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 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Doug, you may check my IP-edits on talk page and article Persian Gulf naming dispute. I've done it because (in)famous endless games have started again. Cheers, Mr. O. -- 109.165.191.169 ( talk) 11:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance looks ok, but it was a quick glance. Dougweller ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Doug. Could you protec my userpage? ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 13:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Dougweller ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Call me thick, but when I was trying to fix that Mikemikev issue, the block page won't let me rangeblock an IPV6 - I tried 2001:630:12:1073/64 and various combinations of extra colons, but it wasn't having it. What am I doing wrong? Black Kite ( talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Watz up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Take It To The Head ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thanks for your support on this page. Somewhere I have a mental note you may have attended one of the Mahogany Ship symposiums - I really dont know why I think this! Maybe you wrote something about it somewhere? Anyway I have been working at a revision of the Mahogany Ship page and would appreciate any comments and improvements when it finally appears. Cheers. Nickm57 ( talk) 09:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug. You asked for me to have a look.

• The deletions being made mention "We still don't use forums, certainly not 23andMe, restore text cited to reliable 2012 source which was deleted in favor of earlier work." But what is being deleted does not seem to refer to forums or testing company publications?
• On the other hand, while it might not be relevant, testing companies would often treated as serious sources of research, in cases where they are either just working for someone who is publishing or else where they are getting their results published in a third party source with fact checking.
• One source being named is a JOGG article. That is not a perfect source for genetics as such, but I think it is a reasonable source for "genetic genealogy" which should combines good understanding of pedigree research with some basic genetic knowledge relevant to genealogy.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP's edits have been deleted since I posted, they sourced from included "This Information had also been backed up by leading DNA Genetics company "23 and me" (In 2008, Time magazine named the 23 and me's saliva-based DNA-testing service "Invention of the Year",In 2007 Google, whose co-founder Sergey Brin is married to the co-founder of 23andMe Anne Wojcicki, invested $3,900,000 in the company, along with Genentech, New Enterprise Associates and Mohr Davidow Ventures).</ref><ref name="Portugal DNA">[[http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25325-Haplogroup-Updates-PORTUGAL http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25325-Haplogroup-Updates-PORTUGAL]]</ref> </ref><ref name="Human Genetics of Portugal">[[http://www.23andme.com http://www.23andme.com]]</ref> A more recent study on Portugesse DNA Haplo groups also back up the Melungeon DNA test results conducted by Jack Goins to the current and on going DNA studies in Portugesse people. The News article from New Scientist life also backed up this finding in the December 2008 issue by Ewen Callaway </ref><ref name="New Scientist life">[[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16200-spanish-inquisition-left-genetic-legacy-in-iberia.html http://www][http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16200-spanish-inquisition-left-genetic-legacy-in-iberia.html .][http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16200-spanish-inquisition-left-genetic-legacy-in-iberia.html newscientist.com/article/dn16200-spanish-inquisition-left-genetic-legacy-in-iberia.html]]</ref> </ref><ref name="Portugesse DNA">[[http://http://www.ourfamilyorigins.com/portugal/dna.htm http://http://www.ourfamilyorigins.com/portugal/dna.htm]]</ref> </ref><ref name="23 and me wikipedia">[[[23andMe|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23andMe]]]</ref>"

23andme gets a lot of publicity and is used by the media, but I'm not convinced it's an RS here. See Parkwells' comment. Dougweller ( talk) 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can not comment on past versions and past discussions, but shouldn't the latest proposals be judged on their own merits?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned about using non-peer reviewed sources, and I think any such need to be discussed at RSN. Dougweller ( talk) 10:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

On my edit you were concerned that i confuse Christian God from The God of the Bible. They are one in the same and absolutely is not the trinity,

Lake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laketahoejwb ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

On my edit you were concerned that i confuse Christian God from The God of the Bible.

" Please do not delete sourced text as you just did. The article is not about God in the Bible, it is about God in Christianity. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC) " .

I tried to say, that He is but one God, God and the Christian God are one in the same, and absolutely is not the trinity,

Lake --15:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Laketahoejwb ( talk)

Um, I'm not sure what your point is. And the article doesn't say the Christian god is the trinity. Dougweller ( talk) 15:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

from laketahoe: ---It most certainly does. The trinity consumes half of the article

-- Laketahoejwb ( talk) 15:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please reply on Indus Valley Civilization talk page asap. -- Ancienzus ( talk) 08:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murujuga. 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, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I did use the book regarding Juan Ponce de Leon as citing sources on his page, but nothing else. I might need to find a few more sources to go along with that book. LeftAire ( talk) 16:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just want to say thanks for your efford to update my knowledge on Help:Edit summary & Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia! Thank you :) -- 89.16.134.159 ( talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I noticed in the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 5, you voted to support the term 'pseudohistorian' as a category name on the basis that it is used in reliable sources. Your comment read:

This is a term used in reliable sources, there are even books about it. The fact that like so many categories it may be subjective is irrelevant, it's a meaningful and useful term.

Would you mind listing a reliable source which offers a definition of the term according to mainstream acceptance? I started a new talk section yesterday to point out that according to dictionary.com the word 'pseudohistorian' doesn't exist. Like others, I'm confused by the intended meaning of its use in WP. Obviously, if you have a reliable source to show that it does have legitimate status, and that it has an accepted meaning which can be found by appropriate encyclopedic reference, that would quickly bring my concern on this matter to an end. Thank you -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For example, if an author starts to publish historical articles in peer-reviewed journals, can s/he then be regarded as a proper historian, as apart from a 'pseudo' one? -- DLMcN ( talk) 19:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker)I would guess that it would come down to what the majority of the author's works are classified as, and what they are notable for. If Zecharia Sitchin had published a few works in legitimate journals, the rest of his work, what he is notable for, is pseudohistory (at best). Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. I've said at the category talk page that a discussion there about definitions is pointless, as 1) it looks like another run at the deletion discussion which has a solid keep, and we don't care if a word is in a dictionary or not, or how it's defined, we only care about what reliable sources say. Dougweller ( talk) 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting more confused - we only care about what the reliable sources say (?) But what do the reliable sources say about the definition of 'pseudohistorian'? If you know plenty of them, can't you at least supply one on the talk page to quiet my ferreting brain?

I know it's not reliable, but since I'm drawing a blank myself on sources, I resorted to asking Jeeves. As an adjective for a subject 'pseudo' means "not genuine but having the appearance of", but as a noun it means "a person who makes deceitful pretenses". So are all the persons catagorised by the non-existent (?) word 'pseudohistorian' being labelled in a potentially libellous manner - by suggesting that they make deceitful pretenses about history? Or does the term attempt to define historians who study pseudohistory?

It troubles me that "we" don't care how it's defined. With all these endless WP:policies by which we can incessantly reprimand each other on talk-pages, you'd think there'd be one like WP:NTC - 'Need To Care'; like caring about using proper, legitimate words; not pseudowords, that have the appearance of authentic meaning but could be masking deceitful intent. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Pseudohistory seems to have quite a few sources, and it follows that a pseudohistorian has involvement in pseudohistory. - Sitush ( talk) 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

... and, btw, the last sentence of the blog here had me ROTFL. Yes, we have an article on Raëlism. - Sitush ( talk) 03:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If we used words like pseudohistory according to what we believed was their definition, and decided when they applies, we would be doing original research, please read WP:NOR. That's why we stick to reliable sources instead of doing our own definitions. It troubles me that you don't understand how Wikipedia works yet. I'm not sure how a word can be non-existent when it is used by such sources as the Britannica and other reliably published sources. And a pseudohistorian writes pseudohistory, he doesn't study it. There's a huge difference. And drop the 'libellous' language please. See WP:NLT. Dougweller ( talk) 05:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Zac, just to clarify, I wasn't warning you about NLT, just advising you that there can be problems with using the word libellous. Now back to your dictionary problem. My Oxford Dictionary of English (larger than the concise - pretty big in fact, but not the multivolume one) has the word 'pseudo-' (note the dash), with combining form in bold text after it, indicating that it can be used with other words. Not that it matters, as I said, what we care about is its use in reliable sources. Dougweller ( talk) 08:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Sitush – the blog was well worth the recommendation - thanks for the laugh.

@ Doug – my mood further escalated when you hit the nail on the head and explained that to imply a meaning for the word ‘pseudohistorian’ based on a belief of what ‘pseduohistory’ refers to is WP:OR and is to be avoided. My point exactly.

It sounds like you have found the precedent I’m looking for - that reference to Britannica shows the term ‘pseudohistorian’ has been used in a reliably published source to describe someone who writes pseudohistory (rather than being someone who deceitfully pretends to be a historian). Britannica is a big source to check – can you provide a specific reference within that publication, for verification purposes?

My mood dropped a bit when I discovered your reprimand, and suggestion (not warning) that I study WP:NLT – another new one to me. On the positive, I never cease learning new things as a WP editor, and never cease to marvel at how limitlessly policy-references can be given to avoid looking at a problem sincerely, using only the gift of human intelligence, the ability to reason, and the employment of common sense.

However, I don’t find that it helps to be advised to avoid the use of real words when questioning the meaning of a word not found in dictionaries. Especially since my concern is in protecting the interests of WP, by obtaining reference to a reliable source which justifies the use of the terminology we are using. After studying the page I realise that nothing in those policies relates to what I have posted here, and that there was nothing in it that I didn’t know already or would not have assumed to be a given. To ease your own concerns, I am not threatening to take legal action against you if you don’t provide a reference; only requesting one to facilitate the process of ending the controversy attached to that category. If you can’t or don’t want to oblige, that’s OK. It’s just that one of the reasons the keep decision was made was because you said the term is used in reliable sources and there are even books about it.

(BTW, I know what the prefix pseudo means, as I’m sure you realise, no concerns about that – but thanks anyway) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

AGF please. It never crossed my mind you intended suing anyone. I try my best to make sure that editors who are trying to follow our policies and guidelines don't get blocked, and I've seen an editor get blocked over that word who, to cut a long story short, just didn't get it. I wasn't trying to suggest you not use the word libelous to stop you from discussing. The problem I have now is that you don't seem to have done any searching yourself to find out if the word is used in reliable sources. Britannica was just a suggestion as you seem worried about dictionaries. It says (discussing literary forgeries0 "Geoffrey of Monmouth (died 1155), a pseudo-historian who compounded stories from Celtic mythology and classical and biblical sources into a fictitious history of ancient Britain." But all you have to do is search Google books. But why bother? Unless you are suggesting there is no such thing as pseudohistory (in which case you might want to go to to AfD on our article), there must be pseudohistorians. Dougweller ( talk) 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had tried to search the term but got bombarded with references to sceptic sites with obvious bias and no reliability or verifiability in their content. Of course, it is 'pseudohistory' which has been the subject of books, not the term pseudohistorian, which is why the implied meaning of that term is so ambiguous.

However, following on from your reference to Geoffrey of Monmouth I did find one reference to what the term actually means. It tells us that a 'pseudo-historian' is someone "anxious to give the impression, by imitation of the practices of genuine historians, that he is writing truthful history". You see the problem here? The definition here (and that you quoted from Britanica) implies the category lists those who pretend to be historians, whereas many of the authors listed make no pretence at all about the controversial and speculative nature of their works.

To clarify Doug, I never seriously doubted that your posts were well intentioned, and do thank you for your help and patience in helping me explore this -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :::::Google books will give you sources using the word pseudohistorian. Your example shows why we don't use definitions but report what reliable sources say about the subject. It doesn't matter what their motivation or understanding of what they are doing is. As far as I recall from conversations with Bauval (and I may have this wrong) he doesn't get excited about being called a pseudohistorian. Dougweller ( talk) 15:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that despite the above warning, Zac is still implying editors have broken the law, see here: [1]. The last paragraph in particular: "It is for DV to put the matter right and I hope he acts quickly to remove potentially defammatory material from this page. If not then we need to take this to the judgement of adminstrators to ensure the proper procedures are followed". IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat yet, and we do use the language 'potentially defamatory' - I just searched ANI. Dougweller ( talk) 18:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

http://decipherment.wordpress.com/ JC 72.253.70.250 ( talk) 19:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it but thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Maimonides#Israel_Shahak_as_a_source. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 08:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug...

Got a hard question for you...

Is this a proper way to reference/source article content?

Excerpt taken from Fallen angel#Grigori: (Removed ref tags for visibility)

Most sources quote 2 Enoch as stating that those who descended to earth were three,(ref) Sources presenting one version of 2 Enoch and sources using a different version(/ref)

This argument is also on Talk:Fallen angel

Let me know. Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man... you are after all... the Man. Jasonasosa ( talk) 17:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Not sure if you saw it so I'll mention it here, I left a message at User talk:Dougweller/reversion. Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I reverted some of your blanking out in Pytheas, giving my reasons and opening a discussion. Dave ( talk) 05:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for adding copyright text into the article, even if i did credit the original translator of the text, i do realize i did edit the text before reading the guidelines of how to add to articles and so on. It wont happen again.

Now, on to the reason why i deleted sourced text. Mostly because it was something that was written by one single man, while finding sites that refute his claim over and over again. By the hundreds of thousands, millions even depending on your search. Which made me have a certain doubt of his credibility and claim.

A few examples that refute his claims, "I soothed their weariness; I freed them from their bonds. My vast troops were marching peaceably in Babylon, and the whole of [Sumer] and Akkad had nothing to fear. I sought the safety of the city of Babylon and all its sanctuaries. As for the population of Babylon […, w]ho as if without div[ine intention] had endured a yoke not decreed for them, I returned them unharmed to their cells, in the sanctuaries that make them happy. May all the gods that I returned to their sanctuaries,"(Text from the cyrus cylinder) And i could go on and on.

And through Persepolis fortification fragments "The Persians introduced the first idea of human rights. A few examples are: Free religion, no slavery (all Persian workers were paid, contrary to popular culture), all ethnic groups had the same rights, liberty and security to citizens, women had the same rights as men and much more." He freed the jews of babylon from slavery, and was even called "The Great, The Father, The Liberator, The Law-Giver and the jews even went as far as calling him The Anointed of the Lord(Messiah) in the Tanakh (hebrew bible)" I do agree that all of the claimed texts arent on the cylinder. But through other sources, we've come to known that most of the claims fairly accurate. For example through the ones ive mentioned and Xenophons cyropaedia, which tells of Cyrus the Greats character.

I'll read more about how to post on article pages and so on. And how to go about if a text is somehow questionable. Even a soruced one that is.

Hope you have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.172.108 ( talk) 15:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I saw your post on the editor retention wikiproject about research. I'm compiling a literature review of the scholarly research on a subpage of my meta talk space I can find on the topic to help with this and the gender gap issue. If you had anything to add or wanted to help it's there for collaboration :) -- Cailil ^talk 16:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

I need your man power again...

Please see Talk:Noah/Archive 2#CFORK merge candidate

Maybe I'm completely wrong here... and you need to adjust my thinking... but even though Noach (parsha) is a Jewish POV page on Wiki... it is still a valid and good page, right? There are sooo many Jewish wiki POV articles... and someone seems to think that they all need to be merged/deleted?

Please look into this, if time allows. Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 05:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's resolved... I found WP:POVFORK, seems to work. Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 06:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, please don't do that. I've reverted you, AfDs have to run their course and be closed properly, the template says that. Jess is a good editor, and that is a bad article, whether or not it should be merged or deleted. Dougweller ( talk) 07:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Are the other Jewish POV pages, listed on the Weekly Torah portions alongside the Noach parsha, also questionable? Jasonasosa ( talk) 07:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't an issue of pov really, it's whether they are about the Torah portions or just more or less repeat the Torah portions. They should have a brief description of what they are and then a discussion of them based on third party sources. Dougweller ( talk) 07:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Which will involve HUGE gutting of material. Have you seen those pages?! Jasonasosa ( talk) 07:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I worked on the navboxes at one time. I'll notify Wikproject Judaism about the AfD after breakfast. One of our best Admins there died recently or I'd go to him. Dougweller ( talk) 07:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this whole mess. I should have waited on you... I got impatient.. I had know idea there were problems with those pages. I shot my mouth off at Jess... I will go apologize to him. Man, I feel like an ass. Jasonasosa ( talk) 07:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought i'd continue here instead of on the page. I don't think you realise how aggressive you have been, because you feel justified by the rules.

Your comment on my talk page about wp:vandal and now your revert based on wp:consensus have one thing in common - they both suggest that you think the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law.

In my opinion that interpretation is counterproductive to wikipedia. It means that anyone who wants to contribute to content has to spend a huge amount of time focused on literal interpretations of rules for fear of aggressive rebukes. An environment of fear is not good for encouraging contribution and collaboration.

Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I fear User:Dougweller, so should you. Jasonasosa ( talk) 23:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're kidding, but Doug has (inadvertently) ruined a perfectly good discussion about content by trying to make a point about rules. I know it's done in good faith, and probably out of habit, but it lost sight of the fact that the most important thing in wikipedia is collaboration. When over-zealous enforcement of rules undermines collaboration, then something is wrong. Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Never call someone a vandal unless they actually are a vandal, see WP:VANDAL for how to spot one. For other cases, do not imply an editor is a vandal. Do not imply that their actions are those of a vandal. It is uncivil and potentially inflammatory to imply someone is a vandal. Calling someone a vandal is what ruins a good discussion. Dougweller is simply giving you some good advice. IRWolfie- ( talk) 00:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And trying to stop an editor from getting into trouble. Editors who refer to content disputes as vandalism don't help create an atmosphere conducive to good discussion. It's a shame that friendly advice was taken that way. On the other hand, or maybe the same hand, editors that try to force their version into an article during a discussion and against consensus are creating a confrontational situation, not good. Dougweller ( talk) 05:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thinking further about this, if collaboration is the most important thing (and I think it is important but we have 5 pillars and they are on a par), then calling someone a vandal over a content dispute, and putting your version back while discussing it and while the other editors involved dispute it, is not helping develop a spirit of collaboration, and I'd argue that my actions are in tune with the spirit of the rules. Dougweller ( talk) 06:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug (and IRWolfie), I appreciate you are trying to give good advice. But we are talking past each other. You keep focusing on techincal reading of the rules as if they are more important than what the rules are there to achieve:

• It's not unreasonable that someone who is less experienced in wikitalk could have used the term "vandalistic" in a looser way that wikitalk defines it. You don't appear to have disagreed with the underlying point I was trying to make to the editor concerned, but instead of focusing on what I was "trying to say", you beat me up over semantics. In other words, because I used the wrong technical term, you allow it to invalidate my underlying point
• On the topic of reverting, we also talking past each other. You ignored my edit comment which explained what I was trying to do. And now you accuse me of trying to "force [my] version", in direct contrast to my edit comment. I have no idea what you mean by "force" - which one of my comments gave you that impression? Instead of letting discussion and collaboration flow (which it was), you assume my actions were in bad faith and publicly reprimand me.

I just don't think it's helpful to the project to over-focus on this stuff at the expense of discussion about content. It really is at the expense of content discussion - both times you have beaten me up, you totally ignored the content point I was trying to make. Unless you believe that my contribution to the content discussion has no value - in which case please tell me now and I will leave and let you sort it out. Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not refer to him as Doug... It's Dougweller... Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 07:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Doug's not a problem. Oncenawhile, you called an edit vandalism. All you had to do is say oops, I'm sorry, that wasn't vandalism. You chose to reinsert your version despite the lack of consensus. These actions are the sort of thing that drives away good editors. Your contribution to the content discussion is welcome, calling people vandals and reinserting material in the middle of a dispute is not. Dougweller ( talk) 08:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh, where is the message you have for me? -- I dream of horses @ 01:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh, oops, wrong Wikipedian. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 01:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. You'll notice that this was from a long long time ago, but did you mean to block this IP address indefinitely? [2] NTox · talk 08:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not if it was an IP address. I've unblocked it now. Thanks for letting me know. Dougweller ( talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's no problem. Merely saw it glancing over a category. See you around. NTox · talk 08:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, there is a little on Pytheas discussion. Dave ( talk) 12:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Whitening is clearly discussed in the sources u removed and they are from open sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brranew ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan Zindabad. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't even enough time to merge out all of the content from Noach (Parsha). That was a swift delete. What about the referenced Jewish views? Are the other Parshas also on the chopping block? What about the Islamic view pages... like Islamic view of Lot. Should all of the Islamic view pages be deleted too? There are so many. Jasonasosa ( talk) 20:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol. That's not the same article as Noach (parsha). Weird. An AfD takes 7 days or more, rarely any less unless there are exceptional circumstances. Dougweller ( talk) 20:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Noach (Parsha) links straight to Noah... and I got seriously cornfused. Man, maybe I need a break. Jasonasosa ( talk) 21:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

New "Talkback," if you will, as of now. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Doug!!! Just wanted to remind you that one of the things people involved with Scientology are supposed to try to be is enthusiastic!!! And, hey, just think of Tom Cruise assaulting Oprah's couch and you'll know how true that is!!! I seem to remember something else about multiple quotation marks.... Oh, yeah!!! [3]. John Carter ( talk) 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol. We either have a competence issue here or she just doesn't understand Wikipedia.(almost the same thing). I have problems understanding what she writes. Dougweller ( talk) 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a related discussion is currently at User talk:John Carter#Scientology talk page logorrhea. I would welcome your input, and I at least will try to avoid exclamation points there. John Carter ( talk) 23:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller

I wonder what you think about the following:

I came across the article on Parvez Dewan, created recently, and was surprised to see that he is referred to as a diplomat and writer. He was a civil servant in the Indian Adminstrative Service (IAS) until he retired and not a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) which is the Indian diplomatic service. The two are quite different. In any case, being part of either service does not make one notable per se.

His stint in Kashmir, as an IAS officer, was not carried out as a diplomat. He did not need a diplomatic passport to serve in his own country. Apart from a short spell in the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs or Ministry of External Affairs at the very end of his career, he seems to have had little to do with international affairs and diplomacy and there is no record in the article or his CV, cited in the article, of him ever having served abroad as a diplomat. His postings as an IAS officer in India were, and are, part and parcel of the job. Civil servants in every country are expected to undertake such work.

As far as I can see, he is just another retired Indian civil servant. He has translated a few things but he is not really known as a writer, though he seems to have published a couple of other books, nothing that, I think, would automatically make anyone a Wikipedia article candidate.

I see no notabilty here per Wikipedia guidelines. I may be wrong, of course. You are in a far better position to review this. Please have a look, if convenient.-- Zananiri ( talk) 21:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the diplomat section heading. I really don't know about the notability issue. He may be borderline. Ask Sitush? Dougweller ( talk) 10:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have for some time been raising severe doubts regarding this guy as a reliable source. I have also raised the issue that the article has been perhaps created in order to bolster arguments that he is a reliable source. And I have been digging into issues of notability via a discussion at WT:INB concerning IAS ranks. But right now I haven't actually formed any conclusion. - Sitush ( talk) 14:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Doug, you still have not modified or deleted the attack article found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory. If you read the Talk section, you can read about the motivation and OBVIOUS bias of this article from the author's own typed words. "I'd like to remind editors that quote mining is one of the favourite tactics of creationists, which is exactly the strategy employed herein. I'd like to delete those quotes and turn this into a real article without being labelled a creationists POV pusher by a few ignorant punks." Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I pointed out the flagrance of this in the Talk section, and my comments were deleted. This abusive article and abusive Talk section stay on Wikipedia simply because of its form and not for its function. To keep this page up means that you personally, Doug, and Wikipedia by proxy, are supporting some weird "creationists are stupid" argument. I am a Christian and not a "creationist." But it is clear that when links used to make up the lie that special adaptation is a law, that "creationism" is misleading, and links and citations are propaganda in context (i.e. people who are in the business of spouting this hateful message against those who acknowledge the fact that God is the sole creator of the universe and all things in it, calling them "punks" and "creationists" and calling their beliefs "theories" and "facts"), that Wikipedia is made to look bad.

This continues to be a one-sided article that is argumentative and propagandistic. Look how many times the reader is supposed to fall for the premises starting with "Evolution has been described as...", "This has been dubbed the standard gene[r]ic definition of...", and "Philosophers of science argue...". If the reader falls for these premises, then the author can make his argumentative case in support of the CLEAR THESIS OF THIS ARTICLE, which is that "Evolution is a fact, and 'creationism' is wrong, misleading, and stupid." Who are the people who say all the things that the author is claiming? And why must we be reliant upon these phantom citations in order for him to make his points?

"Evolution Theory" refers, of course, to the theory that human beings evolved from primates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution. This is neither fact nor law. The way that Thompsma refers to "evolution" is that of special adaptation. However, he tries to confuse the issue with his whole argumentation of "fact versus theory - my beliefs are facts and yours are dumb." How do I know that is his argument? READ THE TALK SECTION. He says it all over the place, and I, like many others who have been deleted from the Talk section pointing this out, have been deleted.

THIS IS PROPAGANDA, AND YOU ARE SUPPORTING IT. It is all point-of-view, argumentative, abusive, circular in reference, and propaganda. We should all know who the author hates and is criticizing here. We already know why he wrote this article: he thinks that those who oppose Evolution Theory and those who support God as the Creator are just a bunch of idiots. Ask him. He has made it public now. THIS IS ABUSE ON WIKIPEDIA.

I cannot write this anywhere else on Wikipedia, as it will just get deleted. I would like for folks who are insulted by Thompsma's abusive article to also know that a moderator at Wikipedia is defending his approach in insulting make-believe believers of views that he does not hold himself. I want all Wikipedia folsk to be able to read how you will not moderate the heck out of that hateful, argumentative, rhetorical, and clearly propagandistic rebuttal argument to "creationism." I want all readers to know that Wikipedia sides with argumentative folks who load their articles with hatred for others, and that Wikipedia will do nothing about that. That is at least fair, and it would be more credible for Wikipedia to stand by its pro-argumentation stance publicly, rather than let argumentative folks act impunitively.

Your responses so far have been without great merit. I just want folks who are insulted by this particular article to know that Wikipedia supports propaganda. Then they can use a different website for information on things like facts, theories, laws, etc.

Thank you.

Snootcher ( talk) 00:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't say much more than to point out that I think you are confused about how science works. First, there are facts and there are theories. That goes for evolution (which is about all life, not just primates) as well as gravity or electricity. There are facts of evolution, there are facts of gravity, etc. All of these can be observed. What can't be observed is your faith, which you call fact. The only other thing I will say here is that t no article belongs to anyone. Dougweller ( talk) 11:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Hypotheses that gain substantial support, not facts. Well, if you believe Kuhn's paradigm shift philosophy, anyway! The inertia caused by that substantial support explains the often lengthy amount of time it takes for a new hypothesis to gain traction, eg: Gallileo.

One consequence of the Kuhnian model in its relation to Wikipedia is the WP will tend to favour the current academically accepted hypothesis rather than some new proposal or "myth"-based construct. This is because of our policies regarding "fringe" theories, sourcing and due weight. Since most hypotheses never do gain traction, it is not necessarily a bad reflection of the world. Sorry, I came here about something else & saw this while trying to find that. Ignore me! - Sitush ( talk) 14:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

This question is for my own improvement while editing on WP. Does WP have any policies or guidelines about proper/improper use of referencing/quoting Bible verses/scriptures? I want to make sure I'm in compliance with WP policy when editing content involving scripture use.

Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have better things to write about than Hawkins. He may be notable enough for an article, I really don't know, but a lot of the things you put on my page don't help with WP:NOTE, from his mail order PhD to the " Physicians Recognition Award" which isn't a big deal at all. I don't know why you don't want to put the time in to find out what might meet our criteria and use that in your userpace, but if you don't, I can't see why you'd expect me to. Dougweller ( talk) 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say that the knighthood might help, but avoid all the trivia, don't overload it. Stick to only the things that are going to clearly meet our criteria at WP:PEOPLE, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not really sure why you feel the need to play the overseer and to "direct" me in how I should best compose an article on David R. Hawkins, as I have stated, I have little interest in the man, but I can clearly see that he is notable. That is my argument to your objection. ...and I have far better things to do as well than write about him; he has clearly met the notability requirements for BLP, but his "non-notablity" has been placed in notes as for admin reasoning for deletion and he continues to been seen in English-Wiki as not notable. That's the point. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 20:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Doug, I don't intend to make this a big issue, I do feel that there is some bias here on the part of the admins in the notes that I could find, arguing 'psuedo-science', but I bothered to look into this guy once he came into my awareness and it is very easy to see that he is not even in the "minor leagues" he has actually made an impact in various areas. And you keep berating his "mail-order PhD", yet the guy has his MD and is American Medical Association (life time member) along with 35+ other MEDICAL memberships not to mention his authorship. Seriously this is just skewed and overly obtuse on your part... Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 21:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently neither of you want to write the article that will demonstrate notability. I suggest then it's a good idea to let the issue rest as it's unclear what you wish to achieve. IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And no, I don't care to write this article, that's not the point, but it would be good to have it restored and have the original content there to work with for those who might want to deal with it, not just to be oblivious about it. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 00:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... About this David R. Hawkins, Ph.D. what?... Lets take a look at the publishing houses that publish his works...

1. Veritas Publishing looks like self publishing crap.
2. Hay House... Hay house was built on self publishing.
3. http://www.axialpublishing.com/aboutus.htm Axial Publishing Doesn't look very scholarly.
4. Creative Crayon Publishers... for the book Creativity Revealed... yeah, very academic.

This guy demonstrates a lot of notability alright!

Dougweller's Talk page stalker,

  — Jasonasosa 22:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see that you have lots of opinions on publishers but even you seemed to have had no trouble finding his authorship. Your feeling about the publishers or whether his works are 'academic enough', is really irrelevant. And also of note, he received his MD in 1953, his later PhD was also deemed 'legally approved' following the issues with Columbia Pacific that occurred prior to 1997. I personally don't care for his work in certain areas, such as kinesthetics, but I personally think this is more about bias of the genera than it is proving his notability. Wiki has some of the must absurd crap on it, but you are debating whether the publishing houses of the books he has authored, printed in over 25 languages, were all good enough and mocking his second PhD, and not even acknowledging that he was a practicing doctor neither of which are really important, it's just moot. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 23:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Pope's writings all go through the "The Vatican Publishing House", well that sounds like self-publishing according to your definition Jasonasosa, so I suppose that makes the Pope non-notable based on that criteria. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 00:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It can't be undeleted as it has no references. That's the bottom line. Dougweller ( talk) 04:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the version I saw, which I thought was the last one, had no references, and the reason given for not undeleting was no refs, so I'm confused. But it's undeleted. Dougweller ( talk) 04:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't respond to User:Iconoclast.horizon earlier, as I was out. Now that I'm back, let me help you put this into perspective, Icon. Let's just look at Pope Benedict XVI#References, mmkay? What makes the Pope notable, are all of the third party references provided... and not the self published material that can be accessed from Pope Benedict XVI#External links. Now, hopping over to David R. Hawkins#References... like, O.M.G. ... virtually every reference is from his own work. Get it? So can you really wonder why the David R. Hawkins page is tagged with:

1. {wikify|date=July 2012}
2. {BLPrefimprove|date=July 2012}
3. {externallinks|date=July 2012}

I seriously think David R. Hawkins needs a new tag... hmmm... (Looks in box of goodies)...oooh I found one! {Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins}

Talk page stalker,   — Jasonasosa 06:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't really wondering why those tags were just added but thank you for your 'help' in re-clarifying your position Jason (which exact point were you trying to make again, non-notable, no refs, self -promotional publishers you don't like?) as you can see the article has been reinstated, irregardless of your opinions. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 08:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"What makes the Pope notable, are all of the third party reference provided.."? NO, what makes the Pope, or anyone, notable is that they are notable, not whether you like their publisher or their wiki-references meet your approval or not. The point is the basis for your criteria for deletion is sufficiently lacking. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 09:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The pope's notability is not demonstrated through his authorship of books. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And neither solely is this man, and taken on the whole, this individual seems to have actually done far more than a pope over the last 60 years of his life; again irregardless of further speculations he is notable and article was reinstated. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 09:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You say you "really have little interest in the guy." (See Talk:David R. Hawkins#Article is back up) and you also say "I have far better things to do as well than write about him;" (See your first comment above dated: 20:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)). I find these statements fascinating, since you are plastered all over the David R. Hawkins (View History), editing away on him like you have a vengeance. Your little interest in him is also plastered all over his Talk:David R. Hawkins page. I think you are taking this page way too personal and I think you just need to let it go... (Looks over at the AfD trashcan.)  — Jasonasosa 09:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I never really was concerned with the article, the man himself or what he does. The point is does his level of recognition meet the criteria for Wikipedia, and despite your and several other people's short-sighted objections the answer is "yes". And I don't take it personal. Have nice day! :-) Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 09:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Only doing damage control for about a day and a half now. Dougweller ( talk) 10:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I know... we make your wikilife either miserable or entertained or both! One thing is for sure... you can't be bored.   — Jasonasosa 10:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A new debate has started over whether it is the or just one of the creation narratives. Please add your voice. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried to present the narrative solely by mine all words, with one quote given under quotation marks. Check it out if this can stand. Tritomex ( talk) 13:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much for your help and explanations. They are very helpful as I was not aware about those facts. Please accept my deep respect for your work. Tritomex ( talk) 14:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has been repeatedly insisting that the premiere date for Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood is September 3, but refuses to cite sources to prove it. All the sources we have say "Fall 2012." I was pleased to see that he was blocked for disruptive editing elsewhere. It seems you have the power to block users. I would like to request that if he changes this date one more time without providing a source that he be blocked. He has been sufficiently warned, I think. Thanks for your help on this. Please leave any response on my talk page, as I do not habitually check other users' talk pages for a response. -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 23:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

...are certainly socks of a repeatedly indef blocked editor who is generally discussed under the User:ProfessorJane identity. I've requested an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProfessorJane. Ergative rlt ( talk) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and especially thanks for fixing that stupid typo of mine (Off instead of off). Dougweller ( talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Doug,

I'd like to point out why your deletion of my work on "Judas Iscariot" is not only unjustified, but insulting:

Some of it was what we call copyvio, a copyright violation, with material copied from [1] (unless you copied it from yet another source, which is possible - in any case it appears to be a copyright violation).

As I stated in my contribution to the article, the information provided comes directly from the Lutheran Study Bible, the notes and essays of which were created by a variety of professional theologians and pastors and endorsed by their synod, a body of over two million people. And I've never seen the website to which you refer.

It all appears to be your own analysis/research - take a look at WP:NOR - we have a firm policy against original research, our articles should be based upon what we call reliable sources

A body of professional theologians publishing in their denomination's official Bible is not "reliable"? (And again, I cited the actual text; see the previous point.)

Related to that, if a notable scholar writes " best-informed explanation" you can say "X writes that this is the best-informed explanation", but Wikipedia can't say that in its own voice.

That's fine. How would you say nicely that the previous content is incomplete and misleading?

And finally, I see your edit ended up on a blog without any link or attribution to Wikipedia, which is unfortunate.

No, you were lazy or careless, since the link is provided in the words "an article on Judas Iscariot" at the beginning of the second paragraph.

new users often don't realise quite what it means when Wikipedia states it is an encyclopedia.

That might be true, but in this case, you were careless, prejudicial, and condescending.

Is providing incomplete, gravely-misleading, and factually-incorrect content relevant to the faith of more than two billion people "quite what it means when Wikipedia states it is an encyclopedia"?

You've erred, Doug. The work should be restored.

Regards,

AmillennialistContraMundum ( talk) 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got me on the blog, I missed that. I didn't miss though that some of the material you added to the article can be found published on the web earlier than your edit and thus is copyvio unless it can be proven differently. I wouldn't "say nicely that the previous content is incomplete and misleading?", I'd find a reliable source (according to our criteria at WP:RS that said it. I am definitely not going to restore anything I consider to be copyvio or in violation of our WP:NPOV policy. And this should be on the article talk page and I'll copy it there now. Dougweller ( talk) 08:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It can be proven differently because it's in the book sitting on my coffee table (and in many other homes, churches, stores, and libraries. That's why I was able to provide specific page numbers. Do any of your sources cite specific page numbers?).

And is not the Lutheran Study Bible a "reliable source"?

AmillennialistContraMundum ( talk) 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'proven differently' - could you explain at Talk:Judas Iscariot? Did I add sources to the article? If so, what are they? Specific page numbers should be included for books in most cases. Dougweller ( talk) 08:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Saw the page protection on white nationalism article. Thought that you should be made aware of this discussion. - Multirecs ( talk) 13:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I'd missed all the other pages. Especially the last post, "Alas, Akins, my repeated attempts to add your good self to a list of Prominent Individuals in WN on Wikipedia (using a variety of different IP addresses), over the last week, have all been shot down in flames. Apparently, you just don't rate." This is background: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wyvren/Archive]. I'm not terribly worried about all this. Dougweller ( talk) 15:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So, you got any edits planned for today? Jayemd ( talk) 08:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I just noticed the "reply" an IP user left to your warning. Regarding the rules on other people's talk pages, is thi something that I/you would be ok to revert? Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link please? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for TB. Sorry, should have included it: User talk:124.176.222.19. Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cluj-Napoca. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

User Kakorot recently made an era change to an article. His contrib history showed a pattern of this, so I went to his Talk to point out WP:ERA. The only other § there was one you wrote a month ago warning him about the same thing. I left a new § advising him to review your previous warning and pointed out his recent edit was a violation of WP:ERA, this done a month after you warned him. Thought I would give heads-up on this in case you were interested but not following his page. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 05:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. Thanks for the kind tone of your remarks. I wanted to let you know that I just reverted some of the changes you made to the book of Moses article. I agree that the announcement of the forthcoming book may be a conflict of interest, so I did not add that back. However the parallels between the book of Moses verses and the Enoch literature can be publicly verified, and I thought they should be kept as is. If you or anyone else has an honest quibble with any of these parallels, however, I'd be happy to look at them again on a one-by-one basis. I'll try to watch for any reply from you, but since I don't get a chance to check for such messages often, please forgive me if I am slow to reply.

Cheers, Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkbradshaw ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The parallels need to be sourced to someone such as Orlov, otherwise they are your interpretation/original research. Have you read WP:NOR? Dougweller ( talk) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. Thanks for your quick reply. First of all, do I take it that the reference to the Orlov article is sufficient for the "lad" material, or do I need more?

As far as the others go, I have read NOR, but it seems I have not understood all the nuances. Please help me understand which of the following options is acceptable, and I'll document the material accordingly in the next day or two:

1. Could I, as one alternative, document the parallels by brief quotations of the actual phrases from the book of Moses and the Enoch literature (e.g., "And there came a man unto him, whose name was Mahijah, and said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest?" (Moses 6:40); "they summoned Mahujah… And the giants… sent him to Enoch [...] saying to him: ... tell him that he is to explain to you." (Dead Sea Scrolls 4QEnGiants 1:20)).

2. If this is not acceptable, could I reference a Web page such as http://strongreasons.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/the-book-of-enoch-and-the-book-of-moses/ ?

3. If this is not acceptable, I assume I could reference published materials such as Hugh Nibley's books on the topic, right?

Thanks, Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkbradshaw ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Doug, please let me know if you received my questions above.

Thanks, Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkbradshaw ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug. You requested a ref on the language aspects of Pytheas' name for Britain. It seemed to me that it needed more work. So, I determined on Britain (placename) as the place to put that reference and do that work. What was there was undeveloped and mainly confused, basically a limn off some dictionary. Now I find some high resentment at my changing any of the original wording and a significant slowdown due to the vandalistic removals and phony requests for references on referenced material. It started with someone proferring himself as the voice of the Irish. I explained that I could not accept him as the spokesman of the Irish but if he was a linguist from the Republic of Ireland I would be all ears. It appears as though I have to fight an edit war now in order to get back to Stonehenge. You might want to take a look at that. Thanks. Dave ( talk) 12:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You must never fight an edit war, that's a good way to be blocked. You can start an WP:RfC on content issues if you want. There is, by the way, British English and American English, with slightly different spelling, grammar, and usage. As an American in Britain I'm very well aware of this. You might want to fix "Sschmidt".

"During that century, a common language divided into west and north dialects of Wales, Westmoreland, and south Scotland, from which Welsh and Cumbric, and the southwest dialect of Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and part of Somerset, from which came Cornish and Breton. Research continues on the languages spoken by the ancient British. More languages or dialects may well be discovered." is almost certain to be fact tagged, probably removed, unless you can find reliable sources for both the division of languages (which maybe you can) and the prediction, which you might not be able to find.

And calm down, you are making personal attacks. Please go strike out anything with 'vandal' or 'vandalistic' or anything similar in it. Not only is that against one of our policies (not just guidelines), when you do it, especially with experienced editors like the two who are editing the article now, they won't take you seriously. Dougweller ( talk) 12:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

All right. I'll take your word for it. I don't know of any British/American English conflicts. As far as I know, I've never held out for the American version, whatever that is, at least not knowingly. Once in a long while there is a different word or a words of slightly different use. Mainly though it is the pronounciation, which, in writng, you never see. I got no trouble understanding British people when they speak or they me. I did have some trouble understanding the Scots dialect of Edinburgh when spoken fast. When it was spoken slowly I did understand it. Apparently you on the scene over there have a different perception. I wouldn't know, I have not left my state except for neighboring states for years. What I see from here is, once in a long while someone changes some spelling, to which I never object. So, I think this part of the discussion is strictly academic. I can't remember how we got into it. We're looking at the same articles. You see it, I don't.

The statement I wrote that you quote is in fact part of the reference. I think we encountered this in Pytheas. I can repeat that ref, no problem there. The general statement, well, I took that to be introductory. It is generally true. I figured it needs no ref. That can come out all right. Dave ( talk) 16:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, down to the knitty gritty. You requested me very politely to provide a reference on part of the Pytheas article. Then we started having disagreements on Stonehenge. What bothered me is this. That section was actually referenced. I think we have been through this in quite long discussions now. There was nothing at all in Pytheas that was not standard. I went to especial trouble to reference every major point. The essence of it was, as long as I agreed with you, you were polite and friendly. That went only as far as the agreement. Well, I think one cannot fly off the handle at every tiff. So, we worked out an arrangement where I would do some research and then we could see where we stood. First I wanted to fix this Britain article and present the topic more fully. Now I find, not only can't I get back to Knossos, which I was working on, but I can;t even get back to Pytheas, to which I was diverted by you. Instead I am involved in a long clash over inconsequentials. This is now pretty much like a lawsuit and nothing at all like scholarship.

We are already IN an edit war. Frankly, I don't see the point of it. None of the usual rules seem to apply. My referenced material is deleted arbitrariy. I'm asked for references when they've already been given. Everything I write is questioned. Moreover, only the opinions of the attackers seem to matter. I can only conclude this is not a level playing ground. This is an instance where people with axes to grind are to be allowed to take over groups of articles arbitrarily. I've seen this many times before in my life. Power is always veiled. All of a sudden you can't get anywhere. Nothing you do is right. Your seeming friends turn against you. You seem to be in trouble but you can't quite figure out what. I wouldn't mind if any of the articles in the group were worth anything. But they are not. That very fact leads me to think someone in control of these articles does not want good articles there.

Well, all right. This is not or should not be a war. There are serious content questions. I never heard of the word ethnic being objectionable. It does not mean anything genetic. If he thought it was, why did he not change it for one he thought was better? I'm trying to focus in in the linguistic and tribal identity of the original British. I'm getting nowhere. It seems pretty plain to me, this is a classic example of WP being controled by a group with an axe to grind. This group drives off editors. In order to hold my own here I need some support. Right now it is three against one. If no one else is interested in getting a decent article here we aren't going to get anywhere now either. You're right, it isn't worth it. I originally had a policy not to go back to articles I had worked on. I found after evaluation that most of my material had survived, so I stayed. I think you are doing the wrong thing here. I do have other things to do. If I can make a difference here I can do some work. If not, take it away. Delete whatever you like. Write or do not write whatever you like. You have to want my services to get them. I'm making the small changes you suggested. I got no interest in the article being bad. Then I am leaving it after all. I can work with WP's good aspects but there is no point in wrestling with its limitations. Waste of time. There's no resentment. If you decide to play on a level field I can come back. My name, however, is not Sisyphus. Thanks for contacting me on Pytheas originally. Thanks for your advice. I don't think our fundamental philosophies are reconcilable. Nothing turns me off faster than a stacked deck. Always been that way. You British and British residents can keep it all British, hey? The next time you have one of these things leave me out. Just delete it. Anyone can look this material up just as I did. Ciao. Dave ( talk) 16:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Doug I don't understand why you completely struck out what I wrote versus making corrections. First of all, it was not plaguerized, copied or taken verbatim from any other writing. Second, if the source I cited, despite citing within it Nobel Prize winning scientists does not meet some Wikipedia standard, then fine, but it takes all of 2 minutes on Google to find a bevy of sources.

What is so utterly ridiculous about the article on Juan Diego is that it devotes so much time to discussion of whether or not he existed, while ignoring the most compelling evidence of his existence and the story - that is the Tilma. The garment that should have lasted 20 years and has lasted 500, perfectly preserved with no scientific explanation for that or the icon of Our Lady of Guadelupe on it. Not sure if you get out much, but you can actually go see it in Mexico City. It is a rather glaring and embarrassing omission from the article. So frankly, I was just trying to do Wikipedia a favor. I have found far worse sources than what I provided cited on Wikipedia, but if you prefer a different source that's fine. But as it stands right now, the article is far from complete and again, what it is omitting, is rather significant don't you think?

I mean, in light of the attempt to create a legitimate debate about his existence, it would seem rather germane that the tilma exists. Because since it does eixst, you really only have two options, it is Juan Diego who wore it, or someone else. But since no one else has been identified (hard to imagine they would keep quiet about something like that), the only really logical conclusion is it was Juan Diego.

But I was simply trying to add some basic factual information about the Tilma. So here are your choices. Number one, the article is glaringly incomplete and embarassing. Number two, you (or I will later) find "acceptable sources". But what's up there reads like it was written by someone with a rather strong Catholic bias and doesn't even appear to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keneverett ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't understand how the number 17 was in the text when you wrote it. Nor am I clear about what you are getting at - you are saying that the tilma is a miracle but the article shows a rather strong Catholic bias? In any case, if we are discussing anything scientific, we need to show the original source for the scientific claims. We do have an article on the Lady of Guadaloupe which I presume you've seen - and the associated talk pages? Dougweller ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• User:Hadseys/History_of_the_World
• User:Hadseys/Book_of_the_dead

Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I was going to ask him if there was anything not copyvio in History of the World, but Book of the Dead - amazing. Both deleted now. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It goes on:

• User:Hadseys/Summary of the Bible
• User:Hadseys/List_of_English_Monarchs_(1066-2012) verified copyvios
• User:Hadseys/Guide to Clinical Medicine
• User:Hadseys/Everything
• User:Hadseys/Introduction to cosmology
• User:Hadseys/The State of the World
• User:Hadseys/Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom&action=edit

I've got no idea regarding the other ones, but List of English Monarchs (1066-2012) certainly violates copyrights by copypaste. Fifelfoo ( talk) 06:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(heading to corensearchbot/manual) Fifelfoo ( talk) 06:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been at the gym, in the middle of breakfast right now. Will have the rev/del hammer ready. Dougweller ( talk) 07:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A few questions. One, you might have noticed the recent Falun Gong arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision, which seems to have been a primary contributor to User:Ohconfucius, one of the best who has worked on that content, retiring, and also seems to be instituting a "mandated editor review" for any proposed changes in Falun Gong-related content by some editors. I think it would be very much in everybody's best interests if we had a few experienced hands who might be able to inform themselves on related topics a little involved in maybe making the effectively "full protection" edits the editors under MER propose. I already asked SilkTork and he said he's busy enough, and you came to mind second. Secondly, I wonder if you have the Highbeam Research account that was given away. I ask this in relation to the articles on Baltic mythology, Estonian mythology, Latvian mythology, and Lithuanian mythology. The Highbeam site has an article from the Encyclopedia of Religion on "Baltic religions: New religious movements" might be interesting and useful in establishing how to deal with these articles. And, of course, if you don't have the free one year subscription to it as per Wikipedia:HighBeam yet, I tend to think it would be very useful for you too. I've only used it a few times, and I am more than a little pleasantly surprised at how much it has. John Carter ( talk) 00:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

   Hi, Doug, i friendlily stalked your ed-summary

written by God's own finger.

on Exodus, and having exhausted my interest in "Finger of God" pages in the last few days, thot you might be interested to know that the lk goes somewhere now. As to "not biblical" i actually tried to track the refs back to some logic supporting inferring in the word "own", and before running the chain of refs back to something inaccessible, i found myself shocked myself with instances of willingness to write footnotes that seem to ignore what the supposed source says. Anyhoo: there is such a stub now (which does not support the word "own"). I'm not interested enuf to take up the IMO justified cudgel against "own", but in case you might be interested in revisiting the edit to see where the stubification of the former red lk led, i'd like you to know about it. (I dunno if you're interested in the astronomy; i was more fascinated than i anticipated, FWIW!) Thanks for your interest in the link, and for reading this far (if you turn out to. [smile])
-- Jerzy• t 08:43 & 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this and for letting me know. Sadly I'm not surprised by your comment on footnotes (although sometimes this has happened because people happily changed sourced content ignoring the source, quite a serious problem here). What do you mean about astronomy? And are you going to find a source? Dougweller ( talk) 08:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) Finger of God (celestial) (oh, Finger of God#celestial or Finger of God (nebula)), my most recent Dab work & supporting stubs. (2) What i found was that a WP-ed cited a book that's on G-books, and its author had quoted an author who's quoted by others on G-books, but IIRC i could only have tracked down in a big academic library.

(Someone's point was that Decalogue's central role is demonstrated by repetition (but do the 2 versions match? See the article on 3 ways to divide the content into 10 parts!), and by "saying" "writ w/ foG" of nothing else; as far as my interest went, the translation i looked at didn't mention "own", and the failure to claim it for any other case is not an assertion that those who claim didn't believe other cases (Mene, mene, tekel upharsin, i'd have thot!) qualified just bcz they didn't say it explicitly abt them. Crap logic IMO. I'm compulsive, and Dab repair usually has a clear end point, and "it's just a stub; gonna get back to Dab'g" is satisfying enuf for me. So no, i've no plan to go further. (Interest in foG flowed from someone flagging it for Dab-CU.) Sorry, & thanks.
-- Jerzy• t 09:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks for the explanation. Dougweller ( talk) 09:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You did the correct thing. If I knew how to send Wikilove messages, I would send my first ever in WP to you, in the form of a plate of either cold or warm Dolma (without a "Made in ..." tag on them) of your choice. Thank you and all the best. -- E4024 ( talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's very kind. It's frustrating that I prefer them with minced lamb as it isn't easy to get them that way. Thanks again. Dougweller ( talk) 10:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My wife prefers to use veal or beef instead of lamb or mutton in meat Dolmas but all the same send me an e-mail if you are in Turkey some time. Best. -- E4024 ( talk) 12:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While my Proposal regarding reports to notification boards is not quite ready for prime-time, when I saw your ANI post here I just had to ask for your comments.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this myself. I think I forgot once, something happened to distract me. Dougweller ( talk) 18:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey all!

So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the #wikimedia-office ^connect channel, and another at 01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	Some Sütlaç (Turkish rice pudding) for you!
	To thank you very much and for you to enjoy it after the Dolma and before a cup of Turkish coffee... E4024 ( talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks! Dougweller ( talk) 13:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! There is a silly situation — i found a new script @ fr wiki at copyed it here and something went wrong with it and i can't undo anything. I'm Edgars2007 ( talk · contribs). Could you delete this page and undo this edit? -- Edgars2007-02 ( talk) 13:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I deleted the page and undid the edit, but surely you could have undone the edit? Dougweller ( talk) 13:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! No, i couldn't do anything :( There was some error. -- Edgars2007 ^{( talk/ contribs)} 13:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think what C. Fred was trying to attract attention (with the word "agenda") about the new user's change in Dolma article was the fact that he or she pretended to ignore the fact that there was already a reference to the countries of the former Ottoman Empire in the lead and Greece is one of them. Now the same user (TheOrignator) has tried to do the same in Baklava article. Gives the impression that he wants to change the history of Greece, at least in WP... -- E4024 ( talk) 07:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That might be true, but as most readers won't know what the Ottoman empire covered, and many people associate dolma with Greek cuisine, I think it belongs in the lead. As for Baklava, similar problem (it's a basic part of Greek cuisine) plus a lot of POV editing and some misrepresentation of sources. And why doesn't it mention that a number of sources suggest an 8th century BCE Assyrian origin? Dougweller ( talk) 07:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, I reverted your change of Dolma. The Greek peninsula was a part of the Ottoman Empire, not a "surrounding region". If you want to remember in the lead that Greece belonged to it too, go ahead, but please don't change the History. Alex2006 ( talk) 08:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is me again. :-) I restored the reference about Dalby on Baklava. Please read the conditions for a publisher regarding the "look inside" at Amazon.com. There is no guarantee that the whole book was uploaded by Amazon. Alex2006 ( talk) 08:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm really confused. Although I see your point, how is the Middle East a "surrounding region", and if it isn't, why haven't you removed it? Dougweller ( talk) 08:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Dougweller, the middle east was never all Ottoman, but you are right, part of it was Ottoman. We have to correct it. If you agree, I will do tomorrow (now I am leaving home), trying to find a good descriptio. About Baklava: I have also more than a doubt about the story told in the article, but before removing a reference we should have the book in our hands... Alex2006 ( talk) 08:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that one reference was clearly misrepresentation, why have you restored a reference that you have not checked and that doesn't even give a page number? And I had an edit conflict, the link is to Ottoman cuisine which says "the Ottoman cuisine has strongly influenced other cuisines such as Persian cuisine, Armenian cuisine, Cypriot cuisine, that of the Balkans (Greek cuisine, Bulgarian cuisine, Romanian cuisine, Macedonian cuisine, Albanian cuisine, Serbian cuisine, Bosnian cuisine), and that of the Middle East (Levantine cuisine, Lebanese cuisine, Syrian cuisine, Iraqi cuisine, Jordanian cuisine, Palestinian cuisine, and Israeli cuisine)." So if Greek cuisine is an 'other cuisine', then you've removed a non-Ottoman cuisine from the lead. Dougweller ( talk) 09:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I am writing under the correct title; if not, beg pardon. Believe me part of this food fights (not only in WP but everywhere else) is mostly not over who invented what. It is more related to ethnic hatred. Food is a pretext for some. They take it just like any other pretext to begin a sentimental speech (could not find better words). You referred -somewhere- to Greek and Turkish nationalists, but who wrote most POV on baklava is the rather new user Thinkfood, who -among others- attacked the Azeri people with various (and IMO ridiculous, as a person who knows the history and politics of the region ex officio) arguments. Guess where he is from! (Maybe he should change his name to Thinkazeri. I am joking. :-) WP is not a forum but let me tell you this: I would eat a tasty dolma (-although my favourite is "Etli yaprak sarma" and for me it is not a dolma- made by mom, pls don't tell my wife :-) made by whomever (Kostas, Agop, Mohammad, Engin) and under any name and enjoy it. It is the common heritage of the Ottoman influence area (but not only there). To end it I should say: One of our favourite "meze" dishes in Turkish "meyhane"s (equivalent of tavern) is "Topik", an Armenian contribution to the Ottoman cuisine... -- E4024 ( talk) 09:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not the kind of baklava we are accustomed to in my country. (The dough layers should be thin as transparent.) Therefore I am sending you what I found in WP. Whoever made it I hope it is tasty and wish you and everybody else in WP to enjoy it. In Turkey we say "Let us eat sweet and talk sweet..." E4024 ( talk) 09:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

98.185.48.50 ( talk · contribs · count)

Hi, Doug. That particular IP appears to be used by different people based on the edit history; subsequent to the last block, which I believe was a mistake, someone used that IP today to commit a clear-cut case of vandalism. That's how I got involved.

I looked at the edits you blocked the person for earlier this month and they didn't look like bad-faith edits or even incorrect edits. I think perhaps the editor that warned this IP and then reported them jumped the gun in seeing disruptive intent.

Thanks for keeping an eye on things around here. -- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs)} 00:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. My mistake; the other editor, Ian.thompson, just spelled it out for me at User talk:A. B.#Re 98.185.48.50 and the Ica Stones -- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs)} 01:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Dougweller ( talk) 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See my additional comments at User talk:A. B.#That IP sock about dealing with this chronic vandal.

Thanks again for your help keeping our articles safe and reliable.

-- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs)} 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the very good work you've done here - and also for your help to Wikipedia at AIV and elsewhere. Dougweller ( talk) 14:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012. 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, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wandering around in Wikipedia and then saw an error to correct in the Sarah Parcak article. I was surprised to see you were busy editing away there. The last time I talked to you was when the Ransom logo disappeared. After waiting a while I had the school give me a copy of the logo and I added it back in. So far so good. GroveGuy ( talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - good to hear from you. I noticed you on a few articles. I'm interested in Egyptology, thus my edits there. Plus there's someone there that really doesn't like her for some reason, so there have been some WP:BLP issues. Glad you got the logo. Dougweller ( talk) 20:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Check out this one! [4] I almost forgot about this! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Am not really on Wikipedia at present, and don't plan to be back soon, but saw your question in passing. I think tradition is fairly consistent in regarding Ascanius as the founder of Alba Longa. Don't know whether there's some distinction to be made between founder and first king? This is probably indicative of what I was saying on the talk page about not treating these kings as historical. The point is what each represents in Roman myths of genealogy. I'm not sure where I'd go to sort this out. If I happen upon something in my outside research, I'll drop you a note. Best wishes! Cynwolfe ( talk) 23:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that you are right, better control the book first. I changed the introduction to dolma, I hope that now is better. Moreover, I added a sentence + ref specifying that the same dishes are also common in the Italian cuisine (always a reason of astonishment when some Turkish friend comes to Italy :-)). Alex2006 ( talk) 06:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Doug, go on Baklava's Talk page. you will find a surprise :-) . Bye, Alex2006 ( talk) 12:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As Italian I have a certain "faccia tosta" (I don't know how one can say in English, it is something as "being shameless") in my DNA, so I wrote a post on his User page (he is very active on Wikipedia). He is really a nice guy, so he did not send me to hell :-) . I am glad also about his answer, since he introduces an element of common sense, which is a good antidote against the low intensity Byzantine - Ottoman war :-) currently taking place here. Alex2006 ( talk) 11:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these wars are tiresome and really pretty silly. Dougweller ( talk) 12:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Could you watchlist this page? Minor kerfuffle at the moment but check out the charming edit summaries by one particular user on 12 July (I think). Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this please? Thanks. -- E4024 ( talk) 10:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be true, but if it is, it needs a source. As I can't find it in Mongolia, I've reverted it. I'm not sure I'd call it vandalism though. Dougweller ( talk) 10:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Transferred from your user page, lol. He iro 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of conspiracy theories}} --~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_conspiracy_theories I have filed a dispute over your threat and failure to comply with WikiPedia's NPOV standards. Validuz ( talk) 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's why I never got a yellow message! I've replied already, but thanks very much for getting it off my user page. Dougweller ( talk) 13:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken your comments on board in the edit i made today on the article having read the suggested guidance and hope we can agree on contributing to this article together rather than entering into an edit war. If you have further dispute with my additions , can i request you post your contentions on the articles talk page and we look to resolve them there rather than reverting and deleting the whole thing.

Darwinerasmus ( talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I really should have commented on the talk page, but time.... We can't call this an object in the lead, as another editor noted in his edit summary. We just don't know what this is yet. I'll take a look tomorrow perhaps. Dougweller ( talk) 17:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - i didnt call this an object in the lead - i called it the baltic anomaly and said it was an unidentified submerged object which it is in the literal sense of those words - seems not encyclopaedic to me to call it a ufo in the title of the article when it is only a fringe opinion that it is a ufo - there was speculation with the norweigan spiral anomaly discussion that it was a wormhole from another dimension however it was rightly classified in wiki as an anomaly. However i see that the article has been taken up by another editor now and reads much more clearly with some of my edits merged with yours and appears much less biased in how the article is weighted , so ill settle with that for now. Darwinerasmus ( talk) 20:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a message on my talk page.-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doug, John Carter approached me about an editor on the Scientology page you've tried to work with before. It is clear to me that their behavior is disruptive to the point that a ban is necessary. I'm happy to institute a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions, but Carter mentioned you were thinking of an outright site ban. If that's the case we should skip all that and head to a community board (or ARBCOM?) Could you let me know your thoughts on my talk page? Cheers,-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 02:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You said over at DRN, "We simply do not use other articles as sources, that's basic policy and overrides anything in a guideline." I wholly and completely agree, but I can't seem to find a policy or guideline which actually says that. Do you know where it is? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CIRCULAR. Dougweller ( talk) 13:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn. Right before my eyes, duh. Thanks. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a heck of a time adding Wiki:CopyVio to the new welcome @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome. I admit to being a novice with creating columns. I think would look good as the logo. Can you give it a shot? When pesky gets her Mini-manual going we can use it to balance out the right-side column. Thanks. ``` Buster Seven Talk 19:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I'm worse. Try WP:HELPDESK? Dougweller ( talk) 20:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

They Bake Themselves

I love those. I've even got a jar of speculaas paste you can spread on stuff. Dougweller ( talk) 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What does black pudding taste like? Is it good? John Shandy` • talk 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I (an American) like it, but my wife, a Londoner (and thus not in an area where she ate it as she grew up) doesn't. I can't describe the taste, sorry. I eat it fried. Dougweller ( talk) 10:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well darn, I guess I'll have to stop imagining a British accent when I sound out your talk page messages in my head. :( I want to try it, but there's not anywhere I can get it here. Some day, though. John Shandy` • talk 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I eat it fried too, but my wife eats it without cooking. She's a bit strange though (well, she married me). It's one of those tastes that's actually quite difficult to describe, certainly if you didn't know it was primarily composed of blood you wouldn't guess it. It's quite meaty, sausage-like but far more crumbly - it breaks up the pan very easily. Black Kite ( talk) 23:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good description, thanks. As for my accent, after over 40 years here people still spot it almost immediately. In the US of course they think I'm British. But I'm from Miami, not an obvious accent there even then except Spanish, and never had an easily identifiable accent. Dougweller ( talk) 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fried black pud would be considered a sacrilege here in Bury, where it is commonly boiled. It can be bought as a "fast food" on the markets and I would defy almost everyone to eat three of the things in one session. Being made primarily of blood + various thickening agents (the detailed recipes are secret), it is a rich taste and therefore filling. Nowadays, it is possible to buy lean versions, which lack the large-ish cubes of fat, and some idiot has even come up with a vegetarian version.

When I was at school, The Goodies were in full flow on television and Bill Oddie, who comes from Rochdale, just up the valley, was frequently portrayed as assaulting people with a black pudden. Our article refers to one outcome of this but another that gained notoriety via the national press was the expulsion from my school of a mate who whacked the headmaster over the head with a string of them, in imitation of Oddie's character. It was an act intended (but obviously not taken) in jest! - Sitush ( talk) 05:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See this for an episode. Oddie wears the outsize flat cap/braces etc, parodying us northerners. - Sitush ( talk) 05:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha, this is all very enlightening. Guess I threw a pebble into a pond. If you're going to be expelled, it may as well be for a hilarious reason. Regarding accents, I am a coastal South Texan and so I don't have the classic Texas hick accent. Most people in New York City and also my then-coworkers at the United Nations couldn't guess where I was from until I told them. At any rate, I've never had a full english breakfast with black pudding, but when I someday venture over to the UK it is the first thing I plan on doing, and if I can find someone to serve me a home-cooked version then all the better. John Shandy` • talk 16:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You really, really need to be eating them "Oop North" because the southern versions are very much poor imitations. I feel sure that I can arrange if you happened to be passing through either Manchester or North Wales. I assume that you do not have a cholesterol problem if you are looking at a full English! - Sitush ( talk) 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

When I go back to the States, wherever I go, I look for good pancakes, biscuits, maybe waffles or French Toast (had some great Cap'n Crunch French Toast in Vail (offseason) earlier this year! Dougweller ( talk) 10:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, can we review some of your recent edits to Peak Corporate Network? It seems to me that you used a machete where a penknife (or at least a steak knife) might have been enough. I don't want to revert an admin's edits without talking about it first! Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 03:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe later today. I did search for any evidence of notability before I added the tag. If I'd seen something I thought met WP:ORG I would have added it. Dougweller ( talk) 04:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, I feel that some (only some) of what was cut dealt with the competence of the founders and therefore the sound foundation on which PNC began building, and was therefore reasonably relevant to the history/development of PNC. I do agree that there was too much about the principals overall. However, I eventually accepted the article because I have learned at AfC that if you want perfection, your acceptance rate is going to be 0%! Also, it seemed a little unfair of you to cut almost all the refs and then tag the article for "one source". (However, I take your point about those references not going to notability of PNC, and cannot disagree with you.) Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 04:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look later today. I had thought you meant that list. If you get a chance, can you find any reliable sources discussing Peak? Dougweller ( talk) 04:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Check out my new stalker! [5] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a new account, obviously. Any idea who it is? Dougweller ( talk) 20:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings you are an admin so you know what to do. I have been observing what is a little bit of a worrying trend in the insertion (undue weight) of Serer people related content across many African articles. It is not so much an issue with Serer but with its weight and notablity in these topics. They almost seem to be central to everything and builders of everything. (based on two books) It is so out of place and it causes a very serer-oriented weight and claims in places i honestly believe it is not fully deserving. To make my case you can read 20 books on West African history and none mention the word Serer-- at best it is a footnote. In Amazon.com next to nothing. for a group that is so heavily represented in so many articles it is at best worrying. I just did a google search and it said "did you mean server" -- no external links of any notability. My main problem is over representation to the point where it harms balance. A little hedging and 3rd party monitoring might be needed to see if my worries are valid. -- Inayity ( talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Serer related edits are being discussed at WP:DRN#Disruption in Serer religion but I'm not sure that's relevant to your discussion. Have you got some specific examples you can give me about being builders of everything? I have felt that perhaps these articles rely too much on one or two sources (Diop being one of them). Dougweller ( talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

will make a note a get back to you if i feel it is out of hand. it is also a sense after running through some articles, cant locate them now. it is almost like ALL of the Serer project sits on the entire content of one book Henry Gravrand-- Inayity ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article size. 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, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I had asked another admin but seems like he is off-line. Can you do something about this (my last talk in the link) please? Thanks in advance. -- E4024 ( talk) 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Doug:

As you know, I'm the author of the Peak Corporate Network article. I wanted you to know (as I've mentioned to David_FLXD a couple of times) that I absolutely love and respect the concept of Wikipedia (till now, only as a user and reader)and have, I think, a sense (an "educated beginner's" sense!) of the rules that are to be followed in writing an acceptable article -- so I understand the thinking that's been behind edits David and you have made. However, I believe there might be a justification for a restoration (of course, with revisions on my part) of some of the elements that have been deleted that would bring the article up to a more satisfactory level of Notability, and I would like to submit another draft for your (and David's?) review. Unfortunately, I saw the latest communications only this morning (I'm in California -- you are in the UK?) and I have another, unchangeable commitment for today, so it could be a number of hours till I can revise and send it out -- but please be on the lookout for it. Thanks.

On another, totally extraneous note, both of my parents emigrated to the US from Amsterdam, and speculaas happens to be just about MY most favorite cookies as well! Somewhat hard to find other than online, but worth the effort. You mentioned a paste that's available? Any information on that? (You can take this offline-WP and onto email if you'd like.)

Thanks

Ed Ebdavids ( talk) 21:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Trader Joe's sells their own brand, and there's another one you can get from Amazon [6]. I was at a market yesterday and had a speculaas cupcake that used it.

I deleted the list of enterprises as that really doesn't belong in the article. I may have deleted too much of what I saw as biographic material and am happy to discuss that as I've already said to David. But I did struggle to find reliable sources discussing Peak - loads of press releases, etc, but that's all. It would be great if you found some. I'm not planning to take this to AfD but I guess someone else might.

I have Dutch ancestors but they came over a bit earlier than yours - they lived in New Amsterdam. I think I once even saw a map which showed where they lived in Manhattan. Dougweller ( talk) 05:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That was the first time I have ever spoken about a controversial topic. However, the Ottoman Empire must have been corrupt, otherwise why would all of those countries rebel against them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is what we call original research, see WP:NOR. It had no source - WP:Verify and for criteria for sources read WP:RS. It was in the WP:lead which is meant to summarise the article, and the article doesn't call it corrupt. What makes it disruptive is your anti-Turkish statement "The ottomans were very corrupt, and the turks are a shit people still denying genocides, disrespecting other countries sovereignty, and thinking Cyprus is theirs. Stupid turks". Statemens like that, especially on a Turkish editors talk page, are unacceptable. You are also marking edits as WP:Minor which are anything but minor. Not just that one, but edits such as [7] (and the preceding one there) where you removed a link, Paraćin massacre where you removed citation requests, etc. You need to explain your edits in WP:edit summaries. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 04:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller,

Thank you for your message. I have been contributing to Senegal-related articles for several years (in French), but I must say that I have more or less given up those on Sereer topics... If I 'm not mistaken, Tamsier was away for a while, but he should be back now, isn't he ? I didn't follow the whole discussion here and my English is clumsy, so I'm not sure I really understand what is going on ... Ji-Elle ( talk) 08:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 09:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just kind of burned out after the last struggle with Tamsier and haven't been in the mood to sort through his walls of text again. If you think my input is worthwhile, though, I might join in. Eladynnus ( talk) 04:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise. If you look at the DRN dispute now, WP:FTN and Tamsier's talk page, you can see I am being called a bully, accused of hounding, etc. which isn't pleasant (and of course I'm doning none of them) and is confrontational and offputting. However, it's important not to let this sort of thing chase one away from articles. Oh hell, I completely missed the discussion further up Tamsier's talk page and the link to [8] which may be a clue as to these attacks.

I'm particularly concerned with this Raampa writing business. If you look at Tamsier's talk page you can see the main discussion now which I should I guess summarise at DRN. What he says on his talk page (it's proto-writing) contradicts what he wrote at Saafi people (it's writing). What is confusing there is that he first gave Maranz as a source (an article he could apparently only publish on a fringe site, and I don't see Maranz in any case as a reliable source for writing, let alone a sufficient source). Now he has agreed to drop Maranz and changed the source to Gravrand - but if Gravrand actually makes that claim, why not use him in the first place? Of course, Gravrand isn't an expert on writing, his paper at http://psychopathologieafricaine.refer.sn/spip.php?article284 isn't mentioned on Google books or scholar, etc. So besides the odd switch in sources for the same content, we only have one source, an obscure paper by someone who isn't an expert in writing. Dougweller ( talk) 05:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It might make sense if he were trying to provide easily accessible sources for readers and editors and he seems to be quite relaxed about cherry picking and factual accuracy (check his comments in the Serer religion's talk page about Serers not needing to look to Egypt etc, where he seems to be saying that Maranz's claims about Linear A are untrue or unimportant) so it wouldn't surprise me if his new source was equally unreliable or not saying what he wants it to say. Eladynnus ( talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of transperency, this is the conversation between Dougweller and I on my talk page [9]. This link is a report I filed against Eladynnus at DRN Disruption in Serer religion which Dougweller also participated after our thrift. Now it is clearer why these two have cohorted. Not to mention Dougweller canvassing Eladynnus etc. Tamsier ( talk) 17:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just revised slightly and re-submitted the article. To help you see (I hope) that the major Los Angeles Business Journal articles DO, I believe, support the notability of the company -- because the principals are featured, and called upon for comment, BECAUSE of the prominence of the company (despite the surprisingly small number of "general media" articles) -- I have sent you, via your email address (because I thought it too long for here), the summary of two articles that I prepared for the original editor, David_FLXD. If the TV ones create copyright problems, I understand. And I also accept the deletion of the list of companies. Thank you for taking another look; I for sure would like to get out of the only-one-source, candidate-for-deletion situation -- the company really merits this encyclopedia article, I think!

And thanks for the info on speculaas -- TJ's it is, and I'll go there today. Yep, if your ancestors got here when NYC was New Amsterdam, that beats me in spades!

Thank you again.

~ Ed Ebdavids ( talk) 21:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This User:Iansayers, see User talk:Iansayers. Their contribs to Adena culture will explain it all. They are attempting to add all kinds of weirdness to the article, using mainly Frank Josephs book "Advanced Civilizations of Prehistoric America: The Lost Kingdoms of the Adena, Hopewell, Mississippians, and Anasazi, 2009, ISBN  1-59143-107-7". They have now resorted to personal attacks after I pointed out to them that this author (you know, the guy kicked out of a neo-nazi party for being Jewish and then spent time in prison for pedophilia, now spends his writing about Atlantis, Ancient Gods, Maya Prophecies, etc.?) is not an RS. Anyway you could help? Mebbe watchlist the page and help keep the nonsense out? He iro 23:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have started a thread here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Frank Collin, aka Frank Joseph as a reliable source if you care to weigh in. Cheers, He iro 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Doug, please check this issue or forward it to some Wikipedian expert for history of Middle East as soon as possible; I believe we have the most heaviest example of antiquity frenzy ever. Iraqis have become "ethnic group" and they include Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, even Abraham. -- 109.60.16.173 ( talk) 04:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on TJ's -- now THAT is a Notable reference! I'm off to look tomorrow... Ebdavids ( talk) 07:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor I notified you about a few days back has continued his charm offensive on the talk page. There doesn't seem to be much point to this as any actual issues relating to the article have been resolved. I'm getting sick of this timesink and, rather than letting the quarrel drag on for days in standard Wikipedia fashion, could you keep any future divagations of the kind in line per WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM (as well as other relevant policies)? Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Doug. See my comment at User talk:EdJohnston#User:Historylover4 regarding a thread you posted in. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

could you check one more time please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_source_for_criticism -- Kazemita1 ( talk) 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tried a Request for comments (not sure I did it right), if you have time please add your opinion. Talk:9/11_Truth_movement#Lead_Quality_starts_by_wandering-- Inayity ( talk) 09:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well, but I do recommend you try to get hold of the academic source I provided from a library or even Amazon (it is an extremely worthwhile reference purchase) to read before you make up your mind on the subject. It is extremely heavy reading at times but you can get your head around the tables of months provided in the appendix pretty soon with a little logical thinking. Best wishes to you.Kaz 09:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklight Power needs a protected template Bhny ( talk) 17:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's usually done by a bot I thought, I should have used Twinkle if the bot's not working. Done and thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There were 2 editor doing that edit war. One was blocked but another appears to be gaming the system by staying under the 4 reverts. He posted about how edit warring is "fun" [ [10]]

Normally I don't bother with stuff like this, but I thought that since it's a BLP (and one of a minor at that), I should check with someone more knowledgeable. It looks to me like it possibly should be RevDel'd into oblivion, as it has "no encyclopedic value" and is definitely a BLP vio, but I'll defer to your judgement in that regard. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 06:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for alerting me. Dougweller ( talk) 07:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

By user Findblogging, here. Thanks. -- E4024 ( talk) 11:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Doug:

Unless I'm missing it somewhere, it doesn't appear that you've had a chance yet to respond to my latest revision/correspondence with you on this article. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Corporate_Network) I hope you have (had?) a chance to see the reference-item summaries I passed on via your email, and to take another look as I believe you said you would. Right now, as it sits, the article is a bit of an anomaly -- it carries the former notability and single-source tags, even though I have proposed/posted for your review a revised version which now shows a number of the sources/references restored (which, of course, I hope you will accept at least in part and be able to remove the header). Would you be able to look at this? Many thanks. Ed Ebdavids ( talk) 00:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I've noticed that Tamsier edited three Brazil-related articles which I had also edited in the past (Tamsier's edits: Brazilian Green Party, Fifth Empire, and Peasant leagues; my edits to the first two articles were minimal ( Green again and Fifth Empire again) the peasant leagues article was written entirely by me). Is this something I should be worried about? I am not worried so much about the edits themselves as I am about the notion that he is crawling through my edit history and studying every article he sees on there, and also, since he has been shown to believe that tags are vandalism, I don't know if it can be said that these edits were done in good faith, even if they were appropriate. Are there any rules regarding this sort of thing? Eladynnus ( talk) 08:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tamsier (incorrectly) accused me of WP:Hounding him. There are legitimate reasons for tracking other users' edits (I do it frequently), and illegitimate ones. I haven't looked at these yet as I'm in the middle of working on an article, so I won't comment on them right now. Dougweller ( talk) 09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at them now. In the last month or more he's tagged 3 articles as having only one source, all of them articles you've edited. With two of the articles you only seem to have edited them once, [11] and that just to fix minor errors in grammar. The third is one you created. It seems pretty likely to me that he went to the first article in response to your edits, but it's also a mystery to me why he'd still be looking at articles you've edited, particularly as you've only edited them once and they are only minor edits. But I doubt that he ended up on them by coincidence. So, you can complain to him, I could complain, or we can just wait and see if he stops, which I think he will do. I'd advise the latter as being less confrontational. Dougweller ( talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the article List of cookies by removing entries that were pastries rather than biscuits or cookies. You may like to know that there is an article List of pastries - perhaps the pastries should really be there. I know that there are some confusions in the list of foods. For example, I see that crumpets have been included in List of breads but I have never seen them as been bread myself. (I have noted this on the talk page of List of breads). ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news. 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, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, just an update on the article. The sources are now all ok: the tv ones now reference the original network broadcasts, not the YouTube copies. I have done a small edit to show why the company is notable (even if only a little notable!), and I am confident that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Seeing that the notability and single-sources issues have been covered, I have changed those tags for a refimprove tag (there are still a couple of statements, not controversial, which are unsubstantiated). I trust this will be ok. Please respond here if anything needs attention. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 06:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why you cover up the truth on the talk pages of Excited delirium and Directed Energy Weapons and Missing time and Crop circles. Do you want this heinous criminal activity of the USA Government to go unchallenged? Erasing this could make you an assessory to future criminal prosecution by a world court and tribunal. Why do you want to risj this Doug? Why do you want to aid and abett this criminal activity? 2602:306:C518:62C0:3475:D8EA:2921:5A47 ( talk) 07:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

LMFAO... I thought I heard everything... until now!

- Doug's personal stalker,   — Jasonasosa 07:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol, that got the IP a 72 hour block. Of course, WP:NLT could apply, but as this is just silly.... Dougweller ( talk) 08:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

WilliamH ( talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Spewing personal attacks. See [12] and for the proof [13], one of the IPs from that last bunch a month ago that I made an ANI report about [14]. He iro 20:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Long day and I'm off to bed. I've mentioned this to the other editor, just make sure you don't exceed 3RR. I'll deal with it tomorrow if it is still a problem, he only makes a fool of himself. Dougweller ( talk) 20:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the accreditation rule. I had forgotten about that rule. Full Shunyata ( talk) 21:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I struggled with it at first myself. Dougweller ( talk) 04:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Hope this revert explanation makes sense, but let me know if not. This shows the article in question being cited in a normal (not negative) way, concerning its central thesis, by some of the most cited experts in this particular field (reference 25).-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. 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) 16:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry. I meant to post that on your wall, not Maunus's. Wolfdog ( talk) 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. Ironically, if the anon IP (who has been carrying on a long-running, insult- and accusation-filled tirade against me at this same article's talk page on an unrelated matter), had only looked harder, he would have seen that I and the other editor were cordially discussing things on our respective talk pages and worked it all out amicably! Oy! With regards, Tenebrae ( talk) 15:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, well alright I was trying to find the name about a source to come up with Lancelot killing Gawain and ok it was Malory, forgive me about Howard Pyle, I just thought he translated from either Geoffrey or Malory, if I could just find a source about Malory's story I'm hoping to use a source for this edit, not Geoffrey, I couldn't figure out the name thanks.-- GoShow ( ...............) 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Try [15]. Dougweller ( talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely!! , and I will hope it will work for the article of Gawain, otherwise, thank you tremendously!-- GoShow ( ...............) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for finding a good book source, for the article, I know it's really hard to find a good book source on google books, but this tremendously, helps. I hope you check the article Gawain, and how I transferred the source under the "Gawain in English Literature" section, I did read a statement about Gawain becoming a potential heir to the throne and added the sentence in the main summary of the article as well, and hopefully it looks, good. See what you think.

If Cagwinn tries to delete the source, please try to acknowledge the user not to delete the source from Thomas Malory, it is a very useful source and it is in the right section about English Literature of Le Morte d'Arthur know the facts from other users reliable sources, it is not anyone's article it is Wikipedias and every other reliable source under the right representation is allowed to use their edit; I tried to use the source on the English Literature, and not from the Earlier Literature. The part about Gawain becoming a potential heir to the throne came from the Earlier Literature, so I helped the user out in adding it to the summary. This was the only edit I wanted to use on Gawain and that was it to make it efficient for the article and move along, otherwise again, I appreciate the finding, tremendously.-- GoShow ( ...............) 02:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I did searched for Ritte paper and found nothing.Also I am interested to hear you opinion on WP:BLP1E issue that I raised on Sand page.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 09:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Saponi Sardinian Gascon Me ( talk · contribs) on article Melungeon.

Not sure if you are on right now, be we have a new account deleting cited information they appear to disagree with at this article. I have reverted twice and left them a level 2 note at their talk page. If they remove again mebbe you can advise them. He iro 18:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Left them a note on their talk page to discuss on the article talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 20:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've filed the report now, in case you want to have a look: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

for this of course :) -- DBig Xray 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that you don't use inferior sources as references. If you look at the concept of "deity" or "god" you will see clearly that, regardless or their natural or supernatural prowess, that they are "supreme" beings simply because they are deities. They are revered as such by their worshipers.

By the way, don't you think its a little adultist for not using children's books as your scources. How did you come to that conclusion?

( North911 ( talk) 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)North911 North911 ( talk) 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

'Supreme being' means just that - the Abrahamic god, etc. As for children's books, years of editing and reading WP:RSN, but do take it there if you think it's a reliable source. Dougweller ( talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As User:Dougweller's personal stalker, even I think your remark User talk:North911, of an "adultist", is a little creepy.  — Jasonasosa 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The only people who truly believe that the Abrahamic god is the only 'Supreme Being' are the ones who adhere to those religions. He is just one deity, he is not the only one. All deities are supreme beings in the respect that they are supernatural, possess divine authority, and are respected and worshiped by humans.

( North911 ( talk) 20:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)North911 North911 ( talk) 20:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

It doesn't matter what "-eist" an editor on Wiki is... as long as we keep to a wp:npov using wp:reliable sources while watching our wp:weight. User:Dougweller's personal stalker,   — Jasonasosa 20:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am no one's 'personal stalker', Jasonasosa. - unsigned|North911

Well I am... and I'm proud to be User:Dougweller's personal stalker, until the day he views me as a little creepy and just decides to block me.   — Jasonasosa 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Supreme" means "having power over all others." The idea of multiple supreme beings is inherently contradictory. I could very easily find a number of Hindu and Thelemite sources that believe the Abrahamic God is the supreme being. The Turkish and Mongolian words for God (Tengri) used by Christians and Muslims who speak those languages was used to refer to the high God in Pre-Abrahamic beliefs. Of course, the word "God" itself was originally used by Norse pagans, and the "thei" in "monotheist" comes from the Greek Pre-Christian "Theos." The idea of a supreme being is "whatever's at the top," regardless of whatever is below it, and regardless of whether the person is a Mahayana Buddhist, Advaita Hindu, Roman or Hellenistic Neoplatonist, Tengri worshiper, Nzambi worshiper, Gardnerian Wiccan, Thelemite, or Teotl worshiper (many of those I just listed, btw, are rarely, if every considered monotheists). Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by all this criticism. Wikipedia is a social network. This is just like Facebook. ( North911 ( talk) 20:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)North911 North911 ( talk) 20:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes, totally dismiss it as us being a social network, despite WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site, and despite having been explained that your edits were undone because that failed our reliable sourcing guidelines (as detailed here), and our neutrality guidelines (as detailed here). That's definitely the most accurate way to view things, instead of how the site actually works. Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

North911, if you read the top of this talk page, "This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query", you wouldn't have been surprised at all to begin with. We are friendly stalkers... not creepy ones.   — Jasonasosa 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have lived a particullarly shitty life and my attitude towards criticism like this can be said in one word: Intolerance. Wikipedia may not be a social network, but it still allows person-to-person conversation and therefore conflicting veiwpoints. Each person has their own enterpretation of a particular subject, and none of them are as official or less important as the other. I created my account simply to add professional information to wikipedia based on personal experience. I will be deleting my account. After the hand that Ive been dealt, I don't haft to deal with all this criticism and threats of blocking. Why do you think "Criticism of Wikipedia" even exists? Its because of controversy and criticism and administration like this. I will continue to edit simply as an anonymus contributer. ( North911 ( talk) 21:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)North911 North911 ( talk) 21:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

There is an RfC regarding the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your name was selected at random from the Feedback Request Service list of editors willing to contribute to RfCs regarding WP policies. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. The RfC is here. -- Noleander ( talk) 13:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same but I am too busy to look into it. Good job with the new leads. Keep at it because when one person works at an article then it loses its crinkles and becomes better and better. Good luck. I'll be reading the changes but I'm just too busy to do the research as you have done and are doing. Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk) 17:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it that everyone is allowed to delete the deletion template that I put on the David R. Hawkins page? This is the second time this has happened. I thought it had 7 days to process. I thought people weren't allowed to arbitrarily delete those tags once put on the page. Can something be done about this? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are confusing WP:Criteria for speedy deletion with WP:Articles for deletion. A speedy tag, such as you added, should be acted upon or removed quickly, hopefully within 24 hours. There's no discussion for these. In this case the article didn't qualify for speedy delete - the criteria for your tag being "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc. See WP:NOTPROMOTION for the policy on this." First, it had criticism in it, so not exclusively promotional, and secondly it really didn't need a complete rewrite. AfD won't work either I don't think as I would guess he meets our notability criteria. A lot of articles get tagged for speedy that don't qualify, probably as many get the wrong tag or get deleted for the wrong reason. Dougweller ( talk) 19:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clear up.  — Jasonasosa 19:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

All Wikipedia content[1] is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlyriser10 ( talk • contribs)

And we expect every editor to follow our policies and guidelines. Maybe the fact that so many editors are reverting you, including 3 Administrators, might suggest that you are getting something wrong? Dougweller ( talk) 13:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:EdJohnston#Historylover4. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:Saafi people you mentioned having a copy of Vol. IX of Psychopathologie Africaine and went on to say that there were no raampa pictograms in there. Should the examples of raampa scattered through various Serer articles be removed, then? Eladynnus ( talk) 13:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I reported you to AN for the outing violation. Cla68 ( talk) 12:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Could you take a minute to study the edits of guy [16]? He is apparently the resurrection of a user Dab had some history dealing with, named User:Tirgil34. He has been inserting some fringe nationalist nonsense into a dozen pages, misquoting/falsifying sources [17], and replacing WP:RS material with fringe Turkish nationalist sources. Kurdo777 ( talk) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Off to bed now, problems of my own at Talk:Roger Pearson (anthropologist). Dougweller ( talk) 21:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurdo777, please don't make emotional harassment. If you go on with your unsubstantial harassment, your absurd accusations and edits, you will be taken to vandalist-list next time. -- Greczia ( talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I see Kurdo777 is a bit nationalist of Kurdish people, so he cannot stand the edits of Greczia, who is contributing to Wikipedia with reliable sources. Gabriel Stijena ( talk) 04:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For me it does not matter if somebody is nationalist of Kurdish people. First of all we all have to be kind to each other without discrediting anybody. I suppose he even did not know that I am of German descent and not Turkish. Bad for him, now he know it. -- Greczia ( talk) 09:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Will somebody ban you already! The Scythian 20:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You should keep words like "troll" and "vandalism" out of your edit summaries. Troll is a personal attack, and vandalism is only properly used when you're reverting actual vandalism. (My apologies to Doug for my repeated intrusions on his Talk page.)-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No apologies needed, it's very much appreciated. Dougweller ( talk) 20:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

Thank you for your message, what article did I write this material in so I can correct it. I do a lot on the wiki so I am unsure. IPWAI ( talk) 07:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

Says "monotheism apparently only developed around the time of the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC"

This is a serious error. There is nothing to back up this claim. Please make sure you don't add such serious errors to the public domain.

Reference: The Hebrew Bible!

King Solomon was monotheist 500 years prior to 6th century BC. Please verify responsibly.

That was sourced. The Bible is not considered a source for history, at least not on Wikipedia. Your edit is simply wrong, the Israelites worshipped other gods as well as Yahweh. We need to show with reliable sources when full monotheism developed. These sources will probably disagree, and we can show the literalist view (yours) and other views. But we don't take the Bible as Gospel. Dougweller ( talk) 13:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, can you take a look at my earlier request? Can you please initiate a check on these three editors [18] [19] [20]? I suspect that we're dealing with a sock-farm here, and these SPAs are all connected to one and another, possibly connected to E4024, given their editing style/POV/language barriers. Gabriel Stijena , in particular, seems to working as a revert machine for E4024 on the various Turkish nationalist disputes he is involved in, like Cyprus. [21] Dab is not around anymore. And the other admins are not familiar with the content on these pages, and these nationalist-type fringe theories, which is why I keep asking you. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34/Archive Kurdo777 ( talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been distracted by other things (off-Wiki attacks on me and some Kurdish language stuff). I'll take a look. A real shame about Dab as he was far, far more familiar with this area than I am - I'd really rather be working in other areas, but there you are. Dougweller ( talk) 14:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to file a checkuser. If you could just do that, it'd be really great. I think the Kurdish language issues, are with one of these same users. Something fishy is going on here. If you look at Greczia's user-page, he says that his old username was Tirgil34 who was caught by Dab for socking/POV pushing/pushing fringe nonsense on several occasions. I know that this is not your cup of tea, but you're the only active admin who at least knows something about these topics. Kurdo777 ( talk) 14:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The key thing in an SPI is to be able to show diffs, and I'm not sure there is enough common ground, see [22]. Greczia admits to being Tirgil of course. Too early to be sure I think. Now you've got the interaction analysis tool url you can check in a week or so to see if things change. Dougweller ( talk) 14:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this [23], these SPAs are using a random webpage by someone named Kaveh Farrokh as a "reliable source". Funny thing is, even that webpage, doesn't say what they're claiming. What can be done about this? I can't just keep reverting these guys evert five minutes. They're taking tun, reverting these pages, to insert this kind of fringe nonsense. Kurdo777 ( talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently. User:Athenean believes that User:Gabriel Stijena is a sock or meat puppet and accused him of it in an edit summary. That provoked an an edit summary by Gabriel in which he accused Athenean of being a puppet of Dr.K. I warned both Athenean and Gabriel that they should file reports at WP:SPI rather than bandy about accusations.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Kurdo777, please have a short lock at [ here]. I cite:

• "The Tats of the Caucasus speak Farsi, but they are definitely Turks, sincethey are direct descendents of Turkic Khazars who were of Jewish faith asthey are today. The Khazars adopted Farsi and abandoned Turkish as theircommon language."

You have to be more attentive :) -- Greczia ( talk) 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You will have to find better sources. Farrokh has no qualifications in history and works as a student counselor at a college. If you are correct you should easily be able to find real academic sources. Dougweller ( talk) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see the whole of the mailing list message removed. As it is, it's too easy to simply plug some of the text into a search engine to find out who he is.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 15:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Doug, if you haven't watchlisted, you may want to comment on the I suggestion I made on your full protection request. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 15:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

you've got one. — Ched :  ?  18:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

	Badass
	I think that User:Dougweller needs some wikilove. I just want to say that Doug is a badass admin. I've learned a lot from you. Thanks man.   — Jasonasosa 22:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please come help.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up on ANI, since you're familiar with these topics, can you comment here please [24]. Kurdo777 ( talk) 01:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, noticed you were about. User:Giggette is making multiple inappropriate title changes, via redirect, very rapidly and perhaps via some kind of script. None of the title changes seem appropriate to content. I've left a note on their talk. Haploidavey ( talk) 09:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That was fast. You're a marvel. Haploidavey ( talk) 09:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't want to mention her name and have to invite her to ANI, but User:SarahStierch is likely a good candidate to help you here. She might know who we would talk to, what resources are needed, what, if anything can be done. It is a long shot regardless, but it is better to start with someone who works there, and deals with outreach to begin with. I have no issue with it being brought up at WER as well, since this is one of the reasons people leave, seems a perfect fit as we are looking for solutions here, not pointing fingers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I forgot to add that User:Steven Walling is another good contact, also a member of WP:WER, works for WMF in the Wikipedia:Editor engagement experiments so sounds like exactly the guy we want to talk to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

SarahStierch ( talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Number_of_the_Beast/Archive_5

Yes, it has been discussed Walid Shoebat: 666 and Basmala. Others have stated this is minority, however it is relevant to the conversation. Are you saying Wikipedia is against new ideas?

I'm undoing your revert. I'm ready to do it everytime I go to Wikipedia. Your helpful link only reinforces that this idea should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamball77 ( talk • contribs)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a place to announce new ideas. And what you are saying is that you intend to edit war, which will not end well. Dougweller ( talk) 19:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited The Urantia Book, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channelling ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 03:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, I hadn't seen your comment on my talk page. I just saw it today. They're actually misquoting/falsifying the source, the source makes no such claim. Kurdo777 ( talk) 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take a look here [25] This Barayev character, a SPA/revert-only account who seems awfully familiar with Wikipedia for someone who just signed up last week, is now misquoting/falsifying Britannica, and using some no-name Turkish "professor" (the Turkish version of Kaveh Farrokh) to push the same Turkish nationalist fringe theories in regards to Sumerian language. Kurdo777 ( talk) 02:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

He's requested an indefinite block and been granted one. If by any chance you occasionally forget to login, could you be more careful? Dougweller ( talk) 05:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where did I forget to login? If you're referring to the IP on that page, it's not me. I have that page on watch-list though. Kurdo777 ( talk) 06:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I didn't think that was the case, but I've been known to forget... Dougweller ( talk) 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is WMF? Kurdo777 ( talk) 15:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation. Dougweller ( talk) 15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, wanna hear something funny, when you posted on my talk the first thing I asked myself was: why on earth would they be harassing you at meta:?!? After a quick query I found out you were talking about "Metapedia" which happens to be the White Power Encyclopedia that anybody can edit, haha. But seriously, before your post I'd never heard of it. And as a non-White Democrat I doubt if they'll be giving me a user account anytime soon. – Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 07:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey--I just noticed the same content was posted at Rationalwiki. Note that while the page was deleted--I could still bring up the cached copy. Is Conservapedia next? – Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 07:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Rational Wiki version was an attack on me saying I was a kook (but linked to the same rambling usenet posts by two real kooks). That was deleted and ironically and to my surprise I was made a Sysop. I think that a troll there then went to Metapedia and created one there claiming I was posting on a lot of racist denialist pages here. He also seems to have shown up here and managed quickly to get himself blocked. I didn't think you'd know anything about Metapedia but you were the only editor I could think of that wasn't a raving loon who might. You're a Democrat? I'll admit that's a surprise. I'm not registered in the US although I used to be. Dougweller ( talk) 08:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about the page "Douglas Weller" on metapedia, which was created on the 15th? I just now (I want to stress that) actually created an account there myself trying to figure out how to delete it, but the only page I can find deleted or discussed for deletion is their article on Kitler. John Carter ( talk) 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I guess you could add Doug's skeptical archaeology site] maybe? And today, encyclopediadramatica.se/Douglas_Weller by a sock from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44/Archive. Dougweller ( talk) 18:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Remarkably, when I just now went to propose the article for deletion, having found out how (they have no policies written down anywhere that I can find) I find my IP has been blocked and the stated reason is that the IP was used by John Carter, which they say qualifies as a "strange name" by one of their apparently nonexistent policies. I have also been apparently unblocked since then, but that hasn't apparently taken effect yet. Evidently, the admins there have more or less absolute authority, which I guess can be expected from such a crowd? John Carter ( talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they probably have absolute authority. I do at Rational Wiki now after I found my article there and got it deleted, they made me a sysop. And you must admit, John Carter, Warlord of Mars? I always think of that when I see your name. Dougweller ( talk) 18:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mars? I thought the name came from John Carter (ER).

Hmmm. Power hungry admins issuing arbitrary edicts and exercising "absolute authority" to suppress the masses--what does that remind me of? Hahahahaha!!! Wait--there aren't any admins around here, are there? I don't wanna get into any trouble or anything...finger hovering over "undo." – Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 04:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed at Talk:Creation Ministries International ( [26]) and Talk:Coconino Sandstone ( [27] [28]) that TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho has renewed their interest in the formatting of citations for creationism–related articles, which, given the reference to nature in the account name and that it was created on the same date as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive#23 June 2012, suggests they might be another sock, (in addition to their sources at Philosophy of science).

I've reverted quite a few of their edits for WP:CITEVAR:

• Creation Science 21:02, 23 July 2012 (checked access and cite)
• Creation Ministries International 20:42, 23 July 2012 (updated access date and call) WP:CITEVAR
• Cosmological principle 19:21, 23 July 2012 (checked access and cite) WP:CITEVAR
• Coconino Sandstone 18:49, 23 July 2012 (checked access and cite) WP:CITEVAR
• Christian anthropology 18:34, 23 July 2012 (checked access and cite)
• Charles Lyell 18:17, 23 July 2012 (updated access date)
• Charles Lyell 18:14, 23 July 2012
• Carl Wieland 01:49, 22 July 2012 (checked and updated access date) WP:CITEVAR
• Cabazon Dinosaurs 01:38, 22 July 2012 (checked access and date) WP:CITEVAR
• Biblical Creation Society 01:28, 22 July 2012 (edited reference)
• Baraminology 01:19, 22 July 2012 (checked access and date) WP:CITEVAR
• Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns 01:01, 22 July 2012 (updated access date) WP:CITEVAR
• Ariel A. Roth 00:50, 22 July 2012 (updated access date)
• Ariel A. Roth 00:44, 22 July 2012 (no longer applicable)
• Argon–argon dating 00:39, 22 July 2012 (checked access and cite) WP:CITEVAR
• Answers in Genesis 00:19, 22 July 2012 (updated access date and call) WP:CITEVAR
• Andrew Ure 00:09, 22 July 2012 ( →‎References: updated cite template)
• Andrew McIntosh (professor) 00:02, 22 July 2012 (updated access date)
• Age of the Earth 02:13, 21 July 2012 (updated access date) WP:CITEVAR
• Adnan Oktar 02:06, 21 July 2012 (updated access date) WP:CITEVAR
• Access Research Network 01:56, 21 July 2012 (improved cite) WP:CITEVAR
• Academic Freedom bills 01:51, 21 July 2012 (updated access date)
• Absolute dating 01:41, 21 July 2012 ( →‎References: fix)
• Absolute dating 01:39, 21 July 2012 (updated access date)
• Abiogenesis 01:25, 21 July 2012 (updated access date) WP:CITEVAR
• 7 Wonders Museum 01:19, 21 July 2012 (updated access date)

— Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Too many other distractions, I'll look tomorrow. Sorry. Dougweller ( talk) 20:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Admin; I know that some users have received special congratulations for their first one thousand contributions. I suddenly noticed, after some happy vacations, that I have also reached at almost one thousand and 50. However, I did not receive any congratulation. Not even a notification. Could it be that it was sent but I did not notice because of my language barrier?.. :-) All the best. -- E4024 ( talk) 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Biased "Vandalism" by user Jasonosa, gutting the article on piece at a time based on his personal criteria; another nomination for deletion. Posting it here because personally I don't care enough about the article/author nor do I care enough about the User, yet it is a case blatant abuse and attack in this public forum. For what it's worth. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 21:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ahem" (clears throat). I was removing wp:unsourced, wp:original content. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Laughs at BS." Yes, in order to try to have the article deleted again.... Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if you succeed to convince these admins that this 85 year old author really is hellbent to get a mention on Wikipedia or not. The man is a legitimate author and lecturer, and all of this references/mentions by other authors and lecturers you have succeeded in removing once again, so what is the point. Have fun! Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot convince wiki admins of anything. If you think that is possible, you are sorely mistaken and pretty much everything you say is null and void. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So because I made a comment that you once again find contention with, 'pretty much everything I say is null and void'...? I am really not understanding your consistent abrasive mindset, my Wiki-friend. All of your actions regarding this author and this article are motivated by your personal assumptions and some misdirected personal bias. It really just seems to be some personal quest for vindication to have the article deleted through AfD since you didn't succeed on your various attempts through Speedy Deletion in the past. The author is notable, whether you succeed in persuading the users or admins at any given time or not. I think you know this, you just can't concede it. So you will continue to try new "audiences" to 'convince'. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 19:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, I botched up the speedy deletion tags and they were thus removed, basically nullifying my argument for deletion. Interestingly enough, Nomoskedasticity ( talk · contribs) posted a proper deletion tag for consensus! You just need to chill out man and keep it wp:civil, because I am in no position, nor do I have the power to persuade admins or convince audiences of anything. Wiki is an open book, so they can see what's crap and what's not. Even if the article is decided as a keep, his wp:fringe books will be the only thing holding up that page. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries Jason. The old man has controversy around him everywhere. Even the people who were once strong supporters no longer give his single-focused methods and mostly fringe concepts much credibility but he is notable and not self-prometing here on Wiki. His book Power vs. Force is rather highly regarded in various circles around the world, and interestingly enough among corporate upper and middle management programs here in the U.S. Despite himself, he has managed to make an impact, not solely among the spiritual fringe but in certain business team performance and development, and leadership program circles. I agree that the man is somewhat self-aggrandizing with titles and such, yet he is known for his work and made some impact, for better or worse. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 21:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your follow-up reprimand on the deletion page hours after the fact was unnecessary, edit page for typo and clarification was actually open at the moment of closure to my surprise, and I saved it only to find the article discussion closed.

00:27, 21 August 2012‎ Iconoclast.horizon (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,823 bytes) (+106)‎ . . (→‎David R. Hawkins: correct typo) (undo) 00:24, 21 August 2012‎ Mark Arsten (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,717 bytes) (+1,435)‎ . . (Closing debate, result was delete) (undo) You fellows have fun. No more need to discuss Dr. David R. Hawkins from your perspective, I leave it for the next group of adventurous souls to come along and try it. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it. Note that I didn't participate in the AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 09:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted that you did not participate. The edits were essentially minor but I appreciate that you took the time to restore them after the fact. As stated, there was no intent to mislead in regards to these minor edits on AfD discussion, overall they were of no importance and only intended to clarify statements being made during AfD for conciseness. I also stated I would not attempt to resurrect the article, as it not something I am concerned with. My concern was that the article was removed and being removed again for the wrong overall bureaucratic reasons. I felt that the references that were left there and agreed upon by other editors a month ago were sound and reliable; Jason while editing continued to disagree with those as unreliable. All of the rest is just more minuscule red-tape. It came down to 'opinion over reliability' of the outside sources. At this time, to take that issue over to German-Wikipedia is in poor taste but that is none of my concern and there was no legitimate reason to bring that to my attentions. Nor is there reason to have it suggested that I would attempt to recreate the article under another name variation; to infer that was not necessary, nor to expound that possibility to disciplinary actions. John says he's 'going to be watching that article page', well that's nice. I stated, I would not initiate DVR, nor recreate the article on Dr. Hawkins. I still think the author should be able to be readily accessed in this Wiki forum for those inquiring through search. Possibly more information from agreed upon reliable sources will come available to make it more palatable to Wikipedia editors in the future. I leave it for them. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 15:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

From a wp:goodfaith standpoint, it is possible that the admins "watching that article page" is a matter of protocol. Their WP:TERSE directive to "watch" possible spawning titles, as a measure to ensure that avid supporters for keep do not get any ideas about resurrecting the article. The intensity of their terseness may have been heightened due to additional commenting on the Talk:David R. Hawkins page after it had been deleted. This is just my assertion of events. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 15:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree Jason, that this happens more often than not in articles like Hawkins and many touchy topics. There were comments left on my page after closure that I felt were not necessary, lacked good faith, stated I was dishonest over a rather trivial edit and point made during AfD and also threatened disciplinary sanctions against me for actions that had not been taken, nor would I consider taking (restoring the article under a name variation); and which the person commenting indicated furthering the issues regarding Hawkins in other language projects at the is time, which remarks were made in the aire of a spiteful nature (if they feel the need to have the German-Wiki removed, I don't recommend it as being tactful, but it is none of my affair). The type of comments made unfortunately are not intended to diffuse intensity, which I understand we can all be guilty of from time to time. Its fine. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Further concern over backlash stemming from this article comments: after the posting from "John Carter" he has decided to engage in targeted deletion of my edited articles, WP:Hound, and hide behind the "concern of just doing his job". Doug, it would appear that John Carter is in someway, "a friend" of yours, and that you are and admin, I am asking you to ask John Carter to stop singling me out and targeting me over this Hawkins article response. Let clearer heads prevail and try to make Wikipedia a more enjoyable experience. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 20:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as I am a dougdwelling dougalite, I'm also pro carterite. Iconoclast, the reality is... John does have the authority as an admin to ensure that everyone is adhering to wp:policy even if that means he is allegedly tracking you. It is not wp:hounding or wp:harassment. John is allowed to post comments on your talk page nonetheless. It would be wise to follow Mark Arsten ( talk · contribs)'s advice at User talk:Mark Arsten#David R. Hawkins, where he states: "I find that it's often best to find a quiet part of the project and work on uncontroversial topics. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)". Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason, I understand that he does have "admin authority" to do a lot of things here on Wiki, and I respect what all of the admins have chosen to take on as their duties. It's not a job I would do so I don't feel right in "complaining" about it. In my daily life, I give orders, I do not take them so also imagine that has something to do with both sides of these responses here as well, and I try to keep that in mind. Doug, John and you make a pretty good effort here, so I would't assume to be harsh about that either. I acknowledge that I simply didn't care for the way I was addressed by John and I initiated a response that probably should have been more civil in its tone. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict)::You can complain about him at ANI if you wish, but I'd say there what I'll say here, and that is that I believe that you still aren't clear on our policies and guidelines regarding sources. You've been high profile over this and it's not surprising that an article you've created twice got some attention. If I'd noticed that article I would probably have taken it to AfD. When I find an editor shows a lack of understanding or problems over one thing I will normally look at other things they've done. That's not hounding. Dougweller ( talk) 20:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not wish to complain through ANI, nor complain in general. The series of events around postings on both my UserPage and yours is enough. I respect all of your positions. And I am not addressing sourcing concerns at this point, Doug, I understand that policy. I was offended at the intensity and level at which I was addressed by John and his implication that I would recreate the article under false pretense and his threat of sanction for something I had not even considered doing. I felt those comments were not called for and I took more personal offense than I should, and I made those points in an overly assertive response to John. I do know that you guys (and Ladies) deal with a lot issues and variety of people in what you do here, that is one reason, I never chose to after many years. I lack the patience. I do feel somewhat targeted now in this situation, which only arose due to the comments stemming over this. Everything that is stood behind is "policy justified" in one way or another, and I understand that as well, and why it is that way. It doesn't change what I felt in regards to the negative tone, unwarranted threat of sanction and implications made on my UserPage but as I stated to him, that is my issue. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Official names. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

SarahStierch ( talk) 18:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, irrespective of our huge differences, I should not have called you a friend of Hitler. That remark has been striked out from Nubia talk and my sincere apologies for using that kind of language. I am sure you are following the ANI discussion. I do not want you to feel that I am only apologizing to you because the issue has been taken to ANI by Drmies, but because I felt it's the right thing to do just as I have apologized to them before. In any case, I have practically retired from Wiki (no matter how many people wants my blood) and just thought to apologise before leaving. And if you doubt my retirement which I saw in talk Saafi, I have been thinking about it for a while [29], see also my user page where I first added the semi retire template (have a look at the date [30] and the date this admin put a note my talk page and when I also added the template on my talk page [31]). In fact, I got the idea from them of adding the template also on my talk page and not just on my user page. Anyway best of luck and once again my apologies. Tamsier ( talk) 21:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. -- E4024 ( talk) 11:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you clean this one out for BLP vios please? My eyes hurt from it. You may also want to protect it for a while. I've taken the content fork Geetika Sharma to AfD. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 17:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As per Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests could you delete my AfD nom from this article history? I have this chap next semester and I impugned his academic standing slightly. I'd like to minimise the chances of a connection to me. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can see how that qualifies. See WP:CRD. Note that even deleting your account name from the article (which wouldn't qualify for rev/del) would leave it on the Afd, and we certainly can't have an antonymous AfD. I sympathise and you can try someone else, but I think it would be wrong to do it and actions like this could bring rev/del into disrepute. Dougweller ( talk) 12:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have sent you a confidential email. This entry is simply to let you know that.

Thanks, Robert S. Hackney Pres. & CEO New Sheriff Publishing, Inc. (Publisher of The Sarasota News Leader) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afahmasp ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't get an email. My personal account is steven.wallinggmail.com. If this is work-related (i.e. WMF), you should get ahold of me at swallingwikimedia.org. Steven Walling •  talk 20:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I do this wrong again?

The delete template that I added was removed by User:Colonel Warden at Talk:Actual sin#Delete.

Let me know. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything wrong there. Anyone can remove a prod, and I think Warden would consider himself an WP:Inclusionist. I see on the talk page you have some support, a well crafted AfD making clear what policies are violated is the next step if you don't think the article should exist. Dougweller ( talk) 08:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for your input.   — Jasonasosa 08:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Dougweller I admire wikipedia s work in the field of integrity and truth; this was the only reason I posted my comment; It is known and it is written in many articles here in wikipedia that the turks came from Mongolia near the Orhon river; as you know and we all know that in that aera especially in 5th century AD when the turkish nation appear in the map no wheat was cultivated in Mongolia; the turkish nation was nomad pastoralists; they lived on their animals and they consumated meat and milk; they have no knowledge of cultivating land let alone growing wheat to make dough to make baklava; what it is written in your article is totaly unhistorical and contradictoiry with your onw articles here in wikipedia in turkish people and proto turks; I can agree that maybe they found baklava somewhere when they came to tocharistan or persian or chorasmia but not in mongolia and not by their invention Also baklava was a very common dish in all the mediterean especialy greeks ancient athenians offered it at weedings; and today still exists a form of this dish in its primitive form in greece called diples Here s your link but you can search it anywhere in the net or google it to find if baklava is turkish or not Naming a dish with a turkish name or saying it s turk doesn t make it turkish if the ingredients to make it were in lack in the place the turkish nation lived cause it is in contradiction with common sense; http://www.kitchenproject.com/history/Baklava.htm Also for instance if we find pizza in france do we call it french cuisine because french eat it and prepare it? [copyvio deleted]]

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Tochariantruth (
talk • 
contribs) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 

I hate to break this to you but... wikipedia is not for truth. It WP:IS for compilation of published informative material in encyclopedic format, which means that wikipedia contains both truth and lies. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 16:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The above user came back with a new name: Truthinbaklava. All the best.-- E4024 ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You may recall deleting a lengthy passage about the activities of the son of the poet Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi in that article. The latest edits by the same editor in the 'Biography: Early life' section are all about the poet's father and his pastimes. Is all this and the preceding genealogy relevant? I was going to delete it but thought I would ask you for your opinion. Please have a look when time permits.-- Zananiri ( talk) 15:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I just took it off my watch list, don't like thinking about it. What is his surname? Zia Fatehabadi, Fatehabadi, or Zia (which gets used a lot on its own), as after the first mention in the lead we should be using just his surname. Dougweller ( talk) 16:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that huge a chunk. Have you read MOS:BIO and WP:BLP? Dougweller ( talk) 16:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The name is Zia Fatehabadi. And the citations are familiar. I was just thinking even Neil Armstrong's forefathers don't get that much coverage in his article.-- Zananiri ( talk) 16:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There are worse though, much worse. So "Zia Fatehabadi" is the surname, but then what is Zia? Dougweller ( talk) 16:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

In Urdu literature writers and poets often use a nom de plume which, in the West, appears to be two words but does not make sense if separated, as there may be other writers who have Fatehabadi after the first word, in this case Zia, so the two should always be used as one name. In the West, we often have hyphenated first names or double-barrelled surnames so the confusion does not arise. Hence the name is Zia Fatehabadi. This guy was born Mehr Lal Soni and the article should really be under the heading Zia Fatehabadi only. The Mehr Lal Soni in the heading seems to me to be a family thing to give prominence to the family! In the literary world, he was known as Zia Fatehabadi and only close froends and relatives would have called him Mehr Lal as Soni was his real surname. Now you know about the Soni connection. Verstanden? By the way, I sometimes make contributions to the German Wikipedia in German, logging in with my name and password here, but the contributions carry my user name in red and there is no history trail. Do I have to register separately with the German Wikipedia? Any suggestions?-- Zananiri ( talk) 17:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I wasn't being clear, it's things like "(Service in the bank gave Zia ample opportunity to come into contact with many poets and writers." where Zia is used on its own that I don't understand. As for your German edits, I see only two [32] and it's just that you don't have a user or talk page there. Dougweller ( talk) 17:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Zia would be used by fellow writers or poets to talk to him or about him. They would call him Zia and not Fatehabadi. But outside the literary world he would be called Zia Fatehabadi. I am all for calling him Fatehabadi but that is not the convention, so I just use the third person singular pronoun instead, as often as I can in such cases. The German info is correct. Will do. Tnanks-- Zananiri ( talk) 18:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

PS. Sorry, I didn't have the time to elaborate yesterday. It used to be the fashion (may still be) to create a nom de plume with the name of the place from which they originated e.g. Jigar Moradabad(i), Niaz Fatehpur(i), Zia Fatehabad(i). The 'i' after the name of the geographic place means 'of' or 'from' e.g. Moradabad(i). Most of the established literary figures who had a nom de plume are often referred to by their chosen name before the name of the town or city e.g.Jigar, Niaz , Zia, after being introduced, but not as Moradabadi etc. so it is either Jigar or Jigar Moradabadi. Zia or Zia Fatehabadi. Other minor figures may have chosen the name of the same location as well. The Urdu Council list has hundreds of names of minor figures. Just because they are there does not mean they are renowned or merit an article on Wikipedia, as some people seem to think. Think of the 2.45 at Kempton Park and 'seven ran'!-- Zananiri ( talk) 12:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. 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) 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi ,please take a look at the Wikipaedia article about Ardeshir I, apparently this article is subjected to Pan-Kurdish vandalism AGAIN. The claim of a Kurdish ancestry for the Persian king Ardeshir I Sasanid in the early life section of this article is simply ridiculous, especially when no Western sources have ever made such claims ,and the Iranian sources such as the mythical book of Shahnameh can not be used as reliable references since for most parts they lack specific dates, names and locations are most of the time displaced.

It is obvious that Mr Kaveh Farrokhs writings are strictly influenced by his own personal assumptions and views and not basic historical facts. Mr Kaveh Farrokh also claims Azerbaijani people as non-Turkic,which is yet another baseless claim of his that has caused alot of arguments in the Iranian comunity .

The early life section of the Ardeshir I article can't include a Kurdish origin. unless we have a reliable source that indicates to that.

Please help to protect history from vandalism . Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niki909 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, first of all you should read the source. Because, there is Letter of Arbanus V of Parthia there. That means, its not personal view of Kaveh Farrokh. And if you dont accept Kaveh Farrokh as authority, then why do you not delete his personal opinion about connection between Lurs and Persians? He is an authority when he just supports Persians theories? Anyway, i think before you blame people as vandals, you should read sources well.-- Gomada ( talk) 07:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

/Farrokh shouldn't be used anywhere - if what he says is important, it should be reliably published (see WP:RS by an academic. Dougweller ( talk) 08:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, the letter of Artabanus is from the book of Al-Tabari. I searched on google to find his book, but its difficult. Here is mentioned. (You can read the letter here) By the way, Iranologist Ernst Herzfeld wrote that, Arsacid lord sent a letter to Ardashir I and described him as a Kurd. You can read here.-- Gomada ( talk) 14:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Herzfeld doesn't describe anyone, he just quotes the letter. I'm concerned because this looks more like an insult than anything else. Let me look into it, but thanks for finding it. Dougweller ( talk) 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I didnt mean that Herzfeld described him, i wanted to say; it's mentioned in the quote. (My English is not perfect, maybe thats the reason) By the way, it seems like you doubt, because both letters include insulting. But what change? This is history, you can learn about people in different ways.-- Gomada ( talk) 10:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. My other languages are dreadful, not just 'not perfect'. The problem is that all we are doing is looking at a what a letter says. Does he mean that in the ethnic sense, or is 'Kurd' just a bad name for him? Probably the first, but that's why I like to see what historians have to say, as that is actually a WP:Primary source. Dougweller ( talk) 10:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Artabanus was an emperor, of course he will insult and he will think that, except his family/blood nobody else deserves to be king. Its like that in history of Iran. Its same in other culture too. When somebody become king, his family becomes noble. The Kings insult rebels, first about their blood. Because if the rebel doesnt has same blood, its a good opportunity for the king. The king can use that opportunity and try to tell people that, the rebel doesnt deserve to be king. You know that. Its simple but, it was working like that in the past. But for me, the problem is; why is there always conflict about Kurds and their history? Look at most of Kurds in wikipedia, beside they are named as a Kurd, is written at least Arab, Persian, Turk etc. Why? or like our discussion with you? You try to say, we cant decide because of letters. But, we can decide he is persian without anything? or We can decide Huns are turks, just because of their nomadic lifestyle? I really dont understand that. Why is it not fair when the topic is about Kurds? In last century, Turks, Persians, Arabs try to change much about Kurds and their history. For example, all Kurds still learn Ayyubids as a Turkish kingdom in Turkey. Because Turks tought in schools like that for 90 years. Or Baba Tahir (as well as Ziryab), look at his poems. Its so clear that, he wrote them in a Kurdish dialect of his era. But, still he is known as Persian. Because, Kurds cant protect their culture and they cant tell this to world. In their land, they just try to live their life. I see a lot of wikipedians who just try to change informations only about Kurds. Maybe you dont know, life of Kurds. Millions of them dont have internet or books in their houses.They cant read or write now. Because the states which control them thought to assimilate them like that. Go to east of Turkey. Millions of Kurds cant even use computer/internet. Why? These are not nationalistics minds that i tell you. I want you to understand the situation of the Kurds. You know "Encyclopedia Iranica". Everybody who has not a certain information is labeled as persian there. Because, they say until we find their origin, we should describe them so. (For example: al-Dinawari) But, what happened then? it became the main source and people learn like that. Anyway its long story. i know that its difficult to find sources in internet about Kurds. I dont want to disturb you anymore, you can decide as you want. But as i said, i will not understand why it is difficult when people just talk about KURDS. (Btw, sorry for my terrible English, i tried to write as much as possible).Good bye.-- Gomada ( talk) 21:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(TPS) Sorry to intervene but I ask you, Gomada, why? Why cannot the people in Eastern Turkey use internet? I have visited several towns of that region lately. Just to give an example, Iğdır is full of internet cafes in every corner. 1 hour 1 TL. I used internet without any problem and find the service cheap enough (more or less half a dollar or euro an hour). I am not dealing with your other claims, because want to be just practical. BTW do you think these internet cafes could be giving the chance of free communication to many people that visit Iğdır from the 3 countries it borders? (I saw several Iranian youngsters flirting without intimidation also.) Take care and all the best. (Sorry Doug) -- E4024 ( talk) 22:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi E4024. Your example shows that, there is no computer/internet in most houses of people. Some people use that as an advantage and open internet cefes. They make money like that. Do you think that, If many people had computer/internet at home, there would be many internet cafes? Of course not. I have never been in Igdir, i dont wanna tell something wrong about it. But, i can tell about south eastern towns. Anyway, i think its not good that, we turned Doug's talk page to a forum. take care and greetings-- Gomada ( talk) 08:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about this letter (it might be quoted by Tabari) but the term Kurd means completely something different. Here is something on Ardashir: "his victorious campaign against the Kurds (a term that in pre-Islamic times designated the various nomadic lineages, rather than a specific ethnicity" [33]. See also Asatrian which has a important article with regards to the naming: [34]. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 16:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a little unidentified user that is now in an edit war breaking the 3 revert rule. How does this war stop? How does he get put in place, when his IP changes constantly? I vouch and stand behind User:PiCo in this dispute at Genesis creation narrative: Revision history discussed at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Reinterpretations?. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. ‎Ed Poor ( talk · contribs) has got this one. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So by having an IP address with no account... that will allow someone to edit war and revert more than 3 times against 3 editors with no recourse? The IP constantly changes and there is nothing we can do?   — Jasonasosa 13:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Abu'l-Fida ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kurdish

Al-Shahrazuri ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kurdish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Can you look at the naming issue here? The voting is basically based on political/ethnic affiliation rather than Wikipedia Arguments. [35]. The only one that actually mentions Wikipedia and common names is myself. Thanks-- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Doug, I rather not get involved in Wikipedia..So I am writing anonymous. But since I have an IP, can you run this sock-puppet investigation on my behalf?

Can you run these? Check his page.. "User Greczia by his own admission (see bottom of his page): [36] was the previous user Tirgil34 (who had run many socks) [37]

I believe all these accounts are related: (Greczia,Aryan212, Kurdale, Barayev, E4024 (possible ressurection of user with similar name E104421), Gabriel_Stijena)

[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] You can say all these account appeared recently. Furthermore, they all seem to support the same POV

Given that Greczia has used socks before (admits he is user Tirgil34 which has used socks before and also pushed fringe theories), the investigation is warranted. Accounts like Kurdale for example are definitly throw-aways..What is notable is that many of the same users keep saying "vandalism" while reverting to fringe sources.

1)

Tat languages (Caucasus) Using the same Farrokh website are Greczia, Gabriel Stijena, and Barayev [44]

Relavent diff links: [45] [46] [47]

2) Article "Ethnicities in Iran"

Putting the same fringe and non-RS map (see the talkpage) [48] (Kurdale) [49] (Gabriel Stijena) [50] (Barayev) [51] (Greczia)

3)

Here: "Western Thrace" [52] (E4024, Gabriel_Stijena and Barayev which are all new accounts are r.v.'ing back to the same format). Barayev [53]. Gabriel Stijena [54]. E4024 [55]

4) Comment: These are all new accounts (with one account admitting that he was a previous sock master) and push the same POV. they also coordinate together on talkpages. So an investigation is warranted. Thanks.-- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 16:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the recent ANI, Greczia has been banned in German wikipedia for pushing fringe and sock-puppetery. So with that and the throw-away such as Kurdale, there is definitely a precedence. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did you removed my edition regarding the "house of Yahweh" ? I used fully legitimate sources like the The New York Times and an additional source as well. You said that you removed material which seems to show more the Temple, than iron age Yahwism. Even if that would be the case it would show just that the Temple or "House of Yahweh" was the canter of iron age Yahwism. As you may know this artifact was authenticated by the group of scientist, and I did not write about it, before, when I wrote large section of that article. It is still disputed whether that artifact refer to the Temple of Jerusalem or to some local "house of Yahweh" as suggested by Steiner, so you could add that material, without removal of mine. I think that I used fully reliable sources and as in all modern books regarding the religion of ancient Israelites (iron age Yahwism) this artifact has its place to be mentioned. This is the earliest Israelite pottery mentioning Yahweh. Tritomex ( talk) 16:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw I am sorry for removing your material from Israelites I refereed to the editions and removals done by historylover4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a typo: "To rename this to Turkish-Kurdish conflict is clearly against WP:TITLE "..and you mean "from" instead of "to". BTW, I appreciate your invovelment on some of these articles.. there is just too many people pushing fringe POVs (wether it is Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish, Arabic, etc.). Thanks again. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at Talk:Azerbaijani_people#Misqouting_sources_to_inflate_population_numbers. I can't be the only person dealing with this guy, this is getting really frustrating. He keeps reverting the page to reinsert materials that are basically fringe claims by fringe characters, as facts. He also calls anyone undoing him "vandal" and their edits "vandalism". Kurdo777 ( talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I cite from the talk page: "The book is obviously a reliable source. It is a fact that Azeri nationalists estimate the number at up to 35 million, and that official estimates are more inline with 14 million. That is exactly what the source says. This is just an attempt to censor the article by excluding perfectly good sources. It is not our job to select between bias nationalist sources and official ones when they contradict each other. We should be presenting both viewpoints. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)"

When consensus is achieved, the citation will be added again. Thank you. Furthermore it would be nice when you could stop the harassment agenda you are doing since I've met you. -- Greczia ( talk) 13:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been brought up on AN/I again. Can you please take a look at my response here. [56] Your input would be appreciated, as you're one of the few admins who is knowledgeable about these topics. Kurdo777 ( talk) 05:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

given link ≠ topic ??? -- Greczia ( talk) 13:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You have given prior comments on the talk page. Anything to add to the current discussion? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

just an FYI: User talk:Ched/YRC — Ched :  ?  20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation needed. 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) 21:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to know if there is any procedure in Wikipedia to report a habitual and regular vandal?? if possible,kindly advise me in this( the subject is User talk:Nb20078....thanks-- Adamstraw99 ( talk) 04:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:AIV or WP:ANI but with no edits for 3 days, and it not be clear that the edits meet WP:VANDALISM, I'm not sure if that would be the way to go. I'm going out shortly but I'll take a closer look in maybe 12 hours. No rush since he's not editing right now. Look at WP:BLP also. Dougweller ( talk) 04:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've told him to use the article's talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 20:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Doug, I can't believe I'm being charged with disruptive editing at User talk:Jasonasosa#Talk:Genesis 1:3 when the user in question has an IP that changes constantly! How could I have better approached this?   — Jasonasosa 17:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As I see my user name above, I would like to remind all that so recently as past weekend I volunteered to be investigated for similar claims, concerning a discussion around Talk: Tenedos. Although I could not find the relevant diff now to provide you, I guess Chris Gualtieri can help about that. I would be very happy that in case the investigation clears my name someone could kindly recommend the claimant to leave me in peace... All the best and sorry for everybody's precious time. -- E4024 ( talk) 17:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but you have been supporting the above user with his various usernames. Also there is a user E104421 here: [57] who supported similar POVs. I am convinced about Kurdale being a throw-away account as well as Gabriel and Barayev..I hope the admins take the offer and I will add E104421 here. Specially, it should be noted Greczia has been banned according to ANI from German wikipedia for pushing fringe and sock-puppetery. Kurdale needs to be checked for sure. The disappearance of Barayev was also suspicious. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no relation whatsoever with none of the above mentioned users nor any else and am sure it is not so difficult to find out. All the best. -- E4024 ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I apologize if there is any misaccusations. The user Greczia used a previous account that was involved in sock-puppetery and he seems to have been banned in German Wikipedia for the same thing (along with pushing non WP:RS viewpoints). I am sure Kurdale and the other account Gabriel..are his and they all have been registered as new users (with Kurdale being a complete throw-away). I wanted to thank again users like Folantin, Dbachmann, Kansas Bear and Doug Weller for keeping fringe and non WP:RS ethno-nationalist users in check. There needs to be a better mechanism with 10 such users who decide the final outcome of all such ethno-nationalist bickering articles. Specially those related to the Near East, Caucasus and Eastern Europe where users do not follow WP:UNDO, WP:RS, WP:SOAPBOX and instead follow WP:FRINGE. Again a big thanks to such users. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No time tonight but I may raise an SPI tomorrow. Dougweller ( talk) 20:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance; I am really bored of this harassment. Good-night. -- E4024 ( talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. God Bless for your good work on ensuring NPOV. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 21:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Doug, Thanks for running the SPI. Wikipedia is a wild place and we need more involved admins in this area.. Until that is done, and a neutral commitee of admins are chosen who can force out POV pushers..these areas will have a problem. Thanks to you, Folantin, Dbachmann and other such admins. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. Dougweller ( talk) 21:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow..that was a large one. BTW Aryan212 is a throw-away warring account and I am sure it is related to either the above user or another sock. I am not sure why such a suspicious account was not checked. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 21:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Given all the fringe theories that this user pushed.. it will take months to figure out who did what or when..there is got to be a better mechanism..-- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 21:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW Aryan212 is likely Gabriel as they both edited Cyprus/Western Thrace type articles. I do not think the double sock of Barayev/Gabriel (which are still likely Greczia) should go unnoticed. -- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 21:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow thanks for checking on this..I hope good admins such as yourselves stay active.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 22:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your ANI comments with regard to the thread about Youreallycan ( talk · contribs)/ Off2riorob ( talk · contribs). This whole thing is quite disturbing considering it appears some individual who is quite unhealthily obsessed with me. — Cirt ( talk) 14:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel threatened. I feel persecuted for no reason. I feel a user who has been under multiple different sanctions and blocks is soliciting harassment offsite because he is sanctioned against doing so on site. Anything else you need? — Cirt ( talk) 15:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not wade into the dramaboard, but I fully give you permission to quote me. Let me know please and keep me posted if there's something else you need regarding input from me. — Cirt ( talk) 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So... I guess yet again there will be no firm repercussions for this user? — Cirt ( talk) 17:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not this time, but I think we can say it's another nail in the coffin. Prioryman ( talk) 22:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've studied all those disputes, the behavior of the socks, and the connections , and I am pretty sure that E4024 is behind all this given his history of this kind of stuff, his POV, the sudden appearance of these socks wherever he had a longstanding dispute to fight his battles for him, and also his unique language skills as someone who is fluent in German, but not as fluent in English. (same as the socks) And most important of all, what normal editor uses four different IPs from four different countries at the same time? He's obviously trying to mask/hide something. He could be using undetectable private proxies/networks that can be subscribed to/purchased online as opposed to open proxies. Kurdo777 ( talk) 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the damage that is done by these sort of socks is hard to correct in some of these articles. Specially when fringe and likely non-academic sources are inserted.. I think the whole episode warrants giving admins in these areas more power to ban POV pushers of fringe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 03:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's always going to require a community debate based on evidence. And to show E4024 to be a sock or puppetmaster needs more specific evidence, which I don't have. Dougweller ( talk) 05:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

the source is on page 315

"But now with the widely accepted reading of the "House of David" in Tel Dan inscription (no 124) the presence of the name David in line 12 in mesha inscription has regained some popularity.. Yet a stronger case was made identifying David in line 31 (in Mesha inscription) where the reading House of David create far fewer complications and has much more comparative support" Tritomex ( talk) 10:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.rs/books?id=4tUCnNLGw4UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=sr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check Aichikawa and Bbb23 edits on this page, several of us think that she is Joan Buck. Manbumper ( talk) 15:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the first, it's just ridiculous to suggest Bbb23 is JB. Dougweller ( talk) 18:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I request you close this discussion. It was started on 22 August, and discussion has ceased. The two editors agitating to reopen it do not actually have an opinion to contribute it seems (they were both strong campaigners for deletion at AfD), so leaving the merge discussion open is rather pointless. -- 202.124.75.14 ( talk) 00:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be open so others can contribute. With it closed, others will not modify it. It was not up to you to close it, and thus we challenged its closure. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 06:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't close it, as I was notified by one of the parties. Dougweller ( talk) 06:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely policy is not to keep merge discussions open forever? -- 202.124.75.77 ( talk) 07:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, although closing it earlier than 7 days is usually not a good idea. Again, see what WP:MERGE says and find someone uninvolved. Dougweller ( talk) 07:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, on my reading of WP:MERGE, Neelix did the exactly right thing in closing the discussion (since discussion of the merge had ceased, and responses were unanimous). However, I've taken it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I leave it up to you whether or not you want to respond there. -- 202.124.75.77 ( talk) 07:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to that by calling the discussion "open," you have effectively reversed the action of the admin who closed it. I'll leave you and Neelix and the other admins to sort it out. Also, I presume that when you said "no support votes and no opposes" on the AN thread, you meant "no support votes and 4 opposes"? -- 202.124.72.92 ( talk) 11:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I said "no support votes and 4 opposes." You went to the AN page and said "I meant 4 support votes." I presume you didn't mean that. -- 202.124.73.71 ( talk) 14:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I corrected it...   — Jasonasosa 14:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I must say, Dougweller, swapping the words "support" and "oppose" in that discussion wasn't helpful, and acting as if a discussion closed by a fellow-admin was still open seems to me strange too. -- 202.124.74.222 ( talk) 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. Why not get over it, and go get a Username?   — Jasonasosa 03:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The guy is still around: [58]-- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC) (note I caught him through the Nart Saga article with one of the socks and then the ip shows up).

Everything this guy pushes is fringe or can't be found in a source. The latest claim is that the Nart Saga is Mongolian. I hope there is way to deal with the ip. There must be a better way that the community can protect such articles from such a user that has now used more than a dozen socks..to push fringe viewpoints.-- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

-- 96.255.251.165 ( talk) 03:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)(UTC)