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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

The material was covered in other areas. Eg:

Sitchin's research contradicts evolution and biblical accounts'

Scientific and Biblical arguments against Sitchin are discussed in the criticism section

with his translation about a space age advanced human race called the Anunnaki gods'

The Annunaki are mentioned (and linked) in the lead

with an appearance of an elongated rear skull

As far as I'm aware, Sitchin never made this claim.

who were the first humans who came from another world and gave birth to humans on Earth in their image.

This is wrong. The Annunaki were not human, according to Sitchin

History best told in - The Lost Book Of Enki.

And the eleven other books by Sitchin?

Serendi ^pod ous 16:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I misunderstood, I thought you meant in another article. Does he have 11 books now? I think the skull thing is probably the editor thinking of the Starchild skull. We can see he/she is confused anyway. Dougweller ( talk) 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 03:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw the helpme, and tried to get the user to make a draft first. I also pointed them to BLP. I really should've talked about good sourcing, since that was mentioned - but that's easily something that could've been refined at the draft level. I see that I watchlisted the draft, and that it was not used at all - they stampeded straight to the mainspace. So, looking at the whole picture, I don't think the username should be ignored, nor should the article stand. G4 might do it, or another AFD, or maybe userfy it into a draft (which they should've done in the first place). My interaction here was minor indeed - have at. Thanks for the consult, btw. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 04:51, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Hello Doug. Regarding your reversion of my edits I would be grateful if you would explain in what way the edit suggested that Cremo's opinions were facts. You also say that my description of Forbidden Archeology is inaccurate. In what way is the description inaccurate? thanks 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 19:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at the article's talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 20:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A response to your comments has been posted. 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 02:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask for your views on the restoration of this PA [1]? (and indeed if you agree that it is a PA). I'd be grateful for some advice as to how to proceed. Note that I brought this to the attention of the user but he didn't wish to talk [2] William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WMC makes blatant personal attacks above it: He accuses me of supposedly having sockpuppets, he claims I'm lying about consensus (while refusing to participate in the thread that shows consensus), and he claims I'm acting bizarrely. Yet he apparently has the right to censor me, while leaving his own attacks up? Further, I have told WMC never to post to my talk page, and srtrongly object to him insisting on doing so anyway. I don't want to hear anything he has to say after all the time he's spent Wikistalking and harassing me. Also, while I have no beef against you, I don't think it appropriate for WMC to ask specific admins to judge; if he wishes to complain, he should go to ANI and take his chances, not use some network of contacts in order to try and push the balance in his direction. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I will remind you that according to Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." - such as WMC's implication of sockpuppetry, or for that matter, almost every other thing he says or implies in his entire statement - and "Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor." - which he has attempted in the past, (this isthe reason I am unwilling to give him any leeway, because I don't trust him, due to his grossly unethical behaviour and attempts to run me off Wikipedia by trying to locate personal information about me to use against me) - are both defined as personal attacks. Using a rude word for emphasis, when an editor is refusing to engage in discussion, but instead blindly reverting, is not. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have plenty of experience watching both editors, since we all share a common subject area of interest. One of them respects the idea of consensus and collaborative nature of the project even when they are in disagreement with another editor capable of discussing the disagreement civilly. The other holds contempt for editors who don't agree with them, even when the disagreeing editor is being civil. Can the editor who views with contempt those outside their own world view be topic banned? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 04:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring on a talk page is never a good idea. But I see that KimDabelsteinPetersen has said that WMC's comments weren't personal attacks. IMHO saying 'fucking views' just makes the editor saying that look stupid. Just stop the edit-warring or it will go to ANI. Dougweller ( talk) 05:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that Kim claiming that an unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry is not a personal attack is nonsense. That an editor who disagrees with me thinks that WMC should be allowed to continue to attack me does not have the slightest bearing on whether WMC's action is right. Kim is wrong. utterly, completely wrong. 86.** IP ( talk) 06:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No that wasn't the reason. I checked Jesus and Moses pages i did not see a section titled "criticism of Jesus" even though there is a main article with the same title. Either somebody include a briefing of the criticism of Jesus and Christianity in the main article as well or just remove the tablet from Mohammed's page..

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendite ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. However, see WP:OTHERSTUFF which also applies here. That's not an acceptable reason to remove material in my opinion and that of many other editors. Take it up at the talk page, or add a summary of those articles to the main articles. I've added it as a see also to Jesus with an edit summary, and you are wrong about Moses, the criticism article is summarised there. Dougweller ( talk) 05:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw this by chance. No big deal, I will add a criticism of Jesus section the same size as the Muhammed section, so we will be equal op criticizers... History2007 ( talk) 11:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You're a better person to do this than me. :-) Dougweller ( talk) 11:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggested a bot User_talk:Blevintron#A_new_bot_based_on_what_you_already_have. That user has some nice code for it. Now, I think we should make a list for that user if he accepts it. And then get the lists through several projects, then it will spread to other projects, I hope. History2007 ( talk) 11:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comments on Moret Talk Page. I am the one who has researched Moret in more depth than anyone, but I am considered an "original source" so I have not been able to reference the public record act requests that I have made. I am of firm belief that Moret and Christopher Busby are both self-promoters who do not deserve Wikipedia entries. Busby does have a PhD and does have a Visiting Assistant Professor appointment to the University of Ulster, but that just provides academic cover for his snale oil sales. Moret plays the part of being a genuine scholar to the hilt provided that no one in the audience has any kind of scientific education to confront her wild claims. Here is what I just posted to Merewyn's Talk Page

Leuren K Moret

You asked if Leuren Moret has a PhD degree. She does not; she dropped out of the UC Davis doctoral program in Geology in the mid-1980's. I have an e-mail from the Department confirming that fact. Moret has done NO independent scientific research. She was given co-authorship of three papers by two UC Berkeley doctoral candidates, now both former Department Heads of major universities. I will gladly correspond with you or anyone else interested in Moret. My information is not posted on Wikipedia because I am considered the original source since I am the one who made the California Public Records Act request to Lawrence Livermore and I am the one who has found and corresponded with her former peers. I have deep intererst in Moret, Douglas Lind Rokke, Rosalie Bertell, Asaf Durakovic, Christopher Busby and the entire group that I have come to call the anti-depleted uranium jihadists. All of them have also morphed into being experts on Fukushima because that is where the money and attention are now. DUStory dash owner at yahoo groups dot com Rhotel1 ( talk) 22:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Am I right that like me you were canvassed? Personally I don't particularly want to go near it, despite the feeling that something should be done for an editor standing for non-WPfringe positions. Are there any univolved WPians you can think of who have enough knowledge to tell what is WP:Fringe and WP:Fanboy in this area and have clean hands? In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure canvas is the right word, see [3] which is I think what you are talking about. I'm not sure, History2007? I used to but am out of touch and would like to stay that way. :-). Thanks for the earlier compliment by the way. Dougweller ( talk) 11:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had two approaches, I would consider John's message compeletely reasonable collegiate advice. I think we're thin generally on all these areas. I myself am also not that interested, but as I said feeling that something should be done for an editor standing for non-WPfringe positions. Sloth will no doubt win out. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Redmeatfordogs ( talk · contribs)

Their contribs so far do not seem constructive, and seem as if they are trying to push some kind of agenda, although I'm not altogether sure what that could be. Their favorite pasttime seems to be to change locations and ethnic groups in cited material and infoboxes ( [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). They seem to be up to no good, but it may just be noobishness. He iro 05:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet, but I've been watching - and I see other editors are reverting this one also. Dougweller ( talk) 11:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. Would you minding taking a quick look at a discussion on my talk page here User talk:CactusWriter#Dance Moms? It concerns the sourcing for information for a reality television show: whether or not the cast bios can be sourced only to episodes or that they require independent reliable sourcing as BLPs. I am certain this must have been discussed before, but I haven't been able to find an exact policy or even a consensus on this issue. Do you know if one exists? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User has continued to disruptively edit after previous block and warnings.

[9] [10] [11] [12]
Best Wishes Ankh. Morpork 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller ( talk) 10:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted your comment on his talk page, I am hoping he may learn to understand consensus, something I attempted to make him see. He appears to be deeply affected by the many injustices that people have suffered, and that seems to blind him to the necessity to behave well here. I agree he may need to be blocked, and hope this is done swiftly if necessary, but I hope we may yet educate him to work here with quiet calmness and a sense of collegiate purpose. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet, but your hopes showed good faith. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiaxar/Archive. Dougweller ( talk) 11:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I had fond hopes that he was not as he seemed. Ah well. He does his people a disservice. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 12:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I see he likes you. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 14:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we're great friends. :-) Dougweller ( talk) 14:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 04:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this article really ready for prime time? I realize that there are probably good sources available to use, but the primary editor isn't using them. Viriditas ( talk) 06:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Humanity and extraterrestrial intelligence#Exopolitics. Looks like some funny business going on here. Viriditas ( talk) 06:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit pretty much gives the game away. Game over? Viriditas ( talk) 06:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest doing about it (other than removing the link)? Dougweller ( talk) 06:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, although you probably already know who was the primary contributor to exopolitics. Seems like someone is having a bit of fun, or not. Viriditas ( talk) 06:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is the same editor, I don't see any problems with having a new account. The old one was abandoned so far as I can see. Dougweller ( talk) 15:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I made this report on Friday on the edit-warring noticeboard which has not been adjudged. I would appreciate if you could adjudicate it as you see fit.
Best Wishes Ankh. Morpork 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stale now, but the advice given is good, "If you can focus on a specific issue, consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options you might consider." Dougweller ( talk) 09:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...so things like the MfD for Jimbo's userpage are OK. Remember, we go by GMT here.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dang. So how about Six-Sided Puns then? Unblock him I guess? Dougweller ( talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Of course, if we aren't sober from this by 00:01 2 April, it's a different story :) .-- Jasper Deng (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleared it all up. I'm not sure about his edit to Hoax though which someone else reverted. Hard to distinguish that from vandalism. Dougweller ( talk) 05:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, it was just April Fools' spilling into the main namespace. It shouldn't have been done though.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, but it was caught quickly. Dougweller ( talk) 06:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am having issues with a user, I may be the actual problem, but I wouldn't really know, anyway our argument essentially went down to a very immature argument, any way could you check this: Out, thanks in advance. 67.204.236.189 ( talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Recently some new users(academics, widely published, notable) have started adding and editing articles about themselves and other members of their circle in preparation for one of their members retirement next year. I've left a series of notes and links for them at their talkpages ( User talk:Peregrip, User talk:Kingh81, and User talk:Gfeinman). But per this Big Brother reference, I guess I creeped them out a little, was wondering if you thought my actions so far had been ok. I was trying to apprise them of the policies and guidelines here before they ran afoul of them (they are treading close on a few). Is there a group or club or noticeboard on Wiki for academics we could point them to? I plan on backing away from them for now to let them figure it out. He iro 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we need more articles on archaeologists I'm sure, but I can see your concern. I'll have a think. Dougweller ( talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. In a perfect world we could get them to become regular editors on articles connected to their fields and not just biographies. The notes and pointers I was leaving them were aimed at letting them know our policies and keeping them within policy before someone else happened on them and over warned or blocked them for COI and POV issues, ruining the experience and driving them away from the Wiki. Unless one of them directs a question in my direction, I'm going to try to back away from them for now, as I don't want to come off as some kind of wikistalker following them around. I would like to do our best to keep as contributors, just not sure how to proceed from here. He iro 17:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You recently removed some entries in which I quoted some materials from different editions of The Secret Teachings of All Ages, on grounds that it constituted personal research. With respect, this seemed odd because the materials I posted were largely quoted from the books themselves, and I identified each of them by Edition and Copy Number. My intentions in posting the information was to assist interested users in distinguishing features unique to two of the editions. In one case, I own a copy of the Edition from which information was quoted; and in the other case, I obtained the information (a copy of the pertinent page) directly from the Librarian of the Philosophical Research Society. In reading the rules, I understand the importance of sourcing, and in these instances the materials I posted were taken directly from, and attributed to, copies of the different Editions themselves. I'd appreciate it if you would be kind enough to reconsider the removals on the basis of the foregoing; however, I am not an expert at Wikipedia and only occasionally make specific contributions when I think the materials are of genuine interest, and I have published sources as evidence. Thank you. Yowzemz Yowzemz ( talk) 00:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Copied to WP:NORN#Manly Palmer Hall - am I wrong reverting some edits here? for more input, I may be wrong. Dougweller ( talk) 16:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if you can offer your thoughts on why the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AuthorityTam seems to be being ignored by admins. I am not asking you to become involved at the discussion, nor am I seeking an opinion about any of the complainants. I am only asking if you can shed some light on the process of what is given admin attention, as the nominator seems fairly frustrated and disappointed by the apparent lack of admin response there. Thanks.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Maunus is an administrator. WP:TLDR may apply here also. I doubt very much that anyone is going to be banned unless Willietell manages to get himself banned. I doubt this is worth pursuing further at the moment, and hopefully everyone will modify their behaviour a bit now. Dougweller ( talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I wasn't aware that Maunus is an admin. Apparently Wikipedia isn't aware either. I'm not sure the goal is to have anyone banned, but for AuthorityTam to acknowledge and cease certain behaviours. This remains to be seen, but given his response so far, doesn't seem likely. Willietell is a whole other issue.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I forgot that Maunus had given up his tools in December - his request, and he can get them back anytime he asks for them back. But still, he has the experience of one. Dougweller ( talk) 10:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.

Hand-coding

As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!

Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email okeyeswikimedia.org. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.

New designs and office hours

Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).

We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).

I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 14:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

When you have a moment, please take a look at this topic on James Tabor's talk page. I've added a comment to the discussion, which, hopefully, is self-explanatory about Tabor himself and about the James Tabor article. I'm not real happy with the state of the article - nor am I happy with some of the advice that is being given to Tabor himself. But I don't want to take any further action without some more input. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I clarified my remark for the record on Tabor's talk page. Also, this kind of thing needs to stop. Since John Carter trolls my edit logs, he will no doubt be along soon to respond. Cheers. Ignocrates ( talk) 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the statement made is accurate, and directly deals with Michael's comment. I believe that the meritless allegations and accusations such as the above, which violate any number of conduct guidelines, including WP:HARASS, need to stop. The above editor has been told that repeatedly, but it might help to receive another from an uninvolved party. Please note Iggy's own snide, unfounded allegations later in the page. Hard as it might be for him to believe, not everyone who has ever used the Saint Louis University library is necessarily a Jesuit priest. I myself am not, and never have been, one, and the SLU library is readily available to the general public provided they show a photo ID. John Carter ( talk) 01:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The question was merely rhetorical. And the point was that Tabor's talk page is the wrong place to be having that conversation. That was already explained to you. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed a tendency of the above editor to make clearly inflammatory comments, only later to indicate that he was mistaken, or more often that his intentions or meaning were mistaken, in some way. If these statements are true, then he should learn to abide by talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG and use more civil language as per WP:CIVILITY. This is at least the second time he has told you personally that the obvious interpretation of his comments is, in some way, inaccurate. If that is so, then I believe that he should receive some definite indication from a neutral source that he needs to tone down the rhetoric. And you have my apoligies, Doug, that he has decided to include you, along with Jayjg, as apparently being one of his regular targets of less-than-supported accusations against me, most if not all of which would seem to rather obviously fail to abide by one or more guidelines or policies. John Carter ( talk) 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at yasht101's talk page. Yash t 101 :) 13:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 05:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So colonies in antiquity is the same thing with the ancient Greek colonization, right? Angel ivanov angelov ( talk) 19:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why we have edit summaries. Do something like that without an explanation and you should expect to be reverted. Dougweller ( talk) 06:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never submitted anuthing nor do i know what i am doing so i leave this update to you RE Nazca Lines

There is a New Japanese University Study taking place of the Nazca Lines ( 15 year study) They have currently submitted a New Find south of the Nazca Plain.Very Exciting!!

As per the new Japanese study group I submit this Link.

http://www.viewzone.com/nazcatheories.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.10.243.232 ( talk) 11:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, very exciting. Viewzone is a fringe site advocating non-scientific ideas and not suitable to use here, but that's not a big problem as this is real and well sourced. [13] is better. If you look at Nazca lines#Discovery and construction you will see I added this discovery and more about a new research center. I don't know why you posted to me but it's much appreciated and great to be able to add this new information. Dougweller ( talk) 13:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I wrote sections of the Union Institute article about a year ago. I saw that it had been flagged as being too much like an advertisement. On its talk page (date to 2007) a user indicates that he or she is the Web master at the institution and admits that he or she may be biased. I am a scholar (with no affiliation to the institutions). I did some reading and made some comments. Last week the person who originally announced himself or herself as the Web master undid my contributions. You locked me out on the grounds that I was in an edit war. Now the article is locked to the changes that the person who announced himself as the Web master made. I would contend that the article is biased and unsourced. For example, it claims that the Union ran on the Oxford/Cambridge tutorial model. That point is unexplained and a matter of opinion. That is the sort of thing you now locked in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I locked everyone out. And I did say look at WP:Wrong Version. You can do several things. First, discuss it at the talk page. If the main issue is bias, you can ask at WP:NPOVN. Or ask at WP:NOR. But you also need to read WP:3RR. Dougweller ( talk) 05:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I did take a look but will have to look at it more carefully. I will also reconsider devoting time to researching and writing about an institution now that I know that its representatives can wipe out one's work and replace it with promotional material best suited to their own websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-Peer Reviewed fundamentalist source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Judi "Its source 'Archaeology and Biblical Research' sounds good, but actually it is a journal (now called "Bible and Spade") that "written from a scholarly and conservative viewpoint, supporting the inerrancy of the Biblical record. .... Archaeological evidence, properly interpreted, upholds the history of the Bible". There is no editorial board or review process listed." Not a valid source; if you don't want something from the Turkish media (the country in question) then it should at least not include a non-peer reviewed source that has no changed its name to the "Bible and Spade" and does not have any review process. Historylover4 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

It isn't being used as a source in the article, so I don't see your point. You should post to the bottom of talk pages, not the top, by the way. Dougweller ( talk) 06:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on posting on talk pages, the user said this source no longer goes by "Archaeology and Biblical Research" but rather "Bible and Spade" and that it has no review process if that is the case new, reliable info should be put in the article. Historylover4 ( talk) 07:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That post was in November 2009, and the source "Archaeology and Biblical Research" was removed the same day and is no longer in the article under any name, so I don't see the problem. I should point out that there are situations where it could be used to show the Creationist perspective. Dougweller ( talk) 07:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Creationism

I quote your post on my talk page: "I've reverted some of your edits - Creationism isn't confined to Protestant Christians, eg List of Catholic creationist organisations. If I've reverted anything else you think needs restoring, feel free, but the Protestant bit was simply wrong. Dougweller ( talk) 06:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And I quote my answer:

Well, Doug, I imagine your motives. Anyway, as the list of "Catholic" organizations mentioned is a fistful of fringe groups with doubtful affiliations to the Catholic Church, I find your quotation of this article a pathetic effort to drag the Catholicism into the propaganda efforts of Creationist believers. After perusing your (note: this) talk page, I decided I have better things to do than to enter an edit war with a person like you. Thanks for the "useful" reverting that undoubtedly reflects the thought and official position of the Catholic Church... not. It is a shame how Wikipedia articles like the one on Creationism are tainted by desperate efforts to include other groups into the beliefs of some American Christian fundamentalists and the statistics about people supporting Creationism in other parts of the world and in other religions show evident intention for creating in the people that reads the article the impression that it is a generalized cult when you are (I imagine) perfectly aware of the position of the Catholic Church on this issue. They have denied one thousand times (and not now, but through history) the main tenets of Creationism. You are also perfectly aware that to drag the Catholic Church into Creationism based on a list of five groups that are at best tenuously connected with Catholicism is an act of desperation, but suit yourself. Frankly, it is very hard to block the sun with a finger, except for the person holding the finger up.-- Ciroa ( talk) 12:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Some Roman Catholics and many Orthodox Catholics (Greek, Russian, Serbian at least) believe in Creationism. That's a fact. Belief in Creationism isn't limited to Protestant Christians. That's a fact. Your failure to afford me good faith also seems to be a fact. It's also a fact that if I'd known it would be necessary I could have explained all this, but it just seemed obvious that Creationism isn't limited to Protestant Christians. And I would think that you must know this. And that nowhere does it say that the Roman Catholic Church believes in Creationism, that's a complete red herring - in fact it makes it clear that the official stance is quite the opposite and goes into that in some detail. If anyone tries to claim that the Roman Catholic Church believes in Creationism I'll revert them, just as I've reverted claims that the early church preached a flat earth. Small minorities do however believe in Creationism. Dougweller ( talk) 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Allright, clear and understood, I apologize for assuming your motives. So, as the Catholic Pope has expressed many times that the Roman Catholic Church is against Creationism (i.e. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ ) and the Orthodox Church has never opposed evolution ( http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/nicozisin_creationism.htm), can I say "Protestant and Orthodox Christians and some renegade Catholic groups"? I fail to comprehend how can you be called Roman Catholic if you go against the Pope. Once I get your "license" I will go ahead and state that fact, because I see as unscientific to claim that Roman Catholic church can be included among the Christians that support creationism. BTW, I am no Christian. This also goes in you talk page, btw.-- Ciroa ( talk) 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note in which you claimed in my talk page that I was thinking about Papal Infallibility. That's not true. I'm thinking about what you need to be called a Catholic and about the Nicene Creed as understood by the Catholic Church (unless you claim that exists a different Roman Catholic Church that has no Pope in Rome, which, of course, you don't!). I quote, from Boston Diocese: http://www.bostoncatholic.org/Being-Catholic/Content.aspx?id=11316 "We acknowledge the primacy of the Pope and respect the office of the papacy as the true teaching authority of the Church. We seek guidance for moral decisions from the pope and the bishops in communion with him". So, you cannot be called a Catholic if you disregard the Pope as the true teaching authority, no matter if you believe he is infallible or if you believe he can make mistakes and correct himself. Another example: check the page on the Nicene Creed and the Four Marks of the Church here in Wikipedia and the point of view of Catholics about them. I quote from the later page: 'Roman Catholics believe the title "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" only to be applicable to the Catholic Church, as they believe it was directly founded by Christ in the first century. Further, they maintain that the Catholic Church, under the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, is "the one, true Church of Christ" that does not include those groups that have emerged from the Protestant Reformation (emphasis mine). They are considered by Roman Catholics to be "false" claimants.' Reference: Brien, Richard P. "The marks of the church (Nicene Creed)." National Catholic Reporter, August 8, 2008.

Hence, I still see the inclusion of the word "Christian" in the article on Creationism as a weasel word. The rest of the article oozes the same problem: it's an editing one, not one of faith, as both, you and me, have made already clear. You, through implying that any corrections I make will become an editing war, are allowing the people that contributes to the article into giving the false illusion that Creationism enjoys a larger support outside the United States than the one it has. As the article is always going to be tainted by the efforts of Creationists that (from my point of view) desperately try to influence their local legislations (and have done so for almost one century) into believing that science can be influenced by the religious beliefs of a majority and that science is subject of majority and minority views from religious persons, I believe (with a smile, not angry, of course) that you're doing a disservice to Wikipedia. I have provided you with some sources that (to my satisfaction, not yours, duh) prove that Roman Catholics cannot claim to believe in Creationism and call themselves Roman Catholics (or at least, would be called 'Catholics in Error' by the rest of this Church) To drag the largest Christian denominations (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) into this North American political brawl is, frankly, naive, specially for a Wikipedia editor like yourself. However, I have no doubts that you will (as always) suit yourself. Enjoy my respect (but no my admiration) my (if I'm allowed to put it in this way) naive editor. Frankly, I would have no devoted this amount of time to a very small edition if it weren't evident to me that Wikipedia is becoming, progressively, the "battlefield" of some persons with clear political intentions, among them US military and US religious right. I hope some day also Wikipedia editors realize it (or you can convince me, if you have the time and experience, that I'm paranoid, which, of course, is another possibility). I think it's a shame, given the time and effort that all (well, not all, if you insist, but only 99.9999% of them) Roman Catholics have spent in separating the Roman Catholic Church teachings from the Creationists efforts towards distorting education in US (and, through US enormous leverage in this world, the rest of humankind). I strongly believe (this time, with no smiles) that Wikipedia is not (or should not be) a propaganda tool. -- Ciroa ( talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Would that it were confined to North America, but it's a problem everywhere. Anyway, if you want to argue that Roman Catholics can't be creationists you'll have to find reliable sources - see WP:RS saying that, and even then you'd almost certainly have to attibute it rather than state it as fact, unless the Pope has made such a statement. See WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. These policies are ways that we stop Wikipedia or try to stop it anyway from being a propaganda tool. You can ask for other opinions at perhaps WP:NORN if you think I'm wrong. And don't get me wrong, I'm really pleased that the Roman Catholic Church takes this position. Dougweller ( talk) 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Charles danten ( talk · contribs) registers an account at 12:53, 3 April 2010 [14] but doesn't begin editing until more than a year later, on 19 December 2011, [15] focusing solely on one article, animal-assisted therapy. This bizarre conspiracy theory might give you some insight that I lack. Is this a sleeper account of a blocked user? Viriditas ( talk) 09:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ronz ( talk · contribs) seems to know him. Looking into it. Dougweller ( talk) 09:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't waste too much time on this. I was just curious if the wording used in the diff above rang any bells with you. I thought it might be ScienceApologist, but it sounded too far out for even him. Sure, there is some collusion between the animal care industry and the pet food manufacturers, but accusing anyone who reports positive results studying animal-assisted therapy as being part of the conspiracy goes a bit too far, IMO. Viriditas ( talk) 09:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Charles danten is Charles Danten [16], though I only recently noticed that he cited his own blog in his proposed changes to the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont know where you two charaters come from or to what ideology you belong to, probably religeous from what I understand from your omments, but you are obvioulsy biased. You are acting like policemen directing trafic where you think it should go according to your own personal whims. You don't seem to have a clue about how science works. This is not about a conspiracy theory but bad science and opportunism. Beyond a short-lived placebo effect, zootherapy has no scientific validity. I did not invent this. The only decent scientific articles that have been published all point in the same direction: this fad is bogus. You can be 100 million to believe it works, it doesn't mean you are right. Perceptions are not always real nor objective. This is why science was invented, to see through appearances. Now this being said, I would like to know who oversees you and how can I get in touch with this person ? You obviously do not belong here.-- Charles danten ( talk) 21:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm hardly religious, but I am all in favor of using the scientific method. No one oversees me, that's not how we work. But I am an experienced editor and WP:Administrator, an editor "trusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools"). Dougweller ( talk) 08:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now that we have settled this, what's holding you back?-- Charles danten ( talk) 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

From what? Dougweller ( talk) 18:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What's stopping you from publishing a critic of zootherapy? What's the problem, I play by the rules. I'm no science apologist either. I was a long time veterinarian in Montreal. I'm just trying to set the record straight as far as zootherapy is concerned. If I have waited this long to start editing, its simply because I had no time. I also don't understand why you give so much credibility to the Nathason studies on dolphins. This guy was thoroughly debunked by the world's most important experts on dolphins. Most of the studies in the field of zootherapy are of this nature as a matter of fact. Zootherapy does have a short-lived placebo effect like music or movies but no long lasting therapeutic effect, meaning cure. Yet, most people active in this field claim that animals possess special esoteric powers of undetermined nature that allows them to magically cure people. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this has been debunked? I have given you references. I am not talking through my hat. So lets move on. Whats holding you back? Maybe I can help you.-- Charles danten ( talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Science Apologist was an editor. I'm not interested in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 20:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that you will not publish a critic of zootherapy? And if so, can you state why in clear terms? Thanks-- Charles danten ( talk) 10:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC) And please can you send your answer to my email, as you are supposed to do, so that I don't have to keep checking if you have posted something.

I have no idea why you think I should do anything at all about zootherapy - I've got things that interest me more. And I certainly am not required to email you and will not email you. As a courtesy I'll put a talkback on your talk page, but will not engage in email with you. Dougweller ( talk) 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I just expanded Kenimer Site, giving way more focus to its actual archaeological value rather than its internet meme status, aka "Mayan ruins in Georgia". Saw you had did a little work to it back when it was a "news" story, was wondering if you thought it would be appropriate to add it to the pseudohistory and or pseudoarchaeology categories? He iro 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, take a look at for instance Stonehenge. If it's a genuine site it's rare (at least) to give it those categories. Good work on the article. Dougweller ( talk) 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Right on. In a related note, this guy has returned Talamachusee ( talk · contribs) to rectify the article in question [17]. I suspect, from his past contributions, that he may be intimately involved with this IRL see this diff. He iro 00:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per this [18] and [19], I remember him popping up last summer and fall, and I ended up reverting most of his edits then, but didn't delve too far back into his contribs history at the time. Back around Xmas when the story broke(a friend emailed me a link to the Boing Boing debunking, it used one of my illustrations and credited me, lol) I strongly suspected this user was behind it IRL. But I figured I'd let sleeping dogs lie since they hadn't been around in awhile. If they are returning now, I think they need to have a very close eye kept on them. Thanks for helping out with it and for alerting Cuchullain. He iro 09:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The objection concerns my use of Don Patton, who has been flagged up a as inappropriate source - since it is alleged that he has a "fake PhD".

Is it not my intention to vandalise or compromise the objective integrity of Wikipedia. The article on the Ica stones is already biased inasmuch as it witholds evidence of the antiquity of the stones.

Please could you supply details of why you think Don Patton has a fake PhD? Patton obtained a Ph.D. in Education in 1993 from the Pacific School of Graduate Studies. A letter from the Australian Board of Information confirms that the Pacific School held the right to grant doctorates in education at that time: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/Pacific-College-of-Graduate-Studies-Melbourne-Australia-David-Chambers-Jan-Williamson-Clifford-Wilson.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 ( talk) 09:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he is simply not a reliable source by our criteria at WP:RS and WP:SPS. You can challenge this at WP:RSN. The fact that letter can't be used as evidence on Wikipedia is irrelevant. I also have no reason to think that you have read the sources that you have added, they seem to come directly from Patton's self-published webpage. Dougweller ( talk) 13:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia page about Pacific International University, another name for Pacific School of Graduate Studies. The Pacific College of Graduate Studies (Pacific School of Graduate Studies / Pacific International University) is also discussed in A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials by Glen J. Kuban (1989) and Some Questionable Creationist Credentials by Brett Vickers (1988) on the Talk.Origins Archive Web Site. Paul H. ( talk) 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not much of an article on the Wikipedia page. It devotes most of the text to stating that the university had no accreditation, whereas the letter from the Australian Board of Education clearly states that Pacific School of Graduate Studies in Melbourne had accreditation at the time when Patton was awarded his PhD. Talk Origins? There's a nice unbiased website to appeal to (I don't think). The only thing Talk Origins has to offer on the matter is hearsay from Glen Kuban regarding Patton's credentials - Kuban being a staunch opponent of Patton's views 92.238.107.151 ( talk) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now the objection has changed from the original assertion about Don Patton's PhD. I haven't added *any* sources from Patton's self-published web page. However, I've removed references to Patton's personal discoveries of Ica stones, even though he provides photographs from the relevant expeditions he was involved in. 92.238.107.151 ( talk) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict)::The basis thing about the PhD is that it's irrelevant. It's in education. How does Patton meet our criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. And the sources you added come from Patton's webpage at [20]. Dougweller ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you can hardly introduce an objection about a researcher's PhD, then defend your objection and not expect people to respond. I haven't taken any sources from Patton's web page. Your link above refers to www.dinosaursandman.com. When I looked just now, a statement on the website read: "This web site is the result of over twenty years of research in various parts of the world by Dr. Dennis Swift and others." I don't see any reference to Patton. The sources which appear on the pdf that you link to, exist independently of that article anyway. 92.238.107.151 ( talk) 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Many apologies, it is indeed Dennis Swift - I've confused the two Creationists. It still isn't a reliable source for the reasons I've given, and has been removed before as a source for those reasons. Patton's PhD still, even if legit, is worth no more than the work taken to get it and the teaching experience he had to get it. Dougweller ( talk) 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. I've never put in a link to Dennis Swift's website. I added a link to Patton's video on Youtube, which gave accounts and photos of his expeditions to the area where he found some Ica stones. I thought this a fair inclusion, because whatever one thinks of his creationist views, he made the effort to go there and collect evidence that he could then present. He has years of experience in geological and archaeological fieldwork. However, the video is self-published, so I supposed it does violate Wiki's rules on a technical point. I see that you're still casting doubt over Patton's PhD, although you said it was an irrelevant point. I have a doctorate and they are hard to get. You have no right to imply that Patton got his on the cheap if you cannot prove it. 92.238.107.151 ( talk) 15:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll drop it. But as I said, it appears that you got your sources from Swift and that's not on. Cabrera has been discussed on the article talk page, and Charroux - did you read his book? Dougweller ( talk) 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What evidence would you like to see that I have read the sources? For example, I own a copy of Ica y el Peru Precolombino (first edition) - what do you want to see?

The current article contains heavily biased statements which would only lead the reader into a unobjective consideration of the facts. An example occurs where the articles states that modern day forgers create copies of the original forgeries. This would lead people into thinking that all the Ica stones are forgeries. The fact that Ica stones were being uncovered in archaeological digs led by archaeologist Alejandro Pezzia Asseretor;" class="autosigned">— Preceding strongly refutes this. <span style="font-size: smalleunsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 ( talk) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the only use of the phrase "Ica stones" is to refer to these forged stones. Unless of course Assereto refers to them as "Ica stones". This is not the same as "engraved stones from the Ica area". I'm not sure if you are arguing that there are no forged stones, that the stones showing dinosaurs are genuine, etc (given particularly that you removed their description and seem to be taking Creationist views seriously) or that these are forgeries but there are genuine engraved stones with non-controversial engravings. If there is a way of making it clear (and if its the case) that there are academically accepted non-forged stones, and that these don't lend credence to the forgeries, then we can consider it. I found [21] which you can perhaps read in the original, but it doesn't seem to be a RS either and gives no detail about what Asserto says. This all really should be on the article talk page, should I copy it over so it is clear? Dougweller ( talk) 09:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't know that the stones are forgeries. The idea that they are forged is a truth claim made in the Wikipedia article, on the basis of one man recanting his original statement that he found the Ica stones. However, his "confession" is unreliable since the media attention meant he risked prosecution for selling antiquities. And even he apparently stated that he did not make all the stones. So your premise that the stones are forged is unproven. Moreover, if the purported forger did not make all of the 11,000 stones, you cannot rightly say that: "the only use of the phrase 'Ica stones' is to refer to these forged stones". Because even if some of the 11,000 stones are forged, most may not be. There is no indication given that sceptics have subjected any Ica stones to microscopic analysis, which is the acid test to know if they were made in recent times. So by insisting that any academically accepted non-forged stones "must not lend credence to the forgeries", you are insisting that any empirical evidence cannot conflict with your own unproven assertions. This clearly sacrifices intellectual integrity and objectivity to satisfy your own biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 ( talk) 10:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that any stones showing dinosaurs are modern. Man and dinosaurs did not coexist. By any scientific standards that's an objective statement. I'm copying all this to the Ica talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 10:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Hey, this user is appealing their block. I have suggested that I may be inclined to unblock if they promise to stop adding "see also" links to articles until he has a chance to discuss these edits with the community. Before unblocking I wanted to get your thoughts on the matter. -- Chris (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How has he appealed? I see nothing on his talk page. I wish he'd responded to the decline of his unblock request. I think we need to see something public from him stating that he will make such a promise. If we get that, no problem. Dougweller ( talk) 04:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He appealed via UTRS, and has agreed to cease inserting "see also" links. -- Chris (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news, thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You wrote that you were sorry you un-blocked me. My editing subjects were a bookstore chain A H Wheeler & Co, a theology scholar Bettina Baumer, a museum Gandhi Memorial Museum, Madurai a town Madurai, a contemporary play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy, a writer Kishor Shantabai Kale, religious persons/ scholars Alexis Sanderson, Rajendra Prasad Das, Abhishiktananda, Alice Boner, Bhima Bhoi and religious practices Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, Kashmir Shaivism. I am sorry that my actions made you regret your unblocking me. My ban encompasses Indian history and colonialism. However it is for others to judge me and not me to judge myself. I think I need help. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 13:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping you would comment. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 05:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

First of all, many thanks for your message. You wrote on my talk page, regarding Professor Woods: "Critics or supporters are never neutral and we don't require neutrality, what we require is a neutral point of view". I agree with you, and now I see my mistake in the reason I used for my edits, but there are two problems:

1. Woods does not seem to have a neutral point of view on matters regarding demonic possession and exorcisms. Here are some examples:

http://bustedhalo.com/features/the-devil-and-the-details

In this article, we find:

- During the time of Christ, exorcisms were common on people who had mysterious illnesses. Today, many of these illnesses would be identified as epilepsy and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder or mental disabilities. “We understand more about these illnesses and to treat them as ‘demons’ seems to say that religious therapy for them has not advanced at all in the last 200 years” says Woods.

[my observation] Woods apparently belongs to the branch of "modern" theologians who do not believe that Jesus expelled demons, and that in fact demons do not exist.

- Woods believes that the misdiagnosis of mental illness as demonic possession has lead people to perform exorcisms that often offers no help and sometimes does damage to the person it is being performed on. “In that sense I’m sort of the anti-exorcist,” says Woods.

[my observation] Calling himself sort of an anti-exorcist is obviously quite damning in terms of neutrality, plus the former chief exorcist of Rome, Father Amorth (there's an article about him on Wikipedia), writes in his book "An Exorcist Tells His Story" that he and all of his fellow exorcists that he has consulted believe that exorcisms cause no harm to people who didn't require one.

- In terms of the probability of a person being possessed, exorcism expert, Richard Woods O.P. cited Pere de Tonquedec, a Catholic priest who was the official exorcist for the Archdiocese of Paris for over twenty years. "Call the devil and you will see him; or rather not him, but a portrait made of the sick person’s idea of him. It is for this reason that certain priests, due to their inconsiderate and imprudent practice of exorcising, create, confirm and encourage the very disorders that they wanted to suppress,” said Tonquedec

[my observation] This strengthens the impression that he's a "modern" theologian since he cites an alleged exorcist that doesn't believe in demonic possession, instead of citing any of the vast majority of renowned exorcists who believe that at least a small percentage of cases that they receive do merit an exorcism.

- He [Fr. Woods] has seen more than his share of people who believe themselves or others to be possessed. In each case he has dealt with, however, the person has turned out to be suffering from mental illness or psychological trauma.

[my observation] I think that what I have exposed (and there is more out there on the Internet - he has been criticized, for example, for his views on this topic, including what he said regarding the movie "The Exorcist") is enough to assert that Professor Woods does NOT have a neutral point of view on the subject of demonic possession and exorcism.

2. Woods is not a psychiatrist.

Here is his own biographical page:

http://richardwoodsop.net/site/Bio.php

So with what authority does Woods question the competence of Scott Peck as a psychiatrist? I deleted the part that says "misdiagnoses based upon a lack of knowledge regarding dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder)". The only Wikipedia source of this claim is Professor Woods, as you know, and as I said, he is not a psychiatrist, so where's the credibility? Based on my initial reason for deleting this portion, you put it back up there, but I hope that this expanded explanation will suffice for you to see that it should be deleted again, unless reliable sources can be found to sustain this claim.

Thanks again for your message, and whenever you have a moment, please write again on my talk page.

Regards...

Dontreader ( talk) 22:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing how to use the nice indentation for a follow-up, but I just wanted to thank you for your time and help. I will follow your advice regarding Peck and Woods, putting Woods in the article. Perhaps I'll "see" you again, since at one point I thought that three articles had the same attack on Peck (somewhat like a carbon copy). Thanks for the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN page, which I will use if I run into trouble after my upcoming edit. I do appreciate your kind help, and have a nice day...

Dontreader ( talk) 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to use the indentations another time (many thanks for the tip), but when you say that I must use a wikilink when mentioning a different Wikipedia article in the Edit Summary while copying content, I suppose you mean, for example Name of Article. In other words, the double brackets, right? Again, thanks for your generous help! P.S. I'm editing the "Demon" page, inserting Woods, and I should be done in half an hour if there are no complications. I'm trying to be neutral, of course, but I'm looking forward to any feedback...

Dontreader ( talk) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Dravidians]] Hello Doug.. For me ..fact is very important..

The Dravidians arrived from Iraq...many thousand years ago..caucasian..

And the Original tribes of India..Negrito and proto mongoloid..are still there in India..Some have mixed in...

The Dravidians are found all over India..Including Sindh..in the North ..Afghanistan..further North..

The Aryans came from Turkey...(Europe)..they were nomadic and some historians say..barbaric at That Time....they brought with them a very basic form of sanskrit..which the highly civilized Dravidians (Mesopotamians ) developed....The Aryans are mostly in the North But the Dravidians are very all over India..

Perhaps even in SOuth America.. and ancient Egypt....

Pythagoras,many other Europeans and Chinese studied in India..Our Western number system...etc etc..is from India..

There is however, a need among Westerners and Indians to downplay the Dravidian history..

The Dravidians established ancient cultures..in India

If there is a Euro centrism in Wiki..Please let me know so i can ..just write a book about it or something.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientmaths ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also Doug my concern is..Indian History will be totally destroyed and all its achievements attributed to other countries ..

Is this right ?

Dravidians are most definitely caucasian...but they were preceded in India by proto Mongolian and Negrito groups..who are not caucasian..

Wikipedia has a good standing..but what will the worl;d gain by putting odwn succh an ancient influential culture..

Even the ancient buildings in India and the Middle East have influenced Western architecture.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientmaths ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt very much Indian history will be destroyed, but you need to understand that our articles are developed from what 'reliable sources' have to say about a subject. You need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS - anything that may be challenged can be removed if you don't add (as an inline citation, see WP:CITE a reliable source. And for these subjects you will mainly need academic sources, rarely will websites met our criteria. See also WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doug..I understand where you are coming from.. My concern is Wikipedia..is happy to promote Indian influenced cultures (without acknowledging the Indian influence)...eg martial arts ,feng shui..very Indian but have become Chinese..Western number system..and many fundamental maths formulae etc ..that came from India are made non Indian...Angkor Wat is another example..

Why,I am not sure..

I totally agree my edits must have references....I apologize for this.. But the way Wikipedia has nuanced India..one would never think that India is the most influential culture in Asia..and one of the most influential cultures in the world... Wikipedia ..has a very deep inbuilt bias..for example in your ancient maths page..even though the Indians (and Babylonians) influenced..the middle east,China and Greece.. the opposite can be perceived...when reading Wikis take on ancient maths

The way the whole article has been structured..like many other..the intention is to insult..for example..that Amitabh Bachan was born in British India..When you dont mention that Angkor Wat is Indian (dravidian ) built...i think it is so sad...

Are the Indians themselves doing this..?There was a BBC documentary "empire"..where the presenter totally failed to state that when the British or Europeans first came to India,India was more literate and wealthy than the Europeans..fine he sis not say that so what..BUt!he said that the British thought the Indians were savages..a country which houses the two oldest universities in the world where Ancient Greeks and Chinese went to study..i complained to the channel..

If Indians themselves are doing this ....Huge fact..Aryans came from Turkey at a time when Turkey was very backward... but the Dravidians came from Mesopotamia and parts of Iran..Now these two races and indeed the indigenous of India have mixed in... (Imagine if an anthropologist came to Australia and tested the indigenous people of Australia..)

(i think soon the contributions of the Dravidians will be destroyed..)..Tamil is the most refined ancient language in the world...I am learning French..have already noticed some Dravidian influence there..

What most Indians and westerners dont realize is that the Dravidians and Aryans are spread through India..and Wikipedia and some historians have grouped the original people of India with the Dravidians..so Indian history even in wikipedia is very confused..one section of wikipedia will disagree with another section...I have tried to rectify this a little..and i accept i have not done it well technically speaking but factually speaking i have tried to reconcile ....some of Wikis misunderstanding..

When the anthropologist goes to south India or indeed the North..if they do test on our indigenous people ..of course..they will not be caucasian..

My concern is that there is a huge bias in the Media and Wikipedia when it comes to Indian History and to its disproportionate contributions in ancient times...As i have said..maths..many Dravidian words ,Feng shui Martial arts...architecture ..many components of ancient India..are willingly discarded..

Doug..I dont know where to start..can you assign me to a team that specializes in ancient Indian history ? I would appreciate that..otherwise indeed Indian history will be destroyed..Dravidian already has..even though they were so amazing in Ancient times..they have been grouped with the indigenous of India..and poof ! their contributions have been annihilated ..................

Ancientmaths ( talk) 23:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This one is back up to his old tricks. He iro 05:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted, there is a discussion here that should perhaps be in the article, but not this way. Dougweller ( talk) 05:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making that edit. I tried but am all thumbs on the mobile phone. -Uyvsdi

Post something to the talk page when you can please. Dougweller ( talk) 05:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC)If anywhere I think it should be in Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. Some of the main objections so far have been his way outdated sources and his insistence on using "mongoloid". One of the other editors who opposes it, a Native American, takes serious issues with its use because of its past associations with mental retardation, etc.. in American culture. Personally, I think it needs to be addressed and probably already is in the article I think it should be in, but the editor pushing it is I think Chinese and their agenda is to push "China is Great", not to actually contribute the information for its own sake, hence the outdated sources. At least, thats what I remember getting from it when I checked out their contribs when they first popped up on that article. He iro 05:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ps, Is there a coding issue in an above post? I keep seeing this post as small text. He iro 05:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ancientmaths somehow coded the text to be small, which is fine by me considering how long it is. You're probably right about the article. One issue is that I doubt he's read his sources. Dougweller ( talk) 07:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Doug - I very much value your comments and input. I just wanted to ask about orginal research. How far does this go? For example, if I say that the buildings in an area are Victorian, do I need to find a book about the architecture of the area and cite it? At what point does common-observation become classed as original research?

In terms of the aboutbritain.com material, I note that they claim copyright over all information obtained from their site. Since I'm the contributer, however, I can provide the material independantly of their site and make no reference to them (although does this then could as original research?). It seems untenanble for them to claim copyright over everything anyone adds onto their site - people could add trade-marks, copyright material, rights reserved material etc. When I submitted material to their website, I did not agree to them having exclusive copyright over it so I believe I am free to publish it elsewhere as I see fit. Thanks very much for your time. Kind Regards John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.dalgleish ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows the use of multiple accounts so long as they're not used deceptively. My usernames User:Lee_McLoughlin_Leicester and User:LeeMcLoughlin1975 are hardly intended to deceive anyone. They're probably the most transparent usernames on the internet: My name in full followed by my city of birth or my year of birth! I am not in breach of Wikipedia's policy on holding multiple accounts. Your claim that I'm sock puppeting is not only untrue, but impossible because I'm using near identical usernames! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.121.180 ( talk) 18:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made some comments regarding the proposed religion MOS. As I said there, it seems to me, personally, that these guidelines should probably be made more specifically applicable to content regarding subjects which share most of the same characteristics of recognized religions, like philosophies, including Jungian psychology and scientism/naturalism, secular faiths, New Age beliefs, and the like, even if they are not officially described internally as religious. I'm not sure how to phrase it to reflect all that, or whom to contact to get input on those other related subjects. John Carter ( talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd tried to find a policy but couldn't locate one. That certainly doesn't mean that there isn't one. So I simply check nearby states like Maine, New Hampshire, as well as more distant states like Florida, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Hawaii. The Senate races for these and other states are handled separately, so I thought the name for Vermont using "congressional" confused the two offices, as well as departing from what appears to be the naming convention on Wikipedia. Thanks. Vttor ( talk) 16:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, after a slight slip. I found United States House of Representatives election in Vermont, 2010. Dougweller ( talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. Probably wouldn't have hurt for me to have looked there also. Much thanks. Vttor ( talk) 18:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to Younger dryas impact event. Several single purpose accounts seem to be going at every single edit I make. They use original research and etc. etc. It's getting tiresome. I don't think I've hit 3RR for any particular edit, but the rule seems more complex than I thought. But if they want to play the meat puppet game, I guess it's legal! Help. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring is when Admins reverse each other's action, perhaps you mean edit-warring. I'm not sure if there is organised meat puppetry or just people being attracted here when they notice off-Wiki discussion. On a related note, and I'm not sure if you've used it and don't have time to look, we don't use 'stalking' as a term but 'hounding', and that involves following editors around to articles and only starting to edit after that editor has edited, and editing in a way that is obvious harassment. Note the latter - Admins follow editors around for obvious reasons. Dougweller ( talk) 05:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to having several editors work together to edit war, so none violate 3RR, but the more ethical editor stops. Which is what's happening here. I have different info, so I know it's meat puppetry, but once again, I'm not allowed to share that with anyone. Sad really. Hounding works, but stalking is more technically accurate since it's happening on and off-wiki. I'm being hounded here and stalked there. Nevertheless, why hasn't he been blocked for repeated personal attacks? It's really obvious that he's a SPA, only concerned about supporting a POV edit or two, without any desire to do anything more for the encyclopedia. As I whined to another admin, I just kind of play around the periphery, cleaning up articles. Seriously, if I'm going to be treated like this by another editor, can you give me a reason why any reasonable editor should stick around? Is it fair that he can attack me off-wiki, even if I didn't make a major effort to hide my identity? I think editors have reasons to be anonymous, but if one has a strong academic background, going public is the best thing to do. But now, I would never recommend it. Again, I was just editing some small minor article in the literally thousands of geology articles. What about really good editors who want to edit something controversial? Would they risk the "hounding" and real-life stalking that I have? I just don't know why you guys haven't blocked him for his on-wiki behavior. Makes no sense. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 05:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you check please if I have copyvio in those articles?:-- Mishae ( talk) 01:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Elmer Ivan Applegate
• John Warren Aldrich
• Ira N. Gabrielson

Dougweller,

The "Evolution as fact and theory" page is contested by people who appreciate encyclopedias, Wikipedia.org, science, and religion. In other words, it is a controversial edit. When someone points that out, then there should be adequate and proper response. That said, when someone writes back in response to that response, it should not be with the intention of "rubbing it in your face" kind of motiff, as then it becomes provocative (trolling). I think it is important to examine the "Evolution as fact and theory" entry, looking for the highly controversial statements therein. Pointing out that it is a POV entry might be a POV statement by me. You should not discredit that unless you want to run the risk of revealing your bias.

At this point, you seem like a biased British person who is anti-God. How did I come to this POV? Based on your less-than-stellar remarks regarding the POV statements of that entry that I responded to. Am I right? Am I wrong? You won't tell me. So what? The point is that the "Evolution as fact and theory" is a POV page that is argumentative, self-referencing, circular, and ultimately propagandist. Maybe you want to find irony in all of this, but the truth remains.

So my question is, are you seriously going to do nothing about this uncharacteristic entry? Or are you juts going to support trolling on Wikipedia? (Let me guess... that makes me a troll in your POV. Don't say it; just let me think it.) Snootcher Snootcher ( talk) 10:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:AGF for a start. You appear to assume that I'm anti-God because I disagree with you or believe (like a lot of Christians) in evolution? Have you read the links I pointed you to? The article is about a notable subject - if you really think it should be deleted, the process is described at WP:AfD but I warn you it will be a waste of time. If you've read WP:NPOV and still think there is a pov problem, you should discuss that at the talk page politely without commenting on other editors. You can always post at WP:NPOVN but again I'd guess that will also be a waste of time, but if you do you have to be very specific about exactly what you see as violating our NPOV policy. It isn't even clear yet that you understand what the article is about. And what does 'British person' have to do with it? Do you dislike Brits? Do you also dislike Floridians like me? Dougweller ( talk) 10:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 18:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to get the hang of Wikipedia now. Basically, it is about presentation as opposed to content. There is a clear agnostic rebuttal argument to Creationism in the Evolution wing of Wikipedia. In other words, what the hell? It redefines words so as to legitimize itself. It seems like several folks have a problem with this page due to its blatant POV violation. (It comes off as propaganda for a controversial worldview instead of an ecyclopedic entry on scientific facts versus scientific theories in relation to Evolution.) This page seems superfluous at best, but argumentative to any reasonable person. Leaving this page up means that Wikipedia is fueling the debate between agnostics and theists. After all, why else state that Evolution is a fact and that Creationism doesn't compete? The "factual" part of Evolution does not touch the creation of the universe, so why is Creationism brought into this mess? Reason: an agnostic wants to make his Evolution religion seem more valid than theistic beliefs, particularly Creationism. This page is clearly argumentative. Denying that means that you are not understanding too much, which calls into question your judgement. Defending a blatant agnostic rebuttal entry to your encyclopedia makes you look biased and in league. Snootcher ( talk) 22:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I only watch this page because of another issue, I have been watching your conversation with some level of amusement. I think the first thing, it's bad form to carry an argument about an article edits to a user talk page. Actually, Dougweller hasn't done much editing on the article, so it's almost lame that you would bring your complaints to him. More importantly, you have a rather strange view of Wikipedia. We don't write what we believe, only what we can source in respected publications. The amount of evidence for the fact of Evolution is beyond what I could reasonably discuss in this amount of time. Evolution is science, it is not a religion. I could explain that to you in rational terms, but based on your hostility, it's not possible. Attacking an admin like you have is not wise. Not wise at all. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 23:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Controversies relating to the Six-Day War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 07:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was curious if you were able to decide on semi-protection for an article. On the Dead Sea Scrolls article, there is frequent changing of the date era by (primarily) unregistered IP editors (these edits and there subsequent reverts make up a disproportionate portion of current edits to the page). The topic has been discussed multiple times in the Talk and consensus had been made in the past. Semi-protection would help prevent these fly-by edits by IP editors who haven't tried looking at the Talk page concerning the topic. I brought up the suggestion of semi-protection with an editor ( Mojoworker) who has dealt with many of the IP Era edits (conversation at § DSS on his User Talk), and he appeared to feel that it was worth a try. Any feedback is appreciated. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please respond to the reply. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas)

--- WarriorsPride6565 ( talk) 7:02 PM, 19 April 2012 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.118.39 ( talk) 11:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please tell me why I was the only one to receive the edit war warning? I suppose it takes two to make an edit war. Also, could you please tell me what could I do, since I'm pretty sure to be right? I've already used the article talk page. -- Fertuno ( talk) 21:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave you a 3RR warning as you had reverted 3 times, I didn't give the other editor one because they'd only reverted twice. That's just the way it works. You can ask for a 3rd opinion, see WP:3O. A big issue is WP:VERIFY - who says summers last six months? Without a reliable source for that, it shouldn't be in the article and you can make that point on the article's talk page. I'll ask the other editor to respond to you and comment on their latest edit summary. Dougweller ( talk) 04:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Fertuno ( talk) 09:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My coffee hasn't kicked in and I just accidently blocked you - unblocked already. Very, very sorry. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There goes my clean block record! Never mind, the reason you give makes it clear I wasn't the target. Dougweller ( talk) 14:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there no way to expunge this from the record?
Best Wishes Ankh. Morpork 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really, and the reason given makes it clear I wasn't the target. But thanks, and I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful to you in the past. Dougweller ( talk) 16:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean there. If that comment is directed towards me, I'm confused. You've always been a solid admin, always helping out. Either way, sorry for my screw-up. Toddst1 ( talk) 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that was aimed at AnkhMorpork, but thanks for the compliment. Dougweller ( talk) 18:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

From my limited experience, you do seem one of the more helpful admins and I have no complaints. I'll now withdraw from a conversation that doesn't really concern me.
Best Wishes Ankh. Morpork 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I know we've had some discussions before, and I know you're an admin. Could you move Jonnycake to Johnnycake? I tried to do the move but it wouldn't let me. I laid out the evidence on the talk page that "johnnycake" is the primary spelling in English, I changed the page, but then I couldn't do the move in the regular fashion. TuckerResearch ( talk) 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yum. Johnnycakes. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 22:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that there is a formal move request, any move needs to wait a week. I'm taking a break so won't be able to do it then. Dougweller ( talk) 08:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI: List of self-publishing companies and Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies per Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list. So it is happening, but slowly. And add your suggestions to the list please. I will eventually get to write a bot for it one of these years... History2007 ( talk) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's really great and much needed, except that I see that the latter one says notable ones can be included in the list, but not all of those have articles, should they? We've got a bot that tags edits with certain criteria, can't we use that? I thought I found it's name and told you about it, maybe I didn't. Dougweller ( talk) 09:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember that, it was not a bot as such but part of Midiawiki software. The concern there was that it was "on the fly" and could slow down every edit. This needs to be after the fact and requires a "double hit" in that it needs to find the publisher name from the ISBN. It is all possible, just takes time... time... time... History2007 ( talk) 13:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 07:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Two days late. Cheers. Ling.Nut3 ( talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, FYI, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 ( talk) 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted my edit of that page. I don't know about the issue of copyright in regard to youtube videos, but I don't see a problem in linking to the video for informational purposes, particularly when it is so explicitly about the topic at hand. Moreover, with regard to mention of "Marxism" on the linked MacDonald page:

"Through Freudianism, Marxism, and the Old and New Lefts it has made war against the religious, moral, aesthetic, and behavioral norms of gentile groups. Second, in their role as originators and popularizers of the Boasian view of anthropology and the Frankfort School of Social Research"

"Concerning the general "culture of critique," the embrace of Marxism by large numbers of Jews and the over-representation of Jews in Russian Bolshevism is examined."

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Reviews.htm#CofC%20Summary

Furthermore, there is an SPLC page that states the following:

In The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Social Movements, MacDonald says that while all Jews are not guilty, the movements he attacks are indeed "Jewishly motivated."

In a chapter devoted to the Frankfurt School, MacDonald suggests that Jews criticize non-Jews' desire to form "cohesive, nationalistic, corporate gentile groups based on conformity to group norms" — with Frankfurt School principals painting this desire as a psychopathology — while they hypocritically pursue cohesiveness in their own group.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/reframing-the-enemy?page=0,1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druep ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you've dealt with this guy before. Please could you help me find some way to resolve this before it turns into a full-fledged edit war? Serendi ^pod ous 06:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Folks please see wikibreak notice at top of page. 109.111.202.234 ( talk) 06:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to look it up but can't find it, sorry. If it's still pertinent just leave me another notice. I'm only here off and on due to health, so I'm not likely to have a break notice up when absent. Vttor ( talk) 03:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam has resumed editing today and has immediately made a misleading claim about me. I have therefore re-opened the previous unresolved ANI where various proposals were suggested. I am advising you because you were substantially involved in the previous discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Resuming_AuthorityTam_ANI.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doug Weller/Archive 23; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 03:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 08:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you help me understand it a bit more, I don't want to be blocked?!:-- Mishae ( talk) 15:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Talk:John C. Ewers

I am watching the Union Institute & University article be incrementally edited so that it becomes an advertisement for the school. There was a cited reference that might have been viewed as unfavorable that was removed. The former Web master for the Union Institute blew out my contribution. You then locked it down. I am reluctant to return to the any previous version because they will just change it back. I hope other articles are not controlled by employees or former employees of institutions, as they have an incentive to white wash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

After 6 months of researching and building, I finally went live with Mississippian copper plates (and Wulfing cache, Etowah plates, and working on Spiro plates because I ended up accumulating so much stuff I budded some of it off). Thought you might enjoy seeing them. I'm still plowing my way through some books and putting together South Appalachian Mississippian, will get it done eventually. Hope you are well and enjoying your break, going to the beach for a week in 3 weeks myself, then on the road for 4 months to work painting murals. He iro 02:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Doug

Recently two editors Qewr4321, who has received numerous warnings for bad behavior on Wikipedia, and Arcandam have deleted and removed a huge amount of referenced material from the ICOC page. Arcandam made 23 edits today on the ICOC page, mostly deleting well referenced and longstanding material about the church. It does not seem to me that these editors are acting in good faith. Please can you look into it? 00nuthinbutthetruth00 ( talk) 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. That was pretty funny to read. Unlike you I am not a SPA with a COI pushing a religious POV. Arcandam ( talk) 18:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! That was Nasty. Just because I don't agree with you doing mass deletion of material, including referenced material to a Singapore High Court ruling! Do they have a religeous POV? Do they have a COI? Play nice. 00nuthinbutthetruth00 ( talk) 13:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH. Arcandam ( talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgian. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've (at long last) got round to nominating Cyrus Cylinder for GA status - it's been on my to-do list for ages but somehow I never seemed to get round to it. Do you know anyone who might be willing to carry out the review? Prioryman ( talk) 20:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

...Interesting. GoetheFromm ( talk) 07:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Pashtuns. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[22] You need to put {{ User nv-1}} onto your userpage; you know more (or know where to find it) than the weirdo who claims to know it... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit does not look like vandalism, but like an honest "fix" of what was perceived as incorrect spelling. Unfortunately, the IP editor apparently doesn't understand how interwiki's work. Debresser ( talk) 14:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, although it's odd that Estera wasn't changed. I guess I should have spent more time and done an 'undo'. I see it was the IP's only edit. Dougweller ( talk) 14:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You do a lot of good work. It is impossible to pay attention to every detail. Debresser ( talk) 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 18:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay. Um, wasn't my intention to be misleading. And some of those pages had more than instance of a term. I didn't realize that was against the Wikipedia guidelines as one article I left alone because it had a message at the top asking editors not to change the date, so I figured the others ones would too. You are also supposed to act in good faith as there were some articles I left untouched and you seem awful assuming that I misused the minor tag. You are likely to be blocked? Please assume good faith.

Wikieditor101 ( talk) 20:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Wikieditor101

Ok, I'll AGF given your response. I'm a bit jaded about this, especially as shortly before your edits I found that someone had changed a hidden comment that noted that the article had been BCE since its creation (which was correct) to read that it had been BC since its creation. And note that the style used in related articles isn't sufficient reason unless perhaps, and I'm not sure even then, you can gain support on the article's talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 03:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

After this [23] and [24], both of which I reverted, I left this at their talk. I wouldn't mind some other eyes on this user if you can spare the time. I'd rather not have a repeat of last month. I've already reverted them twice, so. He iro 03:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks as though he's trying to comply, I left him another link. Thanks. Great trip, met some interesting Navajo. Dougweller ( talk) 05:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Have only been "out west" across the desert once, not enough time to hang around, although I did take a few extra hours on the drive to see Casa Grande Ruins National Monument. Have always wanted to do it again and hang around long enough to do some plein air paintings of the desert. I noticed the editor had re-added the material, and a cursory glance seems to show they are trying to comply, although I didn't check it as thoroughly as I did the first 2 edits. I figured if it didn't pass the smell test I'd be tempted to rvt again and I just don't wanna deal with that hassle. I left you a note when you were on break, think it got archived before you were back though. My latest "magnum opus", as it were, lol. Mississippian copper plates, if you want to check it out. I ended up with so much info I budded off 2 other articles, Wulfing cache and Etowah plates as well. Went a little OCD and did about 12 to 15 illustrations of some of the plates. Glad you enjoyed your time away! Going to the beach in 2 weeks myself, sun sand rum and plein air seascapes, and no laptop time, lol. He iro 05:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information and your assistance Dougweller, it is greatly appreciated. Awministries ( talk) 11:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In case there's escalation on the threats, I wanted you to be aware of this [25] which mentions you as well. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems a pretty typical believer attitude. They are supposed to be somehow magical or whatever. Dougweller ( talk) 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You might consider a rangeblock to 204.13.204.0/22, it seems to be nothing but vandalism from those schools. Alternatively, has outreach been tried? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about the range to block it. No idea about outreach, what exactly do you mean? Direct contact? And why did you remove my block message? Dougweller ( talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't intend to. I was reverting the "I HAVE A GIANT" edit, but apparently ran afoul of my local cache. Looking at the talkpage history, that had been done already, then you added your block message. I'll have to figure out how to unwind my error. The range is all registered to Delaware County Intermediate Unit, a collection of school boards. The range is under one administrator identified on the whois and on the dciu website, so contacting him might be helpful, though not all such officials choose to address the problems. Just getting them to subscribe the the feed is a step, though. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed LeadSongDog come howl! 18:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Could you delete this page: Documents on the Persian Gulf's name : the eternal heritage of ancient time. It was recreated only one hour after it was deleted in accordance with this AfD discussion. There's been a lot of astroturfing, soapboxing and almost certainly WP:COI violations as well as crimes against English usage around this page. I strongly suspect personal book promotion. Plus, it's an outgrowth of the Persian Gulf naming dispute, with all that that entails. Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 17:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. What's astroturfing? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

UK terminology for mass sock/meat puppetry. -- Folantin ( talk) 19:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

Can I ask you why you are repeatedly changing the information I have provided under " House of Wisdom" page?

Regards, Class Avesta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Class Avesta ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User blocked. Tide rolls 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, I don't have an account so you're talking to Teri in Tampa, FL mid 40's female. I felt discouraged at the undoing. It seems Danny can make a very subjective and unverifyable statement and another referred to something as crap and their comments are allowed to stay? Their content seems in part to be nothing more than using the page as a forum. I appoligize then for editing his statement Bible fiction that is inflammatory and not verifiable. I thought it would be an improvement consistent with the desires of Wiki to be polite and in effect more profesional but still get the statement across. You said it would not have been addressed if I hadn't edited. so why did you need to remove all of it? it's only on the talk why not let someone see it and persue investigating the possibility. do I have an outlet for forum anywhere? I think Mt. Sina'a is Jabal an Nabi Shu' ayb. Danny doesn't think it exists why can he say that and I cannot say this? Mine at least could be progressive information in one's interest in Mt. Sinai. he's allowed to compare it to Camelot to me that's like comparing it to Never Never Land I don't find that contributing to the page and I don't appreciate it. Why is he allowed so much more liberty than me? Please help/guide me to feel welcome to contribute. Please don't allow others then to call things a legend or fiction when that clearly is personal opinion and doesn't follow policy as verifiable. I was trying to genuinely contribute in good spirit even though I found other belittling somewhat arrogant sounding opinions/conversations between "Danny" and another allowed to be there offensive. -saying some should be in luny bins in so many words for thier outragious theories? is that necessary. I didn't call anyone group crazy and I get taken off? this doesn't appear objective. Danny is welcome to write his own book projecting his personal beliefs elsewhere. How can I share in the talk in Wikipedia? my contributions seemed consistent with the talk. Could you put some of it back in at your discretion that isn't a problem? Teri 173.170.134.224 ( talk) 19:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I'm not touching a discussion involving a respected Wikipedian who recently died (Slrubenstein). And Danny was discussing sources and changes in the article. You changed one editor's post from 'biblical record' to 'biblical fiction', which is entirely unacceptable. You changed the post of another editor, changing 'assertions' to 'nonsense'. There is nothing wrong about using the word 'fiction', which in fact you used, and although 'crap' might be distasteful to some it's no big deal.

You also need to read WP:NPOV. The article is not going to say that Eden or Mt Sinai are real or fiction, it isn't the role of Wikipedia to take sides in disputes but to present them according to our NPOV policy.

I'm going to archive everything over a year old unless someone objects. I'll also say that your reply to a recent post where the editor wrote " There are many many reasons why an geographical Eden is impossible to find - especially for those people who believe it existed" was inappropriate as you were both simply arguing a point that isn't relevant to the article (which you can do on a forum but not here) and your comment "This writer is using the example of the Eden like it is imaginary" isn't fair as that isn't what he was going.

You are new and I don't have any problems with newcomers not understanding the proper use of a talk page (although I don't see how that explains changing what other editors wrote).

If you think some specific changes need to be made, start a new section at the bottom of the article (click on the appropriate menu item at the top to do that) and make your suggestion, using sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS. Note that we can use the Bible (or any primary source) as a source for what it says but not for an argument - see WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Dougweller ( talk) 10:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I just read your comment to Ron on here. Typical of believer's acting like they have some majic. Are you going to say typical of Gays? typical of Muslims, Women, Blacks? Blatant mocking of a group for their opinions that you feel deserve less respect than yours? for a sight that is suppose to be polite and neutral I find this very upsetting you are breaking your own sites policies I can see why now you left in Danny's derogatory comments and removed mine. Are you editing this to be propaganda that fits your beliefs? 173.170.134.224 ( talk) 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Ronz - I doubt that you have any idea what we were talking about or what I meant by 'believers'. Unless you really believe that the Mayan Indians came from another planet orbiting another star. And if you read my last post, I plan to archive most of that page. I'm not at all sure what you mean by Danny's derogatory comments. Dougweller ( talk) 10:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Good evening! [I'm in GMT+1 time zone... :)] You're mostly right in reverting my recent edit of subject. I humbly apologize for my hasty misdemeanour: overlooking I was trampling on the sacred soil of a quote... A sobering lesson to me, indeed. Though I think you could have passed my inserting of "culturally" in article text to mend a sentence clearly misinterpreting what stated in the following quote. Best regards. Brumon ( talk) 20:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor from Ouroboros refuses to acknowledge the problem with his or her preferred text (see the latest comments at WT:WikiProject Ancient Egypt) and is now putting it into Atum. I removed it twice from the Atum article, and he or she reverted ( diff). I don't want to revert again for fear of an edit war, but that text seriously does not belong there, or in any WP article. I'm not sure what to do now. A. Parrot ( talk) 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller. The association between the "end of the world" and 2012 was first made by an anthropologist, a "scholar", a Mayanist and also a CIA operative, namely Michael D. Coe in 1966. The Maya had nothing to do with it. Uh, the New Agers didn't start it either. Haven't you figured this out yet? Jimini Cricket 72.253.70.4 (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.70.250 ( talk)

Hi Doug! ...I meant a "culturally" (or, maybe better: "intellectually") should be inserted after "being" in last sentence of 8th paragraph (quotation included) in section 2. Nordic theory. Why? - because the clean-cut statement in that sentence is not vindicated by rest of article, esp. the following second quote there. Brumon ( talk) 13:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But that would be our interpretation (right or wrong) of Grant - what does he actually say? And does he say lowest or??? Dougweller ( talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greek genocide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Dougweller. I'd love to see the Malville article if you have an electronic copy. My interest in Nabta, after all, was what sent me to the page. Is there a way to share files within Wikipedia talk? Thanks also for the general info. I've been meaning to start contributing more for some time. Schray ( talk) 19:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC) ;o)

No way to share files, you'll have to email me through the link above.Tlad to hear you are going to contribute more. Dougweller ( talk) 19:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok Thanks it's on - I feel you. Got Your comment at the editorial board. I'm working on quite a few articles - in my other UserNames. That's doing great. I Understand what I should and shouldn't write. This is a sandbox experiment right? If You need one of my user names;send me a E-mail. Oh Yea I Edited Flaawless's sandbox! Flaawless ( talk) HDJ ( talk) HDJ ( talk) 22:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to Talkback when I posted this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A character called OldMoonraker has just surfaced on the Aesop talk page, claiming that the illustrations to the article don't meet WP guidelines. Do you have a view on that yourself? Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 21:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, may I point out that I made no such claim? And, have I been around on Wikipedia so long that I'm beginning to be regarded as a character, rather than a serious contributor? I hope not. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I just endorse this? Old Moonraker is a respected experienced editor - but as this seems to have been sorted on the article talk page, I hope everything is now copasetic. Dougweller ( talk) 16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I should like to ask the self-righteous Old Moonraker just what he meant by the statement that 'The guideline suggests that images "should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter".....The liberal sprinkling of imaginative representations from the two millennia after his death fail to achieve this', if it was not that the images do not meet WP guidelines. I too am 'a respected and experienced editor' and I do not take kindly to being called a liar. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 11:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Doug. I wanted to let you know that I made a request at WP:ANI for an uninvolved administrator to review your block of Xenos2008 as I believe it was made in contravention in policy. — Psychonaut ( talk) 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's precedent, he's using IPs to avoid a block, and he's failed to appeal the block or make it clear that he intends to take no legal action on his talk page. I would have unblocked him within minutes if he'd done that. Dougweller ( talk) 21:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't use actions taken after a block to retroactively justify it. Retaining the block may be justified on the grounds of evasion, but that doesn't mean the reasons for the original block were sound. — Psychonaut ( talk) 21:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify this?

You say "the two a's in his name represents a trade mark,and it is illegal for any one in the world to Wright and or use his name with out his permission: That's as in Search Directories,Newspapers,Magazines,Search Engines,any publication what so ever ETC". So you put it in the Urban Dictionary [1] but forbid people searching for it? Seriously, you don't seem to understand how trademark works. But even if you did, I need to clarify this - are you suggesting that you might take legal action against anyone on Wikipedia or Wikipedia if you use the word 'flaawless'? Take a look at WP:NLT. Thanks for redacting your sandbox, but the template was inappropriate and I've replaced it with the userpage template and noindex, please don't remove them. And are you saying you have other Wikipedia accounts? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply:

This statement is not against Wikipedia using the two a's in flaawless or any one else. If I remember correctly most people under flaawless in Google is not even the person who first created the two a's in flaawless. Though it's still being used. Some people use created material for negative reasons. This word was @ double a's to be distinct from flawless with one a. That's why it's forbidding to some instances. Also it was first created to make sure artists in the world did not use the word regardless devon victory full in music and TV. These words was about somebody on negative issues in movies or music their might could be legal action - I'm only a mere representative of the human flaawless and regardless devon victory; and he's the one who wrote this.Though really it's ok to use any of his names, in any legal way possible - i'm guessing according to the so-called trademark education. It shouldn't be illegal, unless some one made a television show called Regardless Devon Victory, or released a album that sold hundreds or thousands in the name Regardless Devon Victory or flaawless with two a's. The education also states even if the trademark was not registered a human could register right before court somehow to prove that it was legally theirs still; if they have the good proof. I have your talk page on watch just in case you need to reply - I have other accounts that's not in my name though; shared with other people @ different places than i reside - though the other people is the ones whos' registered in their on name - and I can't speak on their be-halph only on my be-halph with the word flaawless. Flaawless ( talk) HDJ ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You recognized I'm new at this. Thanks for the explanation of reverting. Never had that happen before.

The article already makes the connection between Leviathan and dragons, so I didn't realize I'd skipped a necessary step. Am I missing something? Mthorn10 ( talk) 21:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

_________________________________________

You said, "you need an independent source making the link between Leviathan and dragons." Here are three excerpts from the very article I edited:

1. Narratives about dragons often involve them being killed by a hero. This topos can be traced to the Chaoskampf of the mythology of the Ancient Near East (e.g. Hadad vs. Yam, Marduk vs. Tiamat, Teshub vs. Illuyanka, etc.; the Biblical Leviathan presumably reflects a corresponding opponent of an early version of Yahweh).

2. In Jewish religious texts, the first mention of a dragon-like creature is in the Biblical works of Job (26:13), and Isaiah (27:1) where it is called Nachash Bare'ach, or a "Pole Serpent".[13] This is identified in the Midrash Rabba to Genesis 1:21 as Leviathan from the word Taninim (תנינים) "and God created the great sea-monsters."

3. The connection between the sea-monster and "Leviathan the serpent" is made in Isaiah 27:1 Mthorn10 ( talk) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Your edit followed the sentence " It has been speculated that accounts of spitting cobras may be the origin of the myths of fire-breathing dragons" which was sourced, and was clearly meant to suggest that Leviathan might also be a source of the myths - but this was unsourced. Is that clearer? Dougweller ( talk) 16:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I don't have a separate source that makes that specific connection. I thought the text itself supports that proposition, but I see your point. I don't intend to try again on this one. Mthorn10 ( talk) 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dusty 777 00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

[26] reg Yogesh Khandke's topic ban violation. — Spaceman Spiff 07:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just protecting the pages vandalized by the IP, I request you to please protect those pages so that IP can not vandalize them again, thanks. Nabbedhigh ( talk) 09:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please protect these pages

• Shah Alam II
• Battle of Panipat (1761) and others. Nabbedhigh ( talk) 09:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 31 hours as I had warned him earlier, so no need for protection. But I strongly suggest you start discussions at the various talk pages about these edits. Dougweller ( talk) 09:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murasaki Shikibu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 11:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this the right place to post messages about conflict of interest items? I had posted about the Von Neumann constructor page COI there before, and absolutely nothing was done. What is the story here? If you look at the end of my talk page, just yesterday I was telling a new user that self-promotion is creeping in and in 3 years we are not going to be able to unscramble the egg and remove these promotion material any more. Something needs to be done. Then today this showed up and alerted me to the situation on Bell's theorem. So what is the process to stop this?

But this was the tipping point. As you know John Carter had been trying to talk me to become an admin and I gently shrugged my shoulders because I thought it would be extra work. But this made me realize that there are probably not enough admins who can act in these technical areas, and I should just do it. If I had been an admin this Bell theorem saga would not have frustrated a user such as Richard Gill - the last thing should be the loss of Gill as a result of undue frustration. In the past year, good users have been falling off wikispace like leaves in autumn, and that should change. So anyway, what is the story with doing an Rfa? Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You really want to know?:-) Well, read WP:RFA, then read its talk page, including quite a bit of the recent archives. Seriously, you've got to read them. Then start reading RFAs themselves. Think about how you'd handle the questions you'd get.

As for COIN, all our noticeboards are dependent upon editors taking an interest, and generally we don't have enough. A lot of the editors who do get involved are students, so for the next 3 months a number of them won't be active. I've just been having a discussion about why we are losing editors - pov editing and lack of civility are two of the problems, but I hadn't thought of COI (which is really a pov problem in the end, isn't it?).

Let me know what you think about RFAs. Mine wasn't too painful and I had no opposes, but it's gotten worse since for a variety of reasons (mind you it was generally not the most pleasant thing back then, I think mine went better than many did). Dougweller ( talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look at the page. As for COI it is the hidden cholesterol of Wikipedia. I see it all the time on the technical front and had brought it up on WP:VP before. Many wannabe researchers just add their own papers and works to articles, hoping that in the end it translates to respect. But in the process the academic focus tilts towards the less than notable. And the Von Neumann universal constructor page is not an article, it is a fiefdom. And I see that trend accelerating. Something needs to be done. And one really has to know something about the topic before one can even perform admin actions in these cases. History2007 ( talk) 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked there, and do not want to read them. I will just fill the Rfa forms and if they give me a hard time I will say forget it, you can have your money back. History2007 ( talk) 15:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, best of luck then. Are you going to ask John to sponsor you? Is Gill really gone? I just warned your coi editor. Dougweller ( talk) 15:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will just fill the forms and see what happens. It will make no real difference to my life if I become an admin, or not. Gill is not gone yet, but fro what I have seen "frustration with the system" in the end wears on people. I have myself been at times frustrated by the shortage of admins who can deal with SPI cases, at times mentally calling them snail puppet investigations. So that is one more area. John said he would sponsor me, and if you want to both cosponsor it, that will be even better. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 15:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Doug and History2007. The article on Von Neumann universal constructor is well done. One editor may be citing some of his own work, but this use does not seem excessive. Anyone who is concerned about the editing of User:William R. Buckley should probably open a discussion on his talk page. COIN is more likely to jump into action in blatant cases. I would encourage History2007 to explore the possibility of RfA. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave the universal constructor issues aside. Believe me that I could work on Wikipedia 72 hours a day and still be 12 hours short. But I will try filling in the Rfa forms. Thanks. By the way, before we all get depressed about departures, there are new editors who are entering the scene and doing things, say User:Eva gloss who has started cleaning up a page that was on my to do list for over a year. But these good new users do need to be looked after before frustration sets in. She has never had a dispute, and an admin is looking after her, as on her talk, but overall we need to encourage these types of users. History2007 ( talk) 16:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This particular time I might be the kiss of death, given the fact I've offended somone active on RFAs. But do tell me before you submit and let me see your draft. Dougweller ( talk) 16:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I will show you the draft. So are there "internal currents" there... sigh.... I am not into internal politics really, never had a taste for it. But anyway, will do the forms. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thanks for the note! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science 2.0 ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer your concern— I think the relevance is in the fact that they all form a mutually influential web involving distrust of and destruction by the American police forces, of people both on the left and the right. Waco and Ruby Ridge both led to Oklahoma City, Rainbow Farm, etc. Cheers! Kaecyy ( talk) 10:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a very subjective relationship and I don't think one that is justified by our guideline. Dougweller ( talk) 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read about the subjects— maybe not just on Wikipedia, mind you, but on the internet, in interviews, as I've done recently in research— you'll see that each of the earlier incidents is referred to by the victims in the later incidents— at least in the case of the cases I specifically mentioned (Ruby Ridge, Waco, Okie City, Rainbow Farm). But the unifying theme is militia activity and inspiration for it, so yeah, I did copy paste some that I found in one entry into another, so maybe not all those militias need to be there, but the big four I just mentioned are definitely related. Do some key word searches on Google, you'll see! ;) cheers, Kaecyy ( talk) 13:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doug, just went back and did a compromise edit-- took your good advice, pared the links down to more closely related articles. If you see the need to pare it down further, please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and take 'em all down again, but I think there's a case to be made for all the remaining See Alsos if you read the articles or Google the subjects a bit. All the best to you, my man! Thanks for your guidance. cheers, Kaecyy ( talk) 14:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at what the edits actually were, Doug. It appears to me that you included the wrong list on Talk:Republic of Texas (group) and Kaecyy has used that as justification to revert most of what you changed. See: [27], [28], [29], and [30]. Meters ( talk) 17:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you hid some insulting edit on that page. The same unnamed editor also left a message on Bog body which has simply been deleted, but which probably needs to be treated in the same way. It names a number of regular editors in an insulting manner.

BTW, can you give me some advice on how best to handle another unnamed editor who habitually leaves Edit Summaries that are insulting, referring to other people's edits as "moronic", "bizarre", "idiotic" "total shit" and then swearing at editors whose edit summaries he considers inappropriate. This person is an habitual bully. Having had a bit of interaction, I looked at his edit history, and it is far from pleasant.

Any minute from now he is going to trot out the "three-reversal" rule, to get up my nose, (if he is aware of it) but it's not over a serious matter. The serious matter is the habitual nature of the insults which are being directed to such a wide number of well-meaning, but perhaps less-than-competetnt editors. Lack of competence is really not a good enough reason to insult people. They need encouraging, not humiliating.

Unfortunately if this person wasn't such an absolute A.H. he would be useful to Wikipedia, as he appears to be quite competent at picking up problems. Amandajm ( talk) 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I knew I'd forgotten something, thanks for reminding me about Bog Body. WP:WQA is what you want for the editor. Dougweller ( talk) 16:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerning other matter, I wrote a few well-chosen words, that are not totally without encouragement...... I'll wait and if the manner improves towards other editors, before I take it further. Thanks! Amandajm ( talk) 07:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I can imagine you might utter a groan seeing a new item regarding the Vassula Ryden page! I have become much more familiar with Wikipedia rules and guidelines since I first started contributing to the Vassula page some months ago and so I am asking if you could view the dispute occurring now on the Vassula page.

I have added a brief item about the dialogue between Vassula and the Vatican. The citation seems good to me but the group of editors who follow the page (who are all, I believe, people who are irreligious and very much opposed to Vassula and what she is doing) are persisting in removing the item.

I would appreciate your comments. Sasanack ( talk) 16:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw the response I made on my talk page to your comments on this matter. Maybe there were too many words. The problem that currently exists is a fairly straightforward one:

1. Two important things have happened with regard to Vassula and the Vatican.

2. In 1995, the Vatican issued a negative Notification regarding her writings.

3. A subsequent dialogue then took place which led to Cardinal Ratzinger sending out, in 2004, a positive letter to bishops.

4. The Wikipedia page includes point 2, using the EWTN website as 3rd party reference.

5. I have attempted to insert two sentences regarding point 3 using the same EWTN website as reference.

6. A group of editors are repeatedly deleting my insertion and blocking any reference to what happened from 2001 to 2004.

I am disappointed that you do not seem to recogize the unfairness of this situation. Maybe Wikipedia is unable to deal with a situation like this where a group of editors are determined to block information they do not like but I will attempt to take it further. My understanding is that a next step is probably to take the matter to the 'Dispute resolution noticeboard'. I would welcome any further comments from you before I go to that stage.

-- Sasanack ( talk) 08:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for your advice on procedures with regard to WP Editor 2011's rather aggressive opinion on dates in the Aesop/ Aesop's Fables articles. Is there some forum where the question can be brought up that would give some kind of definitive opinion?

I know you live by Australian hours and have a feeling they coincide with my (present) mornings. Until 10 days ago I was in Taiwan, where there was a 7-hour difference from where I've returned. I think I've got computer-lag as well as jet-lag! Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 15:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm on UK time. I've just been commenting at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers on this question as I think we need guidance about articles that were changed from their original format without discussion but some time ago. You might to join in there - but it's important to focus on the issue, not the editor, and I've already mentioned the editor. Dougweller ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful. I'm glad my question arrived so fortuitously. It is ironic that in Taiwan I was involved in stylistic debates as the project there moved from a Chinese phase to an English-language phase. Discussion is never-ending! Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, the articles Aesop and Aesop's Fables finally have their stability back after Mzilikazi's year-long, POV-pushing edit war. Please stop encouraging him to continue it. He keeps misrepresenting what you've been saying in order to suggest that restarting his edit war is not just a legitimate option, but the only one. He secretly reported me to the Administrators' Noticeboard, which is yet another breach of the rules, and failed there; that should be the end of the matter. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 13:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

Excuse me? Right now there has been a poll at Talk:Aesop which is upholding BCE. He didn't report you to AN, but to WP:ANEW. Yes, he should have told you, but given that he made a bit of a mess of it it appears that that was just another thing he didn't do correctly, not something evil. He hasn't made any BCE/CE changes recently, but you have added AD to Hymen which had no era and removed CE from Hephaestus [31] calling it a 'grammar and links' change (does that qualify as secretly). I'll be giving you a formal warning on your talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 14:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right about my haziness on technical detail, Dougweller. I gave two warnings of what I was about to do, one of them on WP Editor's talk page, and thought that qualified as following suggested procedures. Boing!_said_Zebedee, the Administrator who explained what went wrong with my application, also warned me that I too was guilty of edit warring. I therefore promised I would leave any further reversion to the others involved on the Aesop talk page. What I did do previously was leave a further note here at Aesop's Fables talk proposing that whatever was ultimately decided at Aesop should also apply to that article too. I've noted that WP Editor has now been blocked by Boing!_said_Zebedee and am anxious not to be tarred with the same brush! Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 10:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings .. your reason to revert my changes are irrational. J.C. Storms who 1st stated that Ramapoughs were the descendents of runaway slaves, prostitutes, etc. had no basis of this and as we now know, lied. why is this allowed to remain but the theory that makes the most sense is removed? Ramapoughnative ( talk) 13:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. My reason is based on the policy that our articles reflect what reliable source (as defined at WP:RS say about an article, and our own ideas have no place in our articles. 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

read the talk page.. i am full aware of Wiki policies. Are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

how can winning awards from the state of New Jersey and authoring over 170 articles be considered POV? Now you just want to argue and not being rational. Ramapoughnative ( talk) 05:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You completely miss the point. Insults aren't going to help you. If you were really aware of our policies you would not have added obvious original research as you did at [32]. I've taken this to WP:NORN, make your case there. Dougweller ( talk) 05:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

One change has nothing to do with the other.. nice try. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Ramapough Lenape Nation". Thank you. Ramapoughnative ( talk) 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:POV - yopu just proved my point. You 'disagree' with me. I'm presenting facts, not POV. How can you disagree with facts. yes I have had edit war issues on people who have been condescending, pigheaded and hide behind WP procedures instead of looking at the facts. You say let the reader make the judgement but you want to remove all evidence of fact. I have requested arbitration as you already know. Ramapoughnative ( talk) 14:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you've gone to dispute resolution. I used to be an Arbitration Clerk and arbitration is quite different. And I've raised the issue at WP:NPOVN where you should be posting. I have no desire to remove any evidence, the evidence is on Kraft's biography. Dougweller ( talk) 15:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Good eye on spotting the copyvio. I left COI and copyvio notices on the user's talk page. -- Drm310 ( talk) 02:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve the readability of Uniformitarianism but i'm met with reversion after reversion. what am I doing wrong? SmittysmithIII ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't managed to look into this, are you discussing it on the talk page? Dougweller ( talk) 20:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :)

Just a quick update on what we've been working on:

• The centralised feedback page is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be fixed in our deployment this week.
• On Thursday, 7th June we'll be holding an office hours session at 20:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!
• Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I believe I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, drop me a line and I'll get it sorted out :).

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bronyetransportyor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I remember you were involved in some clean up around the Mughal articles after visits by Sridhar100 and Mughal lohar. Back as IPs now, I've protected a couple of pages -- Mughal Empire, Shah Jahan. As you're more familiar with Mughal lohar could you take a look? Babur appears to need some attention. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 11:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much doubt if any that the IP is Murghal Lohar, same referencing (usually just GBooks links), etc, and same IP range. Unless a range block is possible, protection is the only way to go and suspect a new account then. This group of edits [33] is also virtually all his, starting 2 edits before the one you reverted to. It also appears to me that [34] may be copyvio unless apnaorg.com has permission. I've reverted at Babur - note the use of a snippet there also, something Murghal Lohar did also. Dougweller ( talk) 12:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I've protected Babur and Mughal weapons. I haven't reverted the latter yet as there's some edits by others in between. There are quite a few other articles though. I'll have to take a look around on that, especially around the Marathas and Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 12:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've protected a few more pages, it appears that ML and MrPontiac1 are targeting the same pages and edit warring too! That's the last thing we need. Can you take a look at Grande Mughal ( talk · contribs)? Looks ducky to me. We might have to G5 a couple of articles too. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 20:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to deal with this, tomorrow I hope. Dougweller ( talk) 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be pontiac, SPI didn't catch it, but that's not saying much. Do you want to do the block as you're more familiar with ML? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 15:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, unless he's warning himself which seems unlikely, and given some other edits, ok, will do. Dougweller ( talk) 16:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The school/college holidays seem to be working against us, everyone from Nangaparbat to these two are uber active now. I'm trying to sift through the Pontiac stuff currently, there's a lot of these Battle of X articles these two have created that probably have to be deleted. I've deleted a couple of Pontiac's contribs so far. — Spaceman Spiff 16:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and links. I'll weigh in my twopence-worth at the relevant pages but perhaps only a farthing at a time (today's an even lazier Sunday than my usual). Haploidavey ( talk) 15:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a lazy Sunday. Do what you want to do, I only let you know because you'd commented on the article's talk page on the issue and the general discussion seemed like something you'd be interested in seeing as how I've also seen you discussing this at Aesop. Dougweller ( talk) 15:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Make no mistake, I'm certainly interested in settling the issues, in general and in particular. Despite your own best efforts, the latest spats seem to include hefty doses of WP:IDHT and WP:Battleground. Haploidavey ( talk) 16:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, your claims that I was on a crusade to make one-sided changes to era formats was very unfair. I was only cleaning up your edits that you showed me on Nikopolis' talk page and you did them all in the opposite direction. Ordinarily, I only edit articles that I come across in my own reading. Since Nikopolis' edits have been settled now, I'm returning to my usual behaviour, just like I said. After all, I'm a man of my word. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 13:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Yes, I found Nikopolis making unexplained era changes and reverted them. I have never done what you say you've done, "for chances to uphold that rule". I've reverted both ways, added AD, etc, no matter what my preferences. No, I don't always check when someone makes a change with no edit summary, especially when they turn out to have a pattern of one way changes. Any change needs justification. You called editors liars, made changes with misleading edit summaries, etc. I'm not the only person who has noted this. I really suggest that you avoid the issue in the future. Dougweller ( talk) 13:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely block, but it just occured to me: how the hell are we allowing an IP to undo a revert of hidden content described as "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". With one click the IP put his crap right back in. Is that right? -- RacerX¹¹ Talk to me ^{Stalk me} 13:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what happened is that an editor reverted it, and that reversion wasn't rev/del'd, so the IP could revert the revert - maybe something to do with timing and/or sinebot. All gone now though, I should have fixed it before I blocked, so thanks for this. Dougweller ( talk) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the explanation. Just seemed odd -- RacerX¹¹ Talk to me ^{Stalk me} 14:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I have been poking into the Maya 2012 business and other examples of pseudohistory lately and have come across Fifth World (Native American mythology) sourced entirely by the Graham Hancock sensationalist book. Now, I've heard of the "fourth world" in NA mythos, but I am unfamiliar with the fifth. If anything the article should be scrapped or stubbed but which, I'm not sure. Since you edit this subject area with an eye towards accuracy I thought I should bring it to you. Ultra Venia ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Great work. I've brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Worth an article but this one needs work. I'll drop some links on the talk page of the article. Dougweller ( talk) 20:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, I can't believe you reverted my edit and attacked me on the talk page for that article, saying that I shouldn't be allowed to edit because of an (illegitimate) block from a few days ago. Am I blocked now? No. I am just as entitled to edit Wikipedia as anyone else. Even IP editors with no history are allowed to do so. Just stick to the topic and stop being disruptive. Cynwolfe wasn't making tit-for-tat reversions to keep her edit in place; she's still discussing it on the talk page. Why can't you do the same? ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 07:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

You shouldn't be reverting on an issue which you don't seem to understand and where you've just been blocked for edit warring - that's what looks disruptive to me. Dougweller ( talk) 08:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My intention is certainly not to be disruptive and I've done nothing to indicate I don't understand. Cynwolfe and Maculosae are still discussing an unresolved issue. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 08:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

You reverted twice now, the 2nd time accusing me of making a personal attack - a comment about your edit-warring is not a personal attack - when you've called other editors liars, those were personal attacks. Ironic that one of those was someone who, like your edit that made an era change but called it "grammar and links", wasn't open about what they were doing. Dougweller ( talk) 09:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

They were indeed liars. You made a controversial change without consensus and justified it with an ad-hominem argument about me, suggesting that my (correct) edit wasn't valid because I shouldn't be allowed to edit the encyclopaedia. I am allowed and I will. I didn't change the era with my grammar and link improvements anyway. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 11:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

( edit conflict)::::I'm sorry, I didn't reply to part of your post. Your comment about another editor, saying their "suggestion is a ploy to encourage foreign minority groups to bastardise the Queen's English." is the sort of thing I meant. And " I've only seen it twice outside Wikipedia" also shows that you know very little about the subject. As for calling them liars, that definitely qualifies as a personal attack here. And please don't expect experienced editors to be naive, it was clear that your alleged 'grammar and link improvements, which in fact weren't improvements, were more than that, particularly in the context of your other edits to do with era style. You can edit, but you shouldn't edit war, and removing it twice is pretty clearly not trying to avoid edit warring and again, in the context.... Dougweller ( talk) 11:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You made me edit the second time by unjustifiably undoing the first. Your only reason was that I shouldn't be allowed to edit, which is not true. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 12:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

I didn't make you do anything. And what is not true is what you describe as my only reason. My edit summary said "(removing other people's comments shortly after a block for edit warring on this issue is a terrible idea" - I meant edit not comments, and thought I'd made a null edit but that obviously didn't work. And on the talk page I wrote " WP Editor 2011 should not so far as I'm concerned be editing the page after recently being blocked for edit warring over this subject" (referring to the guideline page). I still stand by that, but it is categorically false that I said you shouldn't be allowed to edit, I was very specific about what I didn't think you should be editing. Dougweller ( talk) 10:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I set a poll up here, please contribute. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 03:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be highly appreciated in the on-going discussion at Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 04:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cigarette holder. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Doug ...

From what you wrote in the Great Zimbabwe Talk-File, it seems that there is a definite possibility that you would block me if I were to revert StarMagicxxx for a third time. Or would you take into account the fact that he has failed to give any reason whatsoever for continuing to truncate that subheading? - [despite my asking him more than once to please come and discuss the matter in the Talk-File] - whereas I have tried very hard to justify my extra wording.

Was I successful in trying to explain to you that we are considering evidence that the 13th/14th century ancestors of the Lemba might have built Great Zimbabwe? (when - quite possibly - they may have been known by a completely different name) ... and that their [likely] Semitic ancestry provides support for the "Semitic" theory? (for the origins of that ancient civilization) -- DLMcN ( talk) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Doug ...

As suggested, I took a look at WP:COI - and it seemed to imply that Wikipedia might occasionally be prepared to consider allowing authors to quote from their own papers. So - let me emphasize that (when inserting that link) I was genuinely trying to throw extra light on the matter. My motives were purely for scholarship and for truth. I would certainly not derive any financial benefit if that link were to be included in Wikipedia.

Regarding your other reason for removing that link - you are completely out of order > [You said that because I am a meteorologist/astronomer, my article (on Great Zimbabwe) could not be regarded as a 'reliable source']. In fact, it could actually be argued that your implication was an unnecessary insult, a 'personal attack' on me.

Surely it would have been fairer to judge the article by its content, without prejudice? -- DLMcN ( talk) 11:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for restoration of edits.

I am pained to note that you have deleted the citations because you have found the author and the book, both, unreliable. I had merely cited a passage from the Aitareya Upanishad as explained by the author. I had given the traditional meaning of Vedanta extracted from the Upanishads and provided by the author in his book. I had also cited the Bhagvad Gita in respect of Aum. These three are all time-honoured statements of undeniable Universal truth. I had included these citations in an honest attempt to lift the article to the next higher level. The book I have relied upon is an outstanding work on a specific part of the Rig Veda, the text which is not ordinarily read or studied even by the followers of Hindu religion primarily because it is difficult to grasp its essence, a task that takes years and years of devoted study under the guidance of a teacher who has already experienced the truth. Kindly restore my edits. Soni Ruchi ( talk) 10:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think the source meets our criteria at WP:RS, make your case at WP:RSN. I don't think it does, and it is up to you to show that it does. Dougweller ( talk) 13:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The article Dimitri Gutas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient sources to assert notability per WP:ACADEMIC

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Hendrickson Publishers? Do they really publish mainstream "academia"? Where is the line drawn between self-published and a non-mainstream publishing house? I'm questioning Prophecy of Seventy Weeks#Analysis of seven. Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 07:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In this case we are looking at a work by two 19th century German professors of theology (one being Franz Delitzsch. First printing 1996 is way off, I think it is 1869 but not entirely possible. In any case, that needs to be rectified. Still considered useful: "The Chronology Of The Old Testament - Page 91Floyd Nolen Jones - 2004 - 300 pages - For example, Keil and Delitzsch, whose ten volume commentary on the Old Testament is widely considered a standard ... CF Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, Reprint, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Dougweller ( talk) 09:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 14:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

He's back...... [35] -- AussieLegend ( talk) 15:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, does this article here: ( [36]) look like an indiscriminate collection of journalistic reports? Mr.Wikipediania ( Stalk • Talk) 13:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the actual talk page would be preferred. There are obviously going to be different discussions regarding its stand alone notability and its relevancy to the main I-P article. Ankh. Morpork 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Doug. Has a certain "editor" who does blanket-bombing edits been warned, especially on Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) article? He pays lip-service to Wikipedia policies, especially NPOV, but the ironic thing is he confuses the title of the article which is that it is a "hypothesis", yet he tries to impose his POV that it has been absolutely refuted. (Interestingly, there is a very recent article in astrobio.net http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4822/new-evidence-links-cosmic-impact-to-mass-extinction which indicates the matter is far from resolved.) He has tried a similar approach to "Acupuncture", but since that has 280 watchers versus the 40 watchers of YDIH, his edits are satisfyingly neutralized before the article becomes unreliable. As of the moment, the "Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis" is no longer a collegial work -- he has made it his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titus III ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you've tried to put the new research in the article, why not try that first? Just make sure you attribute it and don't state it as proof of anything. Dougweller ( talk) 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello User:Dougweller. Is this the correct place to talk about your reversion of my edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanugo and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam ? You can see your reversions here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lanugo&diff=497522073&oldid=496960984 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adam&diff=497522116&oldid=497504729 I would like to hear why you think I am vandalizing and/or having a non-neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.148.235 ( talk • contribs)

At Adam you removed a well-sourced note explaining what a creation myth is(and there's a long discussion about this on the talk page), and replaced it with a link to our article on Creationism. Referring to the stories of Abrahamic religions as Creationist is really not a good idea. At Lanugo you seemed to be trying to suggest that humans weren't animals or primates. Now that may be your belief, but Wikipedia reflects what mainstream sources say, hence my reversion. Dougweller ( talk) 15:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. Dexter Bond ( talk) 19:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can we add the new DNA from 2012 or no to the Startchild_skull ? I'm a little lost here, you folks say we need a reliable source and all DNA must be peer reviewed, but the article states the Skull is Human based on DNA that hasn't any peer review. The citation that validated the oldest DNA is from a site that refers to the original Lloyd site, but that's not reliable, so how can we trust this to say it's human? For me it isn't extraordinary to say it's not human, it's extraordinary to say it's human when you see all the physical evidence alone. Sorry for all this, but I can't get to understand how this works, the article is biased to a skeptic point of view, without all new evidence and stating something that isn't true, we don't know if it's human or not. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subkelvin ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. What you need to do first is avoid an edit war. That means you should be discussing this on the article's talk page - take these comments there so that everyone interested in the article can see them. There are quite a few people that watch this article. You might also read WP:FRINGE. Dougweller ( talk) 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I will do that and see if the article is really unbiased, thanks for your help and patience with me =D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subkelvin ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Turko Mughal Titles, I have done so and the matter have been resolved, Now there is no issue of copyright please update the article. ( Imtiaz Ahmed Mughal ( talk) 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

Talk:Tarkhan Mughals, I have done so and matter have been resolved. I have created the temporary page(Talk:Tarkhan Mughals/Temp), now there is no issue of copyright, Please update the article.( Imtiaz Ahmed Mughal ( talk) 15:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

I'll try to take a look at these tomorrow. Dougweller ( talk) 20:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

dear doug,

the edits by the wp:spa [37] are now back into the article. take a look at the sources. the first one uses the derogatory "qadiani"-term, and is a webpage of a fundo mosque! the second source is the webpage of the smaller * lahore ahmadiyya movement*, an antagonist sect, who also uses the derogatory "qadiani"-term... about the mainstream ahmadiyya muslim community, their rivals! the sources are quite biased and unreliable. i don't think user User:Solarra is aware of this fact.--  altetendekrabbe  12:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you've seen the discussion on Solarra's talk page you'll see he's reverted himself, and there's a discussion now at the article which you may have already replied to as I haven't checked yet. Dougweller ( talk) 14:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I have addressed the above claims on the talk page of the Ahmadiyya Wikipedia page. I think it is very important to back up any critical comments with evidence not simply to trash sources that have an alternative opinion. I hope you will consider both viewpoints and use your discretion. It should be noted that our mutual friend Altetendekrabbe referred to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as the smaller group as if this was therefore some kind of logic for not accepting their opinions. If we are to accept this premise then by Altetendekrabbe's logic we could say that the opinions of Main stream Muslims are therefore to be more widely accepted than the Ahmadiyya. Of course this would be an unacceptable bias and therefore it cannot be used as the logic for discrediting an opinion of the "Smaller" Movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeringly ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the protection on Astrology is not needed at this point. The latest edit war was not a continuation of the previous one, and the person responsible has been sufficiently warned and has already agreed to stop edit-warring, and I take him at his word.

More importantly, though, is that, shortly before you protected, MannJess finally closed an RfC, which was long overdue and was holding up edits for which broad consensus exists. See his closing comments here: [ [38]]. In evaluating my request, please note that I did not participate in the RfC and do not have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about the changes proposed. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a big bunch! Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It made sense, if I'd seen the RfC I wouldn't have protected it given the times of the last edits. Dougweller ( talk) 20:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I noticed, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[8] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: ...surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources."(WP:V) So, what level of rigor is required to challenge - let's say - two mainstream sources; particularly, what type scholarly evidence would be required to properly challenge the perspectives shared by the National Geographic and Smithsonian Institution? How would I edit such an article without vandalizing the content? Thanks. Thepasta ( talk) 22:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This can never be the reason for creating an article here. Dougweller ( talk) 13:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not, Dougweller? I thought the quality of Wikipedia depends on the diversity of its contributors? I am astonished to notice your emphasis on "never". Apparently you do not wish response and debate among readers and writers to improve Wikipedia's articles. In case you don't know: reasonably sourced encyclopaedic articles are meant to inform readers and always invite response. Self-appointed censorship does not only do harm to Wikipedia but to building free and open societies. As long as an article meets certain criteria of notability and is reasonably sourced, I do not see a point of having it removed. -- Anthrophilos ( talk) 15:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we create articles about a notable subject. 'Response' is not the same thing as editing, response to me implies a dialogue and that isn't our role. Nor is our role to be a debate platform. Dougweller ( talk) 15:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess it is pointless to talk to someone who rejects dialogue. Wikipedia is a great collaborative effort and bound to fail if not based on a basic understanding of the importance of dialogue. And that includes editing! Good luck, Dougweller! -- Anthrophilos ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't reject dialogue, I call for it in its place as it is a vital part of editing. Editors who don't engage in dialogue are rarely good editors. But there is no place here for the sort of dialogue about a subject that you can have on a web-based forum. Now if you just meant the normal sort of dialogue that takes place here every day and that we are having at the moment, great. But that's not what I understood, especially as you threw 'debate' into the mix. Dougweller ( talk) 15:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

16:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Zananiri ( talk)

I notice this article, which is listed for deletion, was modified today. According to the article, one of the three publications by this person 'in Search of True Happiness' was published by the Soni 'parivar' (family), which apparently makes it a private publication. I fail to see. how that makes him an authority on the Upanishads or the Vedas, though I accept that he is expressing his personal views on these subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zananiri ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	The evil one sends his regards. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a much wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on 10 percent of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give this page a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Would this attempt to coordinate ( [39], [40], [41]) with these 3 POV editors from American Third Position Party be something we should worry about? I haven't run across User:William S. Saturn much. He iro 02:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Puzzling, but note that Nolan wrote on the talk page "White nationalism and white separatism are (politically correct, ironically) euphemisms for white supremacism. That the party is white supremacist is well sourced, and Slaja, I've changed it again" and see his edits to the article. Dougweller ( talk) 04:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Doug, can you check User talk:SpacemanSpiff#Khan Jahan Bahadur? Another sock has shown up, I'm off wiki for a while and won't be able to spend much time on this for a few more days. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 11:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I was on and saw Elockid's findings, I've blocked the socks and deleted some of the newly created pages, but there are a lot more to be done. If you can work your way up from the bottom of the sock list (from Elockid's findings) that'll be good. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller good day! Please give reasons before reverting anything -- Majilis ( talk) 04:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit ironic? You aren't using edit summaries, and are you saying you don't see mine reading "See talk page, there doesn't seem to be consensus for these edits,"? Dougweller ( talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller ok what you're saying is He was a Muslim, i've changed that so that no one will dispute about it, everyone agrees He is a Muslim scientist, please but whatever you do give reasons -- Majilis ( talk) 04:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, you should be edit summaries. My reason for reverting you was that you didn't have consensus. I hadn't read your talk page at that time or I might have added that you were edit warring. Dougweller ( talk) 04:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You-know-who adding the same material as before, just two days after protection expired. Ergative rlt ( talk) 00:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I actually had to run off to see a movie right when the ANI discussion was starting, otherwise I would have copied the info from that last go-round at RSN. Ergative rlt ( talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Already corrected on the talk page, I can't fix edit summaries. [42] Not that I;m the only one who's been trying to get through to Dlkek2. [43] [44] Edward321 ( talk)

A couple more people have chimed in telling Dilek2 they need to use reliable sources. Dilek's response was to say "mostly Turks in Wikipedia are Racists, bigots and story twists". [45] Edward321 ( talk) 23:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have written it... But I see whats happend... I only told about the Ottoman Title's,,, But I never do it... If any want to know the Truth...I will written on my Talkpage. Dilek2 ( talk) 23:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confederate States of America. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• This case may be of interest to you.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Dougweller ( talk) 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you mentioned going overboard, if you think there is an issue (as you mentioned here User_talk:IRWolfie-#GreenUniverse_clean_up) with the way I am cleaning up Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse it would be good to know before I continue cleaning up. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller i see you reverted my posts why you won't explain it first then revert? do you have any comments? Please let us discuss it on the discussion page dedicated to the al-Farabi

-- Majilis ( talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit ironic. You have never discussed this on the talk page and you have been blocked twice for edit-warring on this page. You've been told you need to get consensus before your edits and you have refused to try to do this. Dougweller ( talk) 05:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thanks for jumping in with this, it was starting to get a little out of hand. Hopefully that will do the job. Callanecc ( talk) 05:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed yet, the IP user has blanked his/her talk page, but hasn't touch Zakir Naik. Hopefully this means s/he is willing to accept what we've said and start afresh. Also see the comments the IP user left on User talk:GorgeCustersSabre. Callanecc ( talk) 06:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you notified me that you were mentioning my actions here.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to keep your name out of it. If I'd notified you, it would be obvious. Dougweller ( talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

LMAO... OMG that is funny! Jasonasosa ( talk) 17:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doughweller,

I have an issue that after much thought I believe you are most fit to handle since you are a straight shooter and well acquainted to Wikipedia rules and regulations. My grievance is as follows:

On the page Iran which is a national page for the natino of Iran, the user "Iranic" since a few months ago has persistently placed a header on the top in form a disambiguation statement saying This article is about the modern nation of Iran. For historical uses, see Greater Iran

I have a grievance against this un-wikipedia like behaviour on the following grands:

1)Headers on the top are for disambiguation purposes (i.e. Court redirects here for disambiguation see court) NOT for personal agendas or content material. In other words he should not put a header redirection unless it helps in directing the users between pages. In that ground he is violating a rule

2) He quotes a source in the header!!!! He in fact quotes a SIDE NOTE! of a page that Richard Fry wrote some 30 years ago and takes it out of context to justify his statement. First of all, the whole concept of Greater Iran is made up and at best only the work of one author. How can that be justification for putting it up on a nation's page in wikipedia? Secondly whether his sources say what he says or not is irrelvant. You can not cite a header or a disambiguation! Thirdly and this is the worst (I know you personally stated this many times) he is using a YOUTUBE video link!!!? as one of his sources! That is nonsense

3) He persistently shows lack of flexibility. I originally removed the header on the grounds that it did not contribute anything that could not be part of the page's content itself. Why should the concept of Greater Iran be part of the header? What is that going to accompolish? Specially since "greater iran" is a made up topic. He responded by saying and I quote the user Iranic "This is about places ruled by Iran." In response as a gesture of good faith I changed the header into "This page is about the modern nation of Iran. For lands ruled by Iran see Greater Iran." He clearly reverted that.

4) Honestly I think the reason why Iranic has created the page Greater Iran and why he places this unnecessary header is to udermine the fact that Iran IS Persia. I am not sure what his agenda is or where he is from. His page is suspect. He has no text or peronality expresed in the page. I think this is a clear attempt to attack Iranian people. Imagine for a moment that when you type Germany or Nederlands in Wikipedia on the top of the page you see something like this "This page is about the modern nation of Germany. For historical reasons see "Greater Germany." or "This is about the Modern Nation of Nederlands, for historical reasons see "Medieval Europe."). It is embarrasing.

I have nobody else to go to. I have shown you time and again that I respect regulations and rules. I need you to help me now! I have nobody else to go to. I have agreed with you (against my perosnal belief or desire at times) for instnace in the Cyrus the Great page (where you RIGHTFULLY prevented youtube videos from being linked) and then again in Cyrus Cylinder where I did not interfere with your work out of respect for your adherence to wikipedia rules and simple common sense. I however now have not much time. I am working in the ER and seeing patients the whole day. My work day is 12-14 hours and I am constantly tired. Imagine my frustration where I come home and find out that wikipedia and its history/political pages are being vanadlized by people with suspicious reputations. So please do your thing as a moderator and a man with common sense. Help me correct this error because I see no other way to deal with Iranic aside from getting engaged in a revert war which I WILL lose because I can not be here all the time. Thanks man. Dr. Persi ( talk) 01:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I've been extremely busy dealing with some sockpuppets and copyvio. If this continues, we have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts or WP:DRN, look at them both and see which you'd prefer. I'll have to admit I'm not up to speed with the concept of "Greater Iran" or indeed "Greater anything". Dougweller ( talk) 12:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I see you've dealt with 94.175.118.39 ( talk · contribs)'s use of haplotype data before, I was wondering if you felt that my edits of that user's additions to Cantonese people were in bounds - specifically things like my edits here and here, as well as my arguments at Talk:Cantonese_people#Genetics and the "Cited studies" section immediately below. I don't want to find myself being in the position of the edit warrior reverting things that might be allowable inferences or basic applications of WP:CALC. Thanks! Ergative rlt ( talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've responded. We could go to RSN as well if you wish. But I'm convinced editors should not be using raw data from scientific papers in this way. Not just OR but surely a primary source too? Dougweller ( talk) 12:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Myself and Qwyrxian occasionally step in to remove similar genetics stuff from India articles, for exactly the reasons that you give. I would be very surprised if the wider community disagrees. - Sitush ( talk) 12:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Jasonasosa ( talk) 17:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for driving the effort to identify and neutralize the extensive sockpuppet problem related to the use of unreliable material from fringe character Terence "Terry" Mortenson. I salute your dogged determination to protect the wiki from copyright violation and bad sourcing. Binksternet ( talk) 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, we have a page move war going on wrt Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly and its associated talk page. InarZan pointed out on the talk that Varghese Payapilly is the more common name but PalakkappillyAchayan seems not to understand how the policy works. Despite my numerous differences with InarZan at Saint Thomas Christians etc, I believe that they are correct here and said as much at the talk page. Not having had much involvement with contested page moves, could you advise on the appropriate steps? Should I initiate a formal move request? - Sitush ( talk) 05:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's that or an RfC. Dougweller ( talk) 06:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Would it be best to seek move protection until the process is complete? I'm not fussed which version, obviously. - Sitush ( talk) 06:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not unless edit-warring carries on after the official merge request is made. Dougweller ( talk) 07:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've left a note with InarZan. If they don't propose the move then I will. Your advice is appreciated - it is amazing that I have gone so long without really getting involved in a contested move (there have been some awkward ones, but none that were remotely borderline and thus requiring the process). - Sitush ( talk) 07:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Slogging through ANI is tedious under the best of circumstances; on my phone it's excruciating.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What ever you suggested me are ok. Living persons details, I have deleted. Pl. advise about my recent contributions, during last seven days. Rayabhari ( talk) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you why you have changed the updated information I've added on "Behzādān Pour Vandād Hormuzd" ( Abu Muslim Khorasani)? Class Avesta ( talk) 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean Ferdowsi. My edit summary said "scare quotes, overlinking, etc didn't improve the article, unexplained name change was a major problem also" - in other words, you used "" marks where they don't belong, you changed his name with no explanation, you added links to articles when we already had links and you added links to non-existent articles. pre-Islamic kings of Iran A.K.A. Persia for instance has several problems, it should be just pre-Islamic, no AKA please although maybe, if it is correct, you could have pre-Islamic kings of Iran(Persia). You really need to use WP:Edit summaries. Dougweller ( talk) 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doug,

I've been thinking...

You know that User: Johnjonesjr‎, I don't know. I know there were some annoying arguments that we had, but there was always some kind of innocence that he seemed to project. I know I could be wrong... but just in case... is there anyway we could double check to make sure he had nothing to do with that User: Allenroyboy? Somehow... I really believe he was away and maybe he got hacked or something. Please... just check it out. I spent a lot of time on the Daniel pages and he was always there checking on me... which I respect. Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Found when a CU was done. See WP:CHECK. One of the puppetmaster's interests is Daniel, so I guess he was using that account for Daniel. He's a pretty experienced puppetmaster. Dougweller ( talk) 20:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Jasonasosa ( talk) 20:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

... sockpuppet? Also, I'm having trouble deciding whether the master you listed is actually related. Their writing style seems a bit different to me. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 18:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. DQ was convinced enough to make the call and I'm convinced about this additional sock. Cheers ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I quoted the article by the French sociologist of Pierre Bourdieu on the American academia impact on race relations in Brazil. It was pretty clear he was being quoted (his name and that of his partner were added at the end of the text). As far as I can see, it was not copyright violation, and the text was important to be there, at the English wikipedia. Since you have removed it, I don't know what to do, since it was highly relevant to be there. Grenzer22 ( talk) 12:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the claim on Chagas, part of the text written is not in the link you mentioned (the one which describes his role in discovering a parasitic fungal genus associated with PCP, Pneumocystis pneumonia). That part you mentioned is a very standard description of Chagas' work, found in almost every place describing his work. I have no problems with your removal. And I'm going to watch closely so that it won't happen again.

I have looked back at my previous posts and as far as I have seen there is no copyright violation in other posts either. Grenzer22 ( talk) 12:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it clear that I am going to be even more careful from now on, thanks for helping me out. Grenzer22 ( talk) 12:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed the Pierre Bourdieu article from the White Brazilian topic, it is not to be found like that anywhere else (the other 2 you have already deleted). As I said it was not intentional, and I am going to be more vigilant from now on, thank you very much. Grenzer22 ( talk) 13:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Given the editor's previous deletion of material I've warned him/her for your revert - hope you don't mind. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, appreciated. Dougweller ( talk) 17:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've responded on my talk page to your accusation of edit warring. -- Sasanack ( talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page but you haven't understood what I was trying to say. I made ONE revert but then things got technically messy as I tried to remove 2 separate citations while DominusV (unknown to me) reverted my original edit. I think if you are going to warn people in that formal way you should be certain of what has happened. The whole situation remains very strange from a 'part-time' editor's point of view. The whole behaviour of the 'group of 4' editors (as I like to call them) is aggressive and negative yet they are never criticised. The DRN has at least brought forward independent editors making helpful and constructive comments and suggestions. Sadly, as I explained on that noticeboard, there is absolutely no readiness by the g of 4 to compromise or accept any of the suggestions. I think you are unlikely to need to ban me because the whole experience on Wikipedia has been so discouraging and negative that I think I probably need to get out of here sooner rather than later.-- Sasanack ( talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to block you, and a ban needs community approval. But looking again, I see that there are 0 minutes between edits, so I don't think it would count as 3RR after all. Dougweller ( talk) 16:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mark Weber. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

O wad some Power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us—Robert Burns, To a Louse

[46]— Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

his page was under my watch, regards DBig Xray 19:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Doug. To revisit that thing from yesterday, could you please take a look at this page? I've given him a warning on simple and am working with another commons editor over the images. Regards, Osiris ( talk) 02:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DBig Xray 10:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I'll check into it. She's one of the most valuable editors we have.

I just left a message on her talk page about massive changes user:Zachariel just made to the History of astrology page.

"I've just reverted Zachariel's changes to History of Astrology per BRD. Could you take a look through his changes and see if there's anything of merit in them that can be saved? Thanks."

You're pretty good at historical sourcing, so would you mind taking a look at Zachariel's edits, and keep an eye on him? He seems to be edit-warring again. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 12:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It was your message on her page that led me to post to you. Not sure I have time or energy for astrology! Dougweller ( talk) 12:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is going to go bonkers if we let it. Are you happy that the review is in good hands, now? If so, let me know and I'll close the incident to forestall the otherwise inevitable. Uncle G ( talk) 15:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• A bit late now (I've been doing non-Wiki stuff), although I would have said yes. Anytime ArbCom gets involved can get - inevitable. Dougweller ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Even before that. The nature of the incident itself would have led to contention and all sorts of side-issues. Uncle G ( talk) 18:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, it was either that or just unblock, what held me back from saying or doing more was that it looked as though ArbCom would be involved. What I didn't expect was the fast motion. If I'd expected that, I wouldn't have done anything. But it did look really bad - a week for a good editor, mentioning legal threats but not a legal threat block, no rev/del which I would have expected if there'd been something as serious as was suggested. That was the first time in all my time as an Admin that I've even considered anything like this or reported a block for review. Dougweller ( talk) 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm concerned it's a bad situation pretty much all around. It's still threatening to blow up, which I'd rather it didn't. Uncle G ( talk) 19:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd rather it didn't either, but I don't know all the details (which is why I brought it to ANI without comment. I've made one comment on the ArbCom discussion as this actually wasn't a legal threat block so that shouldn't be an issue (I guess someone might argue it should have been, but as it wasn't, it wasn't). Dougweller ( talk) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like that problem has been resolved at least in the short term. I wonder if you would have any interest about maybe offering some input about an article which might have similar problems, if from the other side, at Soka Gakkai. Getting a few more people involved there would be useful as well, and I would be particularly grateful if an outsider would comment on the newer additions. John Carter ( talk) 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not resolved yet as it still has Steeringly's version, and although my last revert was over 24 hours ago I'm a bit loathe to revert again as it looks like just me against him. And one editor that I think missed the point commented on the talk page about heterodox, did you see that? I will look at your article though. Dougweller ( talk) 19:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dougweller, I've answered there but wanted to give a little background. There are a great number of people who do blame admins for all the problems, and of course admins aren't the primary reason for losses. There are some problems that we admins need to address as a group, but there are many, many more reasons we lose good editors that need to be addressed. I think that for the project to work, however, you have to put all the cards on the table and at least acknowledge that perception of admins is a problem. I don't want that to dominate there, however. But the project needs many admins to actually take a role and join the project, because loss of talent IS a serious concern here, and why isn't completely clear. I think having it as a clearing house to establish problems, set priorities, discuss potential changes in policy before RfCing for the change, all of that can actually help us keep the talent we have and not scare off new editors as well. We need some type of centralized discussion for retention at this stage, and a Project seems the right way to go. It is only a day old, so what it is depends on who participates and how they mold it. Would love to see you be a part of the molding process, particularly early on. Bring a friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw. Thank you. And also those were sensible revisions to surname/sock redirects recently. I was diverted from anthoponymy and didn't see them. Thanks again. In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've been trying to improve the page on the Hanau epe over the past few days. I don't know much about Heyerdahl, apart from vague memories of him on TV in my childhood, and the notion at the time that there was some great mystery about Easter Island. I've just ordered a copy of his book Kon-Tiki, because I want to get a sense of why he seems to be obsessed by these diffusionist ideas and why they seemed to catch the imagination of the time. I have a feeling that these scenarios of ethnic struggle were linked to a post-WWII with fascination with stories of racial extermination that came to defined as a sort-of liberal re-imagining of the Nazi mythos (The Lord of the Rings is the classic example of that). That's why I'm inclined to think that the "racist" claim essentially misses the point, just as much as the Saint-Heyerdahl-humanitarian version does. Of course this is all "OR", but I'd feel happier getting a sense of what he actually wrote before diving in to the Heyerdahl article too much. Obviously these arguments should be clearly presented, though I think they should be placed in context - this "Thor-Nazi" image is a vary recent one, though criticisms of his theories certainly are not. Paul B ( talk) 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to read American Indians in the Pacific - I doubt that the Nazi thing holds water.

A friend of mine once wrote on Usenet: I believe that this is because his particular brand of racism fits in well with the basic racist assumptions held by a large proportion of people (if not a majority) in Europe or of European origins (white Americans, Australians etc.). This is that whites or "caucasoids" were and are the most intelligent, energetic, creative, and generally capable "race", and that therefore all true civilisation needs to be initiated and sustained by whites. And the most "white" of all are of course blond/red-haired blue-eyed "nordic" types. Heyerdahl's work is full of the implicit or explicit association of blond/red-hair, blue eyes, and "caucasian" features with creators and diffusers of high civilisation. It is also full of the sorts of idea that says that e.g. Polynesians - being rather lazy, fond of a good time, not particularly creative etc. - could not possibly have been responsible for the Easter Island statues. "...keeping in mind when he wrote" - yes, when he started writing, such ideas were much more *openly* expressed.

Just look at some of the supposedly "scientific" textbooks on race which were published right up to the 1960s. After that date, such ideas are much less openly displayed. And a study of Heyerdahl's writings reveal a similar trend. In his earlier works, especially "Aku Aku" and his magnum opus "American Indians in the Pacific" (AIP), his belief in the differential abilities of human races, and especially in the almost superhuman abilities of his blond blue-eyed caucasoid all-civilising, world-voyaging "long ears" is explicit. In later works these ideas are rather more disguised, and in addition he begins to emphasise a self-procaimed sympathy with third-world peoples etc., telling us how much he has done for them etc. I suspect this is all under the influence of "political correctness". However he has nowhere repudiated his earlier clearly racist beliefs, and it is clear from his most recent work "In the Footsteps of Adam" that he has not changed his mind on any of his theories, which at least partly rely on his basic racist assumptions. Incidentally, I am not here saying that he has necessarily reached the wrong conclusions. I am not even saying that his racism is necessarily wrong. Maybe blond blue-eyed peoples really are superior to others. Where I find Heyerdahl *scientifically* unacceptable is that he often uses a sort of circular thinking ("Easter Island statues were made by non-Polynesians". Why? Because Polynesians couldn't make large stone structures. How do you know this? Because all such structures in Polynesia were made by non-Polynesians. How do you know this? Because Polynesians couldn't make large stone structures etc.). Take away this sort of argument and there is often very little of substance left.

Incidentally, I have been looking into the "evidence" that Heyerdahl, Andrew Collins etc. are using in support of their ideas of an ancient worldwide all-civilising blond caucasoid race. Much, if not all, appears on closer examination to be illusory or misleading. For instance, early reports of "white" Amerindians are vitiated by the observation that some early Spanish chroniclers describe *all* the South American Amerindians as "white". (They were writing well before the time when "white" had fixed racial connotations, and in any case they were not trained physical anthropologists. What they probably meant was that they regarded the Amerindians as more similar to themselves than to their "black" African slaves). As for the often-quoted Indian legends of "white" civilising heroes etc., it should be noted that our first accounts of these legends date from well after the Spanish Conquest, and come from Spaniards. And actually there are many other accounts about creator-heroes in reported Amerindian mythology which describe them as anything but "white". The whole field of ancient Amerindian, and Polynesian mythology is much more obscure, complex, and confusing, than Heyerdahl etc. would have us believe. And I have yet to find a real primary source for the supposed "blue eyes".

My view is that he took on so much, and was so far ahead of his contemporaries in theorizing, that he did not get adequately challenged in a sufficiently timely way as to be forced to re-examine some of his shakier observations. He certainly has not been "adequately challenged", in the sense that he has prevailed so far in the propaganda war over those who would disagree with him. Many of his theories have been adequately challenged on a scientific basis, but the general public rarely gets to hear of this. As for being "far ahead of his contemporaries", many of his theories are actually re-hashes of the sorts of theories which were flying about in the 18th., 19th., and early 20th. centuries, when it was quite obvious to most westerners that non-whites were inferior to whites,and must therefore owe any admirable parts of their culture to white initiative and influence. Incidentally, it is interesting that Heyerdahl nowhere picks up on the fact which you mentioned in one of your earlier posts - that Australian Aboriginals often have blond hair - nor does he dwell on the fact that some Melanesian populations (e.g. on Malaita) also contain a significant proportion of blond and red haired people. In both cases, actually a much higher incidence of blondism than in any part of Polynesia. Yet he goes on at length on evidence for blondism among the Polynesians.

A reading of e.g. AIP, will suggest a probable reason for this blindness towards the blond Australians and Melanesians. Not only are Thor's blue-eyed blond caucasoids at the top of the hierarchy in terms of intelligence and civilised attributes, but the dark Melanesians and Aboriginals are definitely at the bottom. Since Heyerdahl associates blondism with high civilisation, he attributes the blond elements among the Polynesians to the same source as the more civilised features of their culture (stone structures, rongo-rongo writing etc.) i.e. to his beloved caucasoid long-ears. It would spoil his picture to point out the much higher degree of blondism among the Melanesians, as this would suggest a very plausible alternative source of Polynesian blondism, as well as muddying the chromatic association of blondism and light colouration with civilised virtues. For even if Polynesians are regarded in AIP, "Aku Aku" etc. as distinctly lacking in these as compared with the lighter supposed "long ears", they are however considerably superior to the darker dismally savage Melanesians. (end quote from friend) Dougweller ( talk)

Interesting comment - presumably written while Heyerdahl was still alive. I wanted to look at Kon-Tiki initially because that's the earliest of his works and I guessed that racialist assumptions would be clearer. I've read a few early-mid 20th century textbooks on race, and yes these assumptions are indeed commonplace into the 60s and even beyond. of course if good sources comment on his racial models they should be inluded. Paul B ( talk) 18:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the new user User:Madvirgin is a sock of earlier banned user User:Arfaz and User:DdraconiandevilL. He is new member but his edits look like experienced user and resemble the style of the two above mentioned accounts.
Anish Viswa 06:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Working on this. He's not that new. Do you have any diffs? I've found some copyvio. Dougweller ( talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he become active recently only and his editing pattern is very similar to the accounts I mentioned.
Anish Viswa 05:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)