaim is not only not using these sources, and not providing sources, he is basicaly taking arcane claims made by the most fringe views and presenting them as truth. Feel free to cut and paste anything I wrote at Wikiproject. I think the article as it exists is actually prety good but the road to improvement would be including these shcolars' views, not personal fringe theories. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you chimed in over at this talk page a few days ago. I've been trying to work patiently to explain this issue with Jimmyjam as well as a related issue of citing his new additions to the text. He rarely responds, usually only after I've left several messages. I don't think I'm getting through. We've already had one minor edit war, where we both reached 3rr. I took it to the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Pine Bluff, Arkansas to try and get some outside input several days ago, but haven't gotten any responses. I'm trying to avoid WP:ANI and work with this editor, as I realize they are relatively new and inexperienced with our editing procedures and policies. But per this note on my talk page [40] ( I responded here on their talk) I think they may assume I'm just screwing with them. I dont want this to come off as my one man war against this editor and drive them from the project. Any help you could give would be appreciated, I believe they could be a valuable asset to the 'pedia. He iro 00:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the harassment on my
talk page by
User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being involved in the SPI in question and know that we were cleared. I would hope that you can warn him off this subject, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on the Admins that make difficult blocks list - the ones that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards,
GregJackP
Boomer!
05:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Re [41]. I've no doubt you've done the right thing, but it would be nice to know your authority for so doing. Personal email? IRC? I can't see any on-wiki evidence, though I could easily have missed it. I've put a section on the case talk page William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs)
Is so unseemly. [42] Could you please put an end to it? Jehochman Talk 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller,
Yes, I am frustrated with you and your czar circle of Wikipedia editors. While I have been making some changes now for a few months to articles which needed grammatical improvements, I am new to the Wikipedia process. Learning the citation process is tedious as it does not easily correlate to a simple APA style. Also, I am just learning to navigate these talk boards to provide responses to persons like yourself. Hence, there has been a delay in both responding to questions and providing citations for material over the last three days. Nonetheless, my intention has been to do so because I want the articles strengthened and I want more clarity on the process.
My primary interest is in my hometown, Pine Bluff, Arkansas and the Arkansas Delta. Your last reversion back to the previous czar's format excluded a number of prominent citizens in the history of our city. More than any pruning of descriptions, I am totally perplexed and angered by the omission of persons relevant to our local history. For example, the last edit excludes Isaac Scott Hathaway. He has a building in the city named after him because of his accomplishments. Another exclusion from this previous edit is Jeff Donaldson who is the first African American in his field to achieve a Ph.D and whose works are displayed at major art galleries all over the country. Several others were excluded as well with notable backgrounds.
I am unclear on what Wikipedia's "notable persons" standard is now. How can individuals outside a community determine its relevant or notable leaders without assistance? I worked at great length to add names to the Notables list which had been started before I came along. I made sure the people I incorporated had some sort of relevant accomplishments or distinctions in their fields and also had Wikipedia articles already established.
You folks make well intended individuals like myself want to simply leave Wikipedia and let you have it. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will withhold my comments regardng the "John Horse" article as it is assumed that all of my source information for that article lacks credibility based on the feedback provided in an earlier post.
Anyway, I am rambling and you all have other strike missions to engage.
Thanks,
Jimmy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmyjam ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You guys need to stop deleting the real history. Not sure why you guys keep thinking you know what you are deleting. Malik Tajuddin was the founder of the APP and I added the history as per his words. You keep editing it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalik786 ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read carefully beforehand. I posted a reply to someone else who'd complained about being blocked. I agree that that person had posted the remarks in the wrong place, & have no objection to your deletion. Peter jackson ( talk) 08:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed you're one of those people who prefer replies in the same place. Peter jackson ( talk) 08:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you have a look at the current situation on the CC talk page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision.
M4th has taken it upon himself to hat the discussion there [45] - I object to this; and there is no reason for M4th to do so.
Further, M4th has re-inserted the PA in the section header [46] and introduced one against me [47]. I'd like those removed William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read the "discussion" User:Kauffner has started here. Despite my response, a posting to the BLP noticeboard, and a warning issued by an editor from the noticeboard, Kauffner persists. Am I within my rights to remove the entire discussion from Kagan's talk page? No one else has. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for the message on my page. Not sure if it's automated, or you sent personally, but either way thanks lol. I was wondering if you could just give me your top 5 tips (or so) you would give a new Wikipedia contributor. It all seems so overwhelming and that remembering all the polices and their application, etc could be daunting. Thanks for any help you can give! SuperAtheist ( talk) 22:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Can you ban this fellow [ [49]]. I really think there needs to be power to ban such a user on first sight. There are patriotic users than there are simply illogical nationalist users like this one. Thank you-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
any chance you can tell me which revision has been revoked?````glyncharles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyncharles ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Due to a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV, an editor trying to "balance" the fringe vs. mainstream views has since become entrenched in a slow edit war. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology.--Gniniv ( talk) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard ( talk) 07:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [50], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller
you have just reverted my edits on the Aubrey Circle, you say because of lack of verifiable references. Would you please do me the courtesy of being more explicit.I have numerous published references in support of my edits but tried to be concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David gregg ( talk • contribs)
About my edit to the article on baramin ;for the record, I do not make edits,for the fun of it,but rather to maintain objectivity and neutrality, as much as possible. Sochwa ( talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried to avoid it... but it seems this issue was brought to ANI for me. I just wanted to inform you of the ANI report. If you wish to take part, you're more than welcome. All the best, Jess talk| edits 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought I might revert [51] but then thought I'd take my own advice [52]. Could you take a look? Thanks, William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
Do you know any reliable Persian Admins or contributors who may be able to identify this plant? If there is a wiki article on it, it would be helpful. My google translate search turns up the strange word 'Byba' whatever that means but I can't add cats to it on Commons so it remains unused. If you can't help, that's OK. Goodnight from Canada, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Kudos for an appropriately neutral pointer to the WT:AfD discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I will support you if you wish to take further action againt Colon-el-Nuevo and his other guises. - Eb.hoop ( talk) 16:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Scope is a sensible discussion rapidly turning into silliness. Could you had the fluff, please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
text moved to Talk:Chuck Missler. Dougweller ( talk) 15:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
From genetics articles on my watchlist I notice a User:Desertscorpio who has only made edits which revert one other user.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doug. Sorry have been offline a whiles, so only now have picked up on your request to look into here. I've added what comments / findings I can to the discussions at Talk:Puñay. An interesting one; while there is perhaps a tale here (not the one in the article originally), it's not clear there'd be sufficient notability if the story is recast, as I feel it should be. Have suggested some options at the AfD also. Cheers, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I see the article's been kept now as 'no consensus'. The orig contributor Jake/Ecuadorecoadvice seems fine with the idea to change article focus to the place itself and qualify/put into proportion the pyramid claims, so hopefully something more solid can be worked out.
ps. Looks like Aguirre's presentation to the Ecuadoran arch. conference is included in the published proceedings (Memorias de los Encuentros Nacionales III de "Arqueología" y IV de "Antropología" "Nela Martínez Espinosa", 2007). I missed it before as was looking at the wrong vol., the proceedings were published in two parts. See this snippet from googlebooks [55]. From what I can see the info, even some of the wording, is along the same lines as the reporting in those Hoy articles. But its appearance in the proceedings doesn't say anything as to how it was received, or whether the claims check out or not, of course. It's still info from the same/only claimant, nothing corroborating as yet. Cheers, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I wondered if you'd mind weighing in on the Talk page of the Yale Debate Association. An editor is insisting that the Yale Debate team and the Yale Political Union are the same thing. Thanks much. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller. Thanks for your message. I have no idea whom this Desertscorpio might be. Probably some IP vandal I reverted and who came back with a grudge. His only goal seems to revert me, that's quite obvious, since some of the edits he reverted were only just clean up ( such as this). Given that his 1st edit was in Spanish language I suspect he is an editor with some POV on that issue, namely the question of the Philippines being a Spanish speaking country. It might be that he is even a sock of Qidrusselle? This is just a though, not an accusation.
By the way, regarding the Cervantes source about the Philippines, long time ago I had several discussions at the Commons (about world maps of the Spanish language) were this question came up. I researched the stuff and my reply can be seen here.
Again, thanks for your concern. I'll try to keep an eye on this. The Ogre ( talk) 12:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for moving my complaint re Barry Wellman to ANI. The unWP para (BLP, Outing, Research) by an IP user has already been deleted by Admin Black Kite, who also deleted the possibly-associated attempt by User:MultimediaGuru]] to delete the entire article under AFD. So, this issue may be moot -- for now. I have no way of knowing (without a chkuser) if these almost simultaneous moves were from the same users Bellagio99 ( talk) 12:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It's very clear that for some reason, there are forces working to keep the Bosnian pyramids from being espoused as genuine pyramids. There is sufficient evidence which is very detailed, but I see none of it on the page. I would like to edit it, but I know you would just cite me as uninformed, and undo everything I add. Therefor, I believe it only fair that both sides should be presented. One section labeled as evidence against (which to me is hear-say because no formal expedition of outside archeologists has summoned up the courage to swallow their pride and investigate), and one section labeled as evidence for (which, I was a skeptic until I watched footage of the excavation process, and the structural foundation of the "hill" does not resemble anything I have naturally seen). It is my conclusion that the research published on Wikipedia is biased against the observable, and replicable, facts indicated by his research. And yes, just you know, he has a Ph.D in history, 2 B.A.s, and one Master's degree. Please feel free to e-mail me (joshuatorelli@att.net), as I know from experience that editing an article comes with complications, and I would like to work with you in regards to the subject content of the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.155.105 ( talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
To help clean up the Yogi Bhajan series? I tried working on the main article a few times, but the SPAs are relentless. I've sought the help of a few others but a couple tried and left, a couple looked and knew better. It was initially just two articles, Harbhajan Singh Yogi and 3HO that resembled a fansite, but now the problem is going across many articles (just see what links to the main ones), with a lot of these fringy thingies getting too much visibility on other articles, and sometimes articles of their own. If you have the time and interest to work on this set, I can give you some background info. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller, sorry to disturb you, but there seems to be another one. It's user Rondovenezziano... The Ogre ( talk) 09:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I don't know where he gets that stuff from, but it is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH if I ever saw one. I tried to read the House of Keglević but got a headache after a couple of paragraphs. I cannot make head or tails of it, as his English is atrocious and the text itself incoherent. I didn't check the citations, but if it is anything like here, it will be full of (deliberate?) misquotations and errors, interspersed with irrelevant passages. Either this is some kid trying to write a fantasy essay on his family, or a deliberate hoax. Given that he is active in the Croatian version too, I suspect the former. I'd definitively support reverting this crap to this version, preferably even deleting the article and then re-creating it from scratch. Constantine ✍ 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
He's removed most of the blatantly outlandish claims, but problems still remain. Since he uses chiefly old German sources, I tried a search of my own for the family (with the variants "Keglewitsch" and "Keglevich"), and found several short mentions of some of its members. The subject definitively has substance ( [56]), but given Budija's track record he's not the one to write it. Constantine ✍ 23:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on RMP 43 and RMP 47 ... TOO BUSY for Wikipedia ... Milogardner ( talk) 12:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The 2 or 3 new paragraphs are heavily reliant on just 2 authors, which is a bit biased by its nature. I don't want to discourage people from editing though - I might drop him a note suggesting he cut it back to 1 para, expand his sources, and go for tertiary sources instead of primary ones. The sources he uses are good in themselves, but I think our editor, like so many (the majority?) is trying to discover The Truth instead of just reflecting the range of views. PiCo ( talk) 01:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
H Doug, I had a quick question. On the admin noticeboard re the Eversman discussion you commented "This bothers me a bit coming so shortly after the notice, but it's hopefully a coincidence." I'm wondering what notice you were referring to. Thanks. Spangle ( talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In regard to this [57]. I just got the message, I've been extremely busy, then had to deal with some flooding and now I'm traveling. I will get to the request and cut back the statement as soon as I can.
However, the simple reason why my statement is long is because it is a response to Skapperod's own very long statement (about 2000 words by my count), which he has been making even longer recently - and for sake of clarity I quote him in several places. Could you please ask Skapperod to cut back his statement as well so that I know what I'm responding to? radek ( talk) 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, I follow the bot instruction and look into the tag page, but i dont understand, anyway please tell me how to add license for existing upload image. Thanks for your help. Kungkang ( talk) 02:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller,
It seems that you removed two links that I added. These are simply for more information about Anastasius Sinaita (also called Anastasios of Sinai) and his important work the Hexaemeron. The external sites are intended primarily for students and scholars.
More importantly, the information about the Hexaemeron has disappeared from the Wiki page. That is one of his most important works. If there seems to be some copyright infringement with the Anastasios of Sinai site, don't worry: I'm the author of that.
Please let me know what else I can do - or should do - to add these informative links and to put back the paragraph about the Hexaemeron on the Wiki page.
Thanks for your help,
Clementkuehn ( talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementkuehn ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller,
I'm sorry about the crossed emails and for taking your time. I will look at the link that you suggested about copyrights. We'll see what we can do to set this right.
Thanks for your patience,
Clementkuehn ( talk) 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller,
I have changed the problem paragraph on the Hexaemeron and made it original. At the end, I still make a reference to my book, where such topics are discussed, in order to avoid any copyright questions.
Can I put back the two links to my outside websites? They contain more extensive information about the author and his works: but the wording is now different.
Thanks again for your careful eye. I am impressed by your comment: "It's been confusing from an outsider's point of view (ie you've copied stuff from other sources and cited it to your work)." As an author of books and websites, I do respect your vigilance.
Clement Clementkuehn ( talk) 17:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
I don't want to become a burden. But I guess I could use your advice and guidance here. I read the Conflict of Interest article and I also think I understand your copyright concerns. I am the author of most of the Wikipedia article Anastasius Sinaita, and also the author of the websites to which I link. I am also the editor of the book to which I refer. I work closely with Rev. Dr. Joseph Munitiz and am in frequent communication with the other Anastasian scholars. So you will find similar ideas and vocabulary in the external websites, the books, and the Wiki article.
But I do want to do things right here. I have changed the wording in the Wiki Anastasius Sinaita article a bit, to make it more original. Please let me know if I should still make further adjustments.
And again I am sorry for my obfuscations. I am trying to learn to be an upstanding Wiki citizen.
Clementkuehn ( talk) 02:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Dougweller,
Before you get mad at me please let me assure you that my comments to you here is humor only.
Best regards,
68.197.144.38 ( talk) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Best I can remember, I haven't seen the variant "Diʿamat" before. But I'm not surprised: every proper name related to Ethiopia has a lot of variant spellings, if not variant names. One example is "Addis Ababa" vs. "Addis Abeba", but also "Finfinne". BTW, thanks for fighting the good fight against the crazies. -- llywrch ( talk) 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)