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 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

I am writing to ask about your reversion of my addition (by ozzie42, 3 Jan 2014) to the Wikipedia article "Moses". The text of the addition was:

The biblical Battle of Jericho occurred shortly after the death of Moses, and archeology of Jericho suggests this may have occurred around 1560 BCE; a date of 1399 BCE has been suggested from a possible astronomical reference in Midrash Rabbinic literature. ^[1]

The addition was placed after the following line about when Moses lived: Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592, and Ussher 1619 as birthyear.[7]

Your reversion note says:

(removing this, the archaeology actually suggests this didn't take place although a Creationist archaeologist disputes this)

This note briefly mentions the archeology part of the addition, but does not say anything about the part that refers to a possible astronomical date for the death of Moses. This work was published (full disclosure: by me and a colleague, since deceased) in a respected, and refereed, astronomical journal (see reference in the addition; article can be read on-line at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2011Obs...131..248M). I would argue that the date of Moses death derived there is at least as reliable as the sources you allow: Sedar Olam, Jerome, and the Ussher chronology. The birth and death dates of Moses are of much interest, but in dispute. I feel having the various pieces of evidence in the article (including the controversial archeology) makes this section of the Moses article more complete.

Note: I have not used this talk feature of Wikipedia before.

Looking forward to your response,

---

Hello,

Your response to my question above was:

"You want to use T. J. Manetsch, W. Osborn: Can the Date of Moses’ Death be Determined Astronomically? The Observatory as a source. Let's see if it meets WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. First, it's not published in a peer reviewed journal.[1]. Not an impassible barrier, so who are the authors? This is Osborne [2] - he may be considered an expert on observational astronomy but not having read the paper I don't know what expertise is basically used in it. Who is the main author, "T. J. Manetsch"? Then there is WP:WEIGHT - does anyone actually mention this in a book or journal that meets our criteria? I can't find anything for that. What you can do of course is ask at Talk:Moses what others think, or WP:RSN. Oh - don't leave contact information lying around. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)"

I don't want to quibble, but we should be correct in our facts. "The Observatory" IS a peer reviewed journal. That is what, in my field, "refereed" means when the journal was mentioned in my first post. This can be easily checked. The suitability of referencing the Observatory article in the Moses wikipedia piece can best be judged by reading the paper. A link was provided. Following your suggestion, I'll post this to the talk:Moses site to see what comes up.

Hi, thanks for pointing out slips caused by me in spree to add references, 'by Wikipedians' one was especially a blunder. BTW 'ezosoft' one was not my contribution (atleast not during this spree) and seems to be existant on the article since long. I have removed non RS citations pointed by you. Thanks again.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider ^t c _s 17:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, how can you claim that a user being canvassed doesn't make their opinion tainted? You are defying common sense. I thought that you might deny the fact that Johnbod and Haploidavey were canvassed, which I thought would have been a much easier strategy, but (implicitly) admitting that they were indeed canvassed and trying to justify their involvement despite that? Come on, let's be realistic. Of course a canvassed user has no legitimacy and of course they should abstain from the discussion. To suggest otherwise is sheer folly. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 12:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

I have no idea why you think that. WP:CANVAS doesn't suggest it. In this case of course it was the editors who participated in the previous discussion who were notified, so that seems covered by the criteria for appropriate notification, ie "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". So even your accusation of canvassing is at the very least disputable. Dougweller ( talk) 12:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't insult my intelligence, Dougweller. I tell you it's easier to dispute whether they were canvassed so now you start doing so and expect me to play along? No. You know they were canvassed, I know, Mzilikazi does and, unless they're stupid, so do Johnbod and Haploidavey. If I had known you were going to debase yourself with petty, juvenile tactics like this, I never would have put the idea into your head. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 13:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

Since I know that other people will read this, I'll explain for their benefit (you should areadly know the following, Dougweller). Mzilikazi's first Aesop edit war lasted 1.5 years and he was allied with you, Johnbod and Haploidavey. Those seeking to protect the article from his hijacking were me, Nikopolis, 99.160.252.242, 68.45.189.203, 192.91.253.52, 68.107.220.28 and several other editors. Mzilikazi and his sock puppet Afkun, obviously unhappy with losing the edit war 8 months earlier, started a new one in February 2013. A few days ago, I undid the hijacked version of the article and Mzilikazi was obviously worried because I was instrumental in stopping the four of you in the first edit war. Therefore Mzilikazi reassembled the team by canvassing Johnbod and Haploidavey. You didn't need to be canvassed because you had already joined in. If he had indeed been merely telling all of the interested parties, he would have to fetch Nikopolis and the others as well. Instead, he only gathered his supporters, since his intention was canvassing, just as he did here in the first edit war. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

WP Editor 2011, the only editors who took part in the relevant discussion at Talk:Aesop#B/CE dates were either notified or knew about it already (you). The IPs and Nikopolis did not take part in the discussion - in fact they never seem to have posted to the talk page. So I suggest if you think this is inappropriate canvassing you go to ANI. If not I shall assume you feel you won't get anywhere there. Dougweller ( talk) 14:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well then. I've gone to ANI. ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mzilikazi1939, User:Dougweller and User:Johnbod reported by User:WP Editor 2011 (Result: ). Thank you. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 00:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC))

AN3 actually. Thanks, much appreciated. The result is no surprise. After you return from your one week block if this behavior continues a topic ban from era changes might be appropriate. Dougweller ( talk) 06:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my comment in your talk "Zomi" Vaphualization ( talk) 10:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see [ AN/I request] and [ edit war].

Is it kosher to use the help:edit summary to argue with or gloat about other editors, or should we describe our edits? ... -spaces

There is no way that I can self-revert an edit summary after it is saved. 172.129.246.164 ( talk) 15:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There can be administrative action about the ancient North African race controversy, which you closed at WP:ANI, if it includes ancient Egypt, because that issue is under discretionary sanctions. However, I agree that the main issue was allegations of racism as such, which are personal attacks, and are blockable with or without discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: You are right, I hadn't considered that. But as you say the main issue was the allegations, which appear to have stopped since I warned the editor. Dougweller ( talk) 14:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kuki–Zomi Ethnic Clash 1997–98 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• was the June 24, 1997 Saikul incident when extremists from the Kuki National Front (President), a Kuki insurgent group,<ref>{{cite web|title=Kuki National Front|url=http://www.satp.org/

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

== Conversation with Cubaking Cubaking ( talk) 15:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am posting this here as I understand I am supposed to.

January 2014[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop adding your book (or your name) to pages. You are clearly here to promote your book, which is in any case self-published so should not be added to articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Response[edit]

Sir, Thank you for your concern. Indeed I have added my books (that you have now removed). First of all policing one author on my subject (Cuban Lucumi) and one alone is not balanced. Therefore, I respectfully question your motive and lack of balance. Secondly, I resent and dispute your statement " You are clearly here to promote your book," as I contribute to my religion that I am a senior practitioner of not only here, but all over the net. (Example) Revision[edit] Iboru Iboya, My immediate problem with this page is a lack of resources other than Chief S. Solagbade. I'm sure even S. Solabade would agree that there are many roads to knowledge and the absence of any other authors looks at best suspicious. Furthermore, there is no further reading to stimulate or acknowledge ANY other experts (or Babalawos for that matter). For those editors reading this do note the title of "Chief" (sic Yoruba) is often honorary among the Yoruba tribes :[1] I point this out simply for the unenlightened and mean no disrespect to S. Solabade. The text is OK and concise. Religion and even titles are often controversial and I like the fact it was seemingly written with this in mind. Certainly it could be expanded, yet each expansion MAY bring controversy. One difficulty in discussing this page is that the author is either from the African branch of Orisha/ Orisa worship and the majority of Orisha worshipers in the US belong to the Cuban system. Of course ANY author has to be from a particular branch, yet I'd humbly suggest to have the page a bit more balanced. About 45- 50% of the page is dedicated to the subject of Women in IFA and while this is an important issue, personally I do not think it warrants this much of the page. "Awo's" just pops up with little lead in that Baba means father and lawo means (sic/ of mysteries or secrets)....yet for the unenlightened seeing Awo is confusing... so that could be cleaned up. I'd like to see more on the Odu, something addressing the US, Cuba and Brazil, Lucumi and certainly more on IFA. Finally, the author gives a late opinion that William Bascom ( who was certainly AN expert) was THE FOREMOST....and that as we know should at the least be ONE OF THE FOREMOST.....Really, there are plenty of subtopics that are NOT controversial, Ikin for example, or they might talk about the Iro Ifa etc. The author uses the phrase "diving chain" (Opele) yet he or she does not tell the reader what that is, only what it is used for. Kola nuts though less common in the US are also used in Africa and this is not mentioned. We see a word "Ajogun" with no explanation." no one can not become a full Awo " (double negative AND I think he/she meant no one can become....The page worries me because it is VERY close to being non neutral. Awo Ogbe Sa Cubaking (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Cubaking (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, I would be quite surprised if it is a policy with no exceptions that self published authors are not credible (sic). There are many who are for many valid reasons such as the lag with a traditional publisher, or control over things like translations. Finally, I am a credentialed senior Baba Awo, and know of no other Lucumi authors who have reached my rank, and that makes me noteworthy. I do not like defending myself or tooting my own horn, however it seems I must, and thus I shall. However first, I understand you are an anthropologist, and if you look at the back cover of either of the two books I added (that have been on Wiki for several years) you will notice that my book was written with the help and blessings of the Museum of Anthropology in Havana and with the blessing of the Ministry of Culture. You can reference my page at Academia.edu or scribd, or several Facebook groups, or a multitude of other sites on the Net. Perhaps you are an expect on Lucumi, Ifa, Yoruba people and post under another pseudonym that I would recognize you by. Yet this is my field and I have earned my position as I share here for you to see. Minimally I am at least as qualified and most practitioners would agree I am more qualified than many of the authors Wiki (and you) are allowing to continue to taut their on works on the exact same pages as you deleted mine from. Should you or others like personal references either in Yorubaland from sitting Araba and Ogboni or leaders of Rama in Cuba, or Latin America, I would be delighted to share them with you or a bureaucrat or the appeal board. Finally, I hope we can clear this up and contribute together on this site. Cubaking (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC) My Lucumi Credentials (English and Spanish) Residencias: Nogales, Sonora, Mexico / Centro Habana Godfather/ Padrino & Oluwa Siwaju Larzaro Pijuan (ogunda oworin) Rama Che che (Habana) Ile IFA: La Casa Templo Ifalowo (100+ Awo) Odu ogbe sa, ogunda di, odi ka Cuchillo / Baba Awo October 3, 2007, otura sa Hijo de Aggayu & Oshun Trabajo : Journalist, writer, author / escritor Libros: Nature's Ancient Religion: IFA & Orisha worship (ingles) ; Ifa y los Orishas: La Religion Antigua de la Naturaleza (espanol) 328 paginas Articulos: muchas Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Orunmila Groupos de Facebook: Lucumi info; Ibile Faith Society; Maria's Spiritual Awareness; Orisha -Space; Telegantolodu; Santeria; Odu access network; Ifa es para hombres; Exploratory Task Committee; ATR / YTR Bunco Squad. Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=50448906&trk=tab_pro Blog: http://bilingual.sulekha.com/default.htm email: CubaKing@gmail.com Sitio del web : http://www.amazon.com/Charles-Spencer-King/e/B002ELIWKI/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 Aboru Aboye Greetings and my respect to all. Our religion is a positive and a beautiful celebration with Nature. Our religion is deeply rooted in education and service to The Irunmole/ Orisa, IFA, and Ancestors. I choose to recognize the contributions of not only the various noble traditions of greater Yorubaland, but each and all who were created and honored in diaspora. I recognize that there are differences (largely in mechanics), yet these differences that identify us are minuscule compared to the many similarities and values that we share. Concepts like: ori; ase; and iwa pele, IFA, odu, etc. These define us all over the world, as do the traditions that have centuries of rich history we should all respect and share. Unlike some, I do not seek to merge the storied histories of our traditions into one "super" religion. I support and defend each tradition in greater Yorubaland and diaspora, I respect their rights and obligations to their practitioners and to operate autonomously, based on their individual traditions. * Saludos y mis respetos para todos. Nuestra religión es una relación positiva y una hermosa celebración con la naturaleza. Nuestra religión está profundamente arraigada en la educación y el servicio a la Irunmole / Orisa, IFA, y sus ancestros. Elijo para reconocer las contribuciones no sólo de las diversas tradiciones nobles de Yoruba mayor, pero cada uno ya todos los que fueron creados y honrado en la diáspora.Reconozco que hay diferencias (en gran medida en la mecánica), sin embargo, estas diferencias que nos identifican son minúsculos en comparación con las muchas similitudes y valores que compartimos. Conceptos como: Ori; ASE, Iwa pele , IFA, ODU, etc. Estos nos definen en todo el mundo, al igual que las tradiciones que tienen siglos de rica historia que debemos todo el respeto y compartir. A diferencia de muchos, que no buscan fusionar los historiales de pisos de nuestras tradiciones en un "súper" la religión. Que apoyaré y defenderé cada una tradición en la mayor Yoruba y de la diáspora, yo respeto a sus derechos y obligaciones a sus profesionales y para funcionar de forma autónoma, con base en sus tradiciones individuales.

  My camino is to promote, defend, and assist each and every branch (tradition) that was born from greater Yorubaland, or in diaspora from greater Yorubaland concepts and ideals. I believe that through mutual respect, admiration, communication, interaction, education and fair and equal representation our world and our traditional based religions will flourish and improve. I strongly advocate the godparent - godchild relationship, respect for the elders, the cooperation of and working with in addition to respect for, the ocha - IFA relationship.    

Mi camino es el de promover, defender y ayudar a todos y cada rama (la tradición) que nació de una mayor Yoruba, o en la diáspora Yoruba de mayores conceptos e ideales. Creo que a través del respeto mutuo, la admiración, la comunicación, la interacción, la educación y la representación justa y equitativa de nuestro mundo y nuestras religiones tradicionales basadas va a florecer y mejorar. Que defendemos con firmeza el padrino - ahijado relación, el respeto por los ancianos, la cooperación y el trabajo con, además de al respeto de la OCHA - relación de IFA. My GENERAL ABSOLUTES

 1)  There is no such thing as mail order, telephone or internet credentials or ceremonies. To receive credentials of ceremonies, one must be face to face. Unlike other forms of divination IFA should be face to face *  Exception: If and only if there has been a significant history of face to face divination a reading can be done via phone or internet or mail. Accepted Example: A godchild who is in Iraq asks their godparent in La Habana for a reading on an important matter.There MUST be a significant history of face to face divination. 
 2)  There is no absolute for an error, be it in a ceremony or with one's credentials, each case is handled individually. There is no substitute for education, education is perpetual as we are all students with much to learn.  
 3)  Respect is earned not given blindly,yet rank is important as is tenure and must be observed once credentials are verified. All elders obviously have tenure, yet earned rank is ultimately the last word. That being said, tenure is much more cherished, revered and respected than rank.  
 4)  IFA needs Orisha (Irunmole) worship just as Orisha worship needs IFA, the two should walk hand in hand. Beware of those that seek to circumvent IFA, they have a personal agenda,  
 5)  ONLY three or more qualified IFA priests can confirm with Orunmila who is our ruling Orisha and what is One's ruling Odu.  
 6)  A minimum of 16 qualified IFA priests are required to confirm an IFA priest 
 7)  There are no substitutes for sacrifices as one "college" suggests 
 8)  Orisha worship and IFA do not see skin color,or gender, but they do see character (ori/iwa pele). 
 9)  Orisha worship and IFA are not exclusionary religions or ways of life, unlike some forms of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, they can and do sometimes compliment other forms of veneration.  
10)  Nature is a central theme of both IFA and Orisha worship and is to be cherished, respected and nurtured whenever possible. Never should you see any follower of our religion litter, pollute or disrespect any part of Nature.  
11)  Ashe (Ase) is a form of transferable positive energy that can be found in natural things be they alive or dead or inanimate such as a rock or non living seashell. Ashe is acquirable through knowledge and transferable with much more knowledge.
12)  Man was made in the image of the Orishas (Irunmole), not visa versa.  
13)  Ire and Osogbo are of equal power, but what can always tip the balance for Ire is Ashe, because of this, light is ultimately stronger than darkness. There is no such thing as negative Ashe. 
14)  There are many excellent forms of divination, yet the most complete is IFA when used by a trained IFA priest or priestess, 
15)   Ikin are the preferred tool for divination 
16)   The diviner's skill is not only in how many Odu messages, Pataki, and Ebbo they know, but in matching the correct Odu to a question or situation, matching the correct ese (verse) and pataki (legend) to describe it and matching the correct Ebbo/ebo (cure)  to find the answer or solution. *****************

Mis ABSOLUTOS GENERALES 1) No hay tal cosa como correo para las credenciales, por teléfono o Internet o ceremonias. Para recibir las credenciales de las ceremonias, hay que ser cara a cara.A diferencia de otras formas de adivinación Ifa debe ser cara a cara * Excepción: Si y sólo si ha habido una historia significativa de cara a cara la adivinación de una lectura que se puede hacer por teléfono o por Internet o por correo. Aceptado Ejemplo: un ahijado que está en Irak pide a su padrino en La Habana para una lectura en un matter.There importante tiene que ser una historia importante de cara a cara la adivinación. 2) No hay absoluta de un error, ya sea en una ceremonia o con las propias credenciales, cada caso se maneja de forma individual. No hay sustituto para la educación, la educación es permanente mientras que son todos los estudiantes con mucho que aprender. 3) El respeto se gana no se da a ciegas, sin embargo, el rango es importante como es la tenencia y debe ser observado una vez se verifiquen las credenciales. Todos los ancianos, obviamente, tiene la tenencia, el rango es en última instancia, sin embargo, ganó la última palabra. Dicho esto, la tenencia es mucho más apreciado, venerado y respetado que el rango. 4) IFA necesita Orisha (Irunmole) adoran al igual que el culto orisha necesita IFA, los dos deben caminar de la mano. Tenga cuidado con aquellos que tratan de eludir la IFA, que tienen una agenda personal, 5) Sólo tres o más Awo de Ifá calificados puede confirmar con Orunmila, que es nuestro Orisha gobernante y lo que es uno de Odu gobierna. 6) Un mínimo de 16 Awo de Ifá cualificados son necesarios para confirmar un sacerdote de Ifá 7) No hay sustitutos para los sacrificios como una "universidad", sugiere 8) el culto orisha y el IFA no se ve color de la piel o el género, pero sí ver el carácter (ori / iwa pele). 9) el culto orisha y el IFA no son las religiones excluyentes o modos de vida, a diferencia de algunas formas de islamismo, el judaísmo y el cristianismo, se puede y se complementan a veces, otras formas de veneración. 10) La naturaleza es un tema central tanto de IFA y de culto orisha y es para ser apreciado, respetado y cultivado siempre que sea posible. Nunca debe usted ve cualquier seguidor de la religión de nuestra camada, contaminar o falta de respeto hacia cualquier parte de la naturaleza. 11) Ashe (ASE) es una forma de transferir energía positiva que se puede encontrar en las cosas naturales ya sea vivo o muerto o inanimado, como una piedra o concha marina vida no. Ashe es adquiribles a través del conocimiento y transferibles con mucho más conocimiento. 12) El hombre fue hecho a imagen de los Orishas (Irunmole) y no viceversa. 13) Ire y Osogbo son de igual potencia, pero lo que siempre se puede inclinar la balanza para Irlanda es Ashe, debido a esto, en última instancia, la luz es más fuerte que la oscuridad. No hay tal cosa como Ashe negativo. 14) Hay muchas formas excelentes de adivinación, sin embargo, el más completo es el IFA cuando se usa por un sacerdote o sacerdotisa entrenada IFA, 15) Ikin son la herramienta preferida para la adivinación 16) La habilidad del contador del tiempo no es sólo en la cantidad de mensajes ODU, Pataki, y Ebbo que saben, pero en el que coincida con el Odu correcta a una pregunta o una situación, igualando la correcta ESE (verso) y Pataki (leyenda) para describir y juego la correcta Ebbo / ebo (cura) para encontrar la respuesta o solución. Positions: 1) Women in IFA: I am PRO Women in IFA and for the equality of women in general. 2) I do not participate nor lead any ceremony where rank is involved outside of my own Ile in Havana, unless I am assisting my Godfather, Lazaro Pijuan. I do not preform consultations with others outside of my ile in Havana, nor do I use IFA for divination for anyone outside of my ile in Havana. I do not preform Ebbo (ebo) for anyone outside of my ile in Havana other than myself for a fee. I receive no fee's for any advice or divination. Should someone wish me to introduce them or arrange for a trip to Havana for them to receive a service and wish my company , I accept the cost of all transportation and taxes, lodging and food FOB Nogales, Sonora, Mexico. Should I be speaking publicly or attending a conference, I accept the costs of my transportation and taxes, lodgings and food, and a prearranged per diem fee. I have no Godchildren, nor plan to have any, as my Odu is educating the masses, not individuals one at a time. 3) Gays and Lesbians in IFA : Due to the fact that my ile IFA in Havana prohibits Gays and Lesbians admission to our ile IFA, my personal feelings are irrelevant, as I obey the taboo's of our ile. 4) Ode Remo vs Awo Falokun : I am presently neutral on this situation, although I have and will continue to commentate and agree or disagree with comments made by either Ode Remo and its members or Awo Falokun and or his supporters. (Examples: My note on gossiping and my note on Cyberbullying are direct rebuttals to Awo Falokun's stated opinions.) Having said I am neutral does not change the fact that Ode Remo has ruled on this matter and Awo Falokun has accepted their ruling. 5) IFA College: I am anti many of the teachings and mechanics of Phillip Neimark and IFA Foundation. Mr. Neimark has largely moved from Cuban Lucumi to Traditional Yoruba practice that he has torn apart and remade in his own image. He has yet to produce his Tradicional Yoruba credentials and identify where the allegded ase is from, nor his credentials of who trained him and the extent of his training. 6) I am anti any form of unification or merging of the various traditions of IFA and or Orisha worship (ocha) into one Super religion. 7) I am anti any opinions that one tradition (including but not limited to traditional practices in greater Yorubaland) is stronger, or more powerful than any other, for me they are simply different, neither is my public opinion that my beloved Lucumi stronger or more powerful than any other tradition inside or outside greater Yorubaland. 8) I am neutral on those who consult using other forms of divination besides IFA through Skype, mail order, letters, wire, or telephone, whereas IFA is always done face to face unless (see lone exception under General Absolutes #1). 9) I believe we each have ori (divine spirit somewhat like soul) yet I do not believe a ceremony is necessary to access it. 10) I strongly advocate education and continuing education, all IFA priests are students for life 11) I believe in the Irunmole and/ or Orisha (orisa) 12) I believe in the Ancestors or Eggun/ egun. I believe that all mankind worships these the same, thus I am a DNA supporter of Haplogroups and MT dating. Those that insist I am not black enough to worship my Eggun the same as Yoruba....I am anti their opinion. 13) I believe the Ancestors include lineage ancestors, and these are a significant component of the Ancestors. 14) I believe in the concept of Ashe/ ase that it is collectible and can be transferable after it is acquired if one has the knowledge 15) I believe in The Dead ( Los muertos) and separate them from the Ancestors 16) I believe in Odu IFA and the 16 Laws of IFA. I believe in Odu determining destiny (camino), I believe in celebrating and respecting Nature, as well as balance. I believe in supporting and defending those religions and ways of life that have tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others outside their faiths, and those who respect the right of those inside their faiths to study and investigate other religions or ways of life. For example: I do not respect Islam because of its intolerance, yet respect Hinduism and the Tao (to name two of many examples) because of their tolerance. Posiciones: 1) Las mujeres en IFA: Yo soy la mujer de PRO en IFA y por la igualdad de las mujeres en general. 2) que no participan, ni llevar a cualquier acto en el rango está involucrado fuera de mi propia Isla en La Habana, a menos que esté ayudando a mi padrino, Lázaro Hernández Pijuan. Me no preforma consultas con otras personas fuera de mi ile en La Habana, ni puedo usar IFA para la adivinación para cualquier persona fuera de mi ile de La Habana. No me preforma Ebbo (EBO) para cualquier persona fuera de mi ile de que no sea yo Habana por una tarifa. Que no reciben la cuota para cualquier consejo o adivinación. Si alguien me quiere para introducirlos o los arreglos para un viaje a La Habana para que reciban un servicio y desea mi compañía, yo acepto el costo de todo el transporte y los impuestos, alojamiento y comida FOB Nogales, Sonora, México.¿Debería hablar en público o de asistir a una conferencia, yo acepto los costos de mi transporte e impuestos, alojamiento y comida, y una tarifa preestablecida por viáticos.No tengo ahijados, ni tiene ningún plan para, como mi Odu es educar a las masas, no uno los individuos a la vez. 3) Gays y Lesbianas en IFA: Debido al hecho de que mi ile IFA en La Habana prohíbe a gays y lesbianas de admisión a nuestra Isla IFA, mis sentimientos personales son irrelevantes, ya que obedecen al tabú es de nuestro ile. 4) Ode Remo vs Awo Falokun: Actualmente soy neutral en esta situación, a pesar de que tienen y seguirán teniendo para ser comentados y estoy de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con las observaciones formuladas por cualquiera de Ode Remo y sus miembros o Falokun y Awo o de sus partidarios. (Ejemplos: mi nota sobre chismes y mi nota sobre ciberacoso son réplicas directas a opiniones vertidas Awo Falokun de.) Sin embargo, ha sido establecido por Ode Remo Falokun que no tiene las credenciales para dar a los demás ceremonias que implican rango o ase. Por lo tanto lamentablemente, cualquiera que haya recibido de la ase. AseFalokun adquiridos sin ningún valor, y obtuvo rango con ninguna credibilidad. 5) Colegio IFA: Yo estoy en contra de muchas de las enseñanzas y la mecánica de Phillip Neimark y la Fundación IFA. Sr. Neimark en gran medida ha pasado de Cuba lucumí de la práctica tradicional Yoruba que se ha desgarrado y rehecha en su propia imagen. Él todavía tiene que producir sus credenciales Tradicional Yoruba y identificar donde el ase es de allegded,ni sus credenciales de quien lo entrenó 6) Yo estoy en contra de cualquier forma de unificación o fusión de las diversas tradiciones de IFA y Orisha o adoración (OCHA) en una religión Super. 7) Yo estoy en contra de cualquier opinión que una tradición (incluyendo pero no limitado a las prácticas tradicionales en la mayor Yoruba) es más fuerte, o más poderoso que cualquier otro, para mí son simplemente diferentes, no es mi opinión de que mi amada Lucumí más fuerte o más poderosa que cualquier otra tradición dentro o fuera de mayor Yoruba. 8) Yo soy neutral en los que consultan con otras formas de adivinación, además de IFA a través de Skype, por correspondencia, cartas, cables, o por teléfono, mientras que la IFA se hace siempre cara a cara, a menos (véase la única excepción en Absolutos general n ° 1). 9) Yo creo que cada uno tiene Ori (espíritu divino algo así como el alma), pero no creo que un acto es necesario para acceder a ella. 10) que un fervoroso partidario de la educación y la formación continua, todos los sacerdotes de Ifá son los estudiantes para la vida 11) Creo en el Irunmole y / u orisha (orisha) 12) Creo que en los ancestros o eggun / egun. Creo que todos estos cultos la humanidad de la misma, por lo tanto soy un defensor de los haplogrupos del ADN y datación MT. Aquellos que insisten en que no soy lo suficientemente negro para adorar a mi Eggun el mismo Yoruba .... Yo estoy en contra de su opinión. 13) Creo que los antepasados son los antepasados del linaje, y que no todos los antepasados de sangre pertenecen al grupo conocido como los antepasados. 14) Yo creo en el concepto de Ashe / asa que es de colección y pueden ser transferibles después de que se adquiere si se tiene el conocimiento 15) Creo en The Dead (Los Muertos) y separarlos de los Ancestros 16) Creo en Odu Ifa y las 16 Leyes de la IFA. Creo en el destino para determinar Odu (camino), creo que en la celebración y el respeto a la naturaleza, así como el equilibrio.Creo en apoyo y defensa de las religiones y formas de vida que tienen la tolerancia y el respeto a las creencias de los demás fuera de sus creencias, y los que respetar el derecho de las personas dentro de sus creencias para estudiar e investigar otras religiones o formas de vida. Por ejemplo: no respetar el Islam, debido a su intolerancia, sin embargo, respetar el hinduismo y el Tao (por nombrar dos de los muchos ejemplos), debido a su tolerancia Cubaking (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Virtually all of your edits add your book to an article. So, you seem to be only here to add your book. That's a conflict of interest for a start, see WP:COI and reason enough for my warning, let alone the fact that you haven't been able to get a publisher. See also WP:TLDR. If I left other self-published books behind (which I tried not to do) then remove them. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Response[edit]

" Virtually all of your edits add your book to an article." I gave you an example that you have ignored. " So, you seem to be only here to add your book." Why thank you for adding "seem" I suppose that is a positive step.

  Once again you sling another insult that you have no idea of its voracity in " let alone the fact that you haven't been able to get a publisher." It is unfortunate you Sir continue with a combative tone and hyperbole. Perhaps I am 

wrong, but I thought you were here to help, advise users like me who ARE recognized experts in their fields. I addressed the self publishing issue in my first response, however to continue, you Sir, have absolutely zero information to support your assertion that " let alone the fact that you haven't been able to get a publisher. Therefore it is NOT a "fact", it is a supposition on your part, that happens to be incorrect, and abusive. I submit that you have overstepped your authority, in making sweeping statements, regarding me and my credentials. I expected more from someone who has risen the ranks through hard work, many hours, and valuable contributions. I do not know you, and I am puzzled why you have an agenda that includes me. Otherwise you would not be accusatory, you would be offering to help. Did I rub some friend of yours the wrong way? I am really puzzled why we can not have a discussion without you accusing me or attempting to belittle me, because I am a fairly easy fellow to get along with. My contributions to Lucumi, Ifa and Yoruba are well documented and extensive, as I said I am delighted to provide personal references from the top ranking individuals (Arabas and Ogboni) in Nigeria, Cuba or the US. If your goal is to drive recognized experts in their fields away from Wiki, with insults, innuendo, and spin you are succeeding. Disappointed I remain, Cubaking (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Cubaking ( talk) 15:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this summary, it is probably not a coincidence that Acharya is commonly considered to be a Brahmin last name.

More generally, the problem has been a combination of the usual newbie issues, socking by Buddhakahika & co plus a vast amount of POV pushing from the Vishwkarma community. The last relates to an incident of around a century ago, from which the community claim that they are Brahmin. I've never yet managed to find a source that says anything more authoritative than that they claim the status - no-one except the community itself seems to agree with them. I've still got some books on my shelf + some links to check out, though. - Sitush ( talk) 16:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Sitush:Yes, the surname wasn't really the issue, the newness of the editors suggests something perhaps happening off-wiki. A bit like the stuff at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar). Dougweller ( talk) 16:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There is constant meatpuppet-like behaviour around Vishwakarma issues. That's the nature of things when sanskritisation is involved. - Sitush ( talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And now he has added this .It is published by Gyan and thus useless. Therein lies a big part of my sourcing problem: the sources that do refer to the Vishwakarma stuff are unreliable. Nowt I can do about it now but I think another period of semi-protection might be coming soon. - Sitush ( talk) 16:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:Common name -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that you will be unable to convince "true believers", and that short responses in terms of policy and guidelines will be most efficient in response to them. Let us keep focused on the goal. You, and they, have laid out the battlefield. The goal, as I see it, is to achieve consensus among un-emotionally attached editors, within the guidelines, regardless of whether "true believers" join in that consensus. If we can come up with concrete proposals, then an RFC becomes possible. I actually agree that a political article, even as a stub, at "Zomi" would help, but only if we have an acceptable name for the whole group, which only scratches the surface of the other problems, but, one step at a time. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Bejnar:Thanks. I agree we could have an article at Zomi, but not the article that those who want Zomi to be the name for the entire Zo people (or whatever they should be called). I wish I could think of concrete proposals. I appreciate the name you suggested but could that be justified if it comes to any sort of formal request for a move or whatever? And can we get enough non-interested parties with no conflict of interest? Dougweller ( talk) 16:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Finding disinterested editors is difficult. I've had my problems with that before. If brain-storming can get us somewhere, then we can try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). But first ...  My "suggested" title was an attempt at an NPOV description, so that we could at least have a linguistic tag with which to start. Biology and geology have those nice Latin modifiers sensu stricto and sensu lato, too bad those won't work for this. Anyway, back to brain-storming on the talk page. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Bejnar:DRN may be the way to go but we need to get at least some ducks in a row. I like your title, but... Dougweller ( talk) 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I give up. Do whatever pleases you :) Cheers! Vaphualization ( talk) 19:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good evening. I believe you renamed Ama Gôdô Maat to Amar Godomat without leaving a redirection. Would you kindly redirect Ama Gôdô Maat to Amar Godomat in order to avoid red links. Ama Gôdô Maat is not wrong. It is the Seereer-Siin way of spelling his name. Thanks. 94.197.116.32 ( talk) 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I would if I could find any sources using it. I didn't leave a redirection because I could find no sources using that spelling. I know fr.wiki uses it, but again without any source for the spelling and the sources I can find on google.fr seem to be based on the fr.wiki article, with no sources in http://scholar.google.fr or the French equivalent of Google books. Perhaps you can help? Dougweller ( talk) 21:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kuki–Paite Ethnic Clash 1997–98, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kuki ( 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) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, you've not signed this ;) I'm truly amazed that any experienced editor thinks that snippets/abstracts are acceptable. For the simplistic stuff that one person says should be ok, I'd anticipate that there is always an alternate source that could be used. There always has been in my experience, anyway! - Sitush ( talk) 18:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. Snippets except in very restricted circumstances, eg you can see "Joe died in 1555" perhaps, should be verboten, ditto abstracts. And when I see editors using headlines! Dougweller ( talk) 18:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please remove Yoel Natan as he is not part of the source you quoted. He is extremely biased, considered unreliable and likely a nut. He also would need his own reference and does not belong in the intro even if he was a reliable source. Do not add commentary and then hide it in the referenced material. That is deceptive and not what wiki is about.

Please remember early Islamic law is not the same as modern Sharia law. It would be better to use early Islamic law to be more precise. The reference does not have anything to do with Natan's claims. You would need a separate reference for those numbers. So I will take that out at a later date if you fail to provide a reference for those claims of Natan. Please use an appropriate reference or remove.

What is your connection to Yoel Natan as I have researched your past edits and see disturbing similarities in bias. Are you one and the same? If so please remember wiki is not a place to promote oneself. It would also be considered original research. If you are someone else remember that sources need to be reliable, that is something accepted by more than a few extremists. http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/06/my-god-is-better-than-yours-iii-yoel-natan-author-of-moon-o-theism-believes-dinosaurs-roamed-the-earth-with-humans/172.56.1.7 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is Kansas Bears response: Notice he has changed the title to mock Ip Editors and further mocks me by stating "Apparently you are "oh so" intelligent but are blissfully ignorant.."

He clealy does not understand or ignores the boomerang effect. The conversation goes downhill from there. I did ask if he was the same as the blogger Yoel Natan, but did not state he was. After reading his edits there are similiar views to the blogger so I felt it was a legitimate question and also pointed out to not promote original research or oneself if it was the case. I further stated that a source needs to be reliable as it was unknown to me that he misrepresented the source and he contradicted mainstream thought concerning the subject. It represented an extremist viewpoint but it was not the fault of the source in which the author himself left some level of doubt. In those cases one would seek additional sources for clarification unless they had an extreme view to push. I later rewrote the whole statement with a neutral POV and a internal link that discussed the disputed sentences in depth. I do not know what more could of been done.

Kansas Bear's Response:

Please remove Yoel Natan as he is not part of the source you quoted. He is extremely biased, considered unreliable and likely a nut. He also would need his own reference and does not belong in the intro even if he was a reliable source. Do not add commentary and then hide it in the referenced material. That is deceptive and not what wiki is about.

Please remember early Islamic law is not the same as modern Sharia law. It would be better to use early Islamic law to be more precise. The reference does not have anything to do with Natan's claims. You would need a separate reference for those numbers. So I will take that out at a later date if you fail to provide a reference for those claims of Natan. Please use an appropriate reference or remove.

What is your connection to Yoel Natan as I have researched your past edits and see disturbing similarities in bias. Are you one and the same? If so please remember wiki is not a place to promote oneself. It would also be considered original research. If you are someone else remember that sources need to be reliable, that is something accepted by more than a few extremists. http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/06/my-god-is-better-than-yours-iii-yoel-natan-author-of-moon-o-theism-believes-dinosaurs-roamed-the-earth-with-humans/ 172.56.1.7 ( talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable? Apparently you are "oh so" intelligent but are blissfully ignorant of Cambridge University? Alexander Mikaberidze? [1] As far as I know, I have never used Yoel Natan as a source. Take your accusations and snide remarks, "student in Kansas" and stay off my talk page. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again I hope this helps to illustrate the dispute in question.

Can you tell me as to why the page for Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 was deleted? Code Name True ( talk) 04:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• You mean Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act? Dwpaul ^Talk 04:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Dwpaul:Thanks for that link, it helped. In fact there was such an article as the red-linked one, it was deleted as part of a mass delete of a sockpuppet's edits. It could be recreated as a redirect I guess. Dougweller ( talk) 13:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a problem User_talk:Owsert#Copy.2Fpasting_within_Wikipedia here? I've not yet sifted through all of the changes in January but perhaps it would be worth someone emphasising my points (if you agree, of course!). - Sitush ( talk) 07:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Sitush: I found [2] where his edit summary says " created a new section on relevant topic, attribute to article Arora" so I don't think so, although I'd prefer the edit summaray to say "copypaste from...". But that's a minor point and the edit you pointed out may have been just a slip. Dougweller ( talk) 13:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sure, we all make mistakes. But that thread shows a succession of misleading actions/edit summaries by someone who is pretty involved in caste-related articles. I've been polite with them this time but it bothers me when someone throws out consecutive edit summaries etc that are so way off-beam. I've tended to trust them in the past - AGF etc - but maybe I need to pay a bit more attention. - Sitush ( talk) 14:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice about not linking to Amazon and Google Books search pages which I understand. With that said, the fact that this little known author who is often criticized on Christian websites as having questionable credentials has approximately 177 listings on Amazon according to their search (granted some are not his), and 111 by my count on Google Books, I believe the results are quite an impressive testament to his scholarship. Here is what you removed on the Alvin Boyd Kuhn page, "Over 150 of his publications can be found on Amazon.com and Google Books."

Could I instead say one of the following?

• Over 150 of his publications can be found on Amazon.com and Google Books.
• Over 150 of his publications can be found on Amazon.com.
• Over 150 of his publications can be found on Amazon.com and Google Books.
• Over 150 of his publications can be found on Amazon.com.
• Over 150 of his publications can be found on Amazon.com and Google Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Counts on book searches for Kuhn are unreliable because one publisher has been publishing short extracts of his books as pamphlets. Mangoe ( talk) 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the information about the essays. Here is the latest version' but welcome to suggestions: "The author of over 150 books, essays and published papers... Several of his works have been published or reprinted posthumously, and many are available electronically." (Not sure if it is better to say available electronically, on line, in electronic formats, etc) Radath ( talk) 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your contribution and humour, such as here. Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You should have received a ping but, just in case, you have been mentioned in this thread at ANI. - Sitush ( talk) 09:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in addressing an IP hopping "editor"? I think this statement says it all, "Not only that Yoel Natan likely is a reference to a terrorist organization with who you have remarkable same line thinking. /info/en/?search=Kahanism" -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Kansas Bear: Was that the right link? I had to look at your contributions but now I see it's sorted, right? Dougweller ( talk) 12:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The link, left by the IP, was to insinuate I'm a terrorist or part of a terrorist group. I posted a link on the IP's talk page, showing which editor had added Natan as a source and the above statement was the response. The IP has also posted their lies about me on the devsirme talk page under the heading "Removing Yoel Natan reference in Intro/ Not a real person. Likely a reference to two terrorists. Kahanism". -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Kansas Bear:The link was to the article (which was pretty bad, I've removed quite a bit). I can't find the mention anywhere about you having the same line of thinking. Dougweller ( talk) 18:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just saw it on your talk page. Just ignore them on your talk page (delete them) and if there are on-article problems let me know. Having made several deletions at Kahanism I discovered there is a 1RR restriction so I've reported myself to ANI! Dougweller ( talk) 18:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh damn! I had never heard of it/them until this IP started ranting. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest change by the IP hopping editor with this edit summary, "Removed unprofessional tone. Just the Facts Ma'm! No tabloid statements please. This is not a place for your personal feelings or a place to elicit sympathies for your cause. Go back to your blog to do that." [3] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reposted the sources with no comment. I believe this IP is refusing to get the point. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia acting up and I'm about to watch tv. If this is a hopper you'll have to see if anyone at ANI thinks a range block is in order. Make sure you don't get into an edit war. Dougweller ( talk) 19:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Doug it is ironic that Kansas bear runs to someone when he has a track record of disrespecting other editors as shown by his/her contributions. Just look at the talk page about above article. He started of by calling me a cowardly IP editor. Really professional. I made an edit that would better reflect the truth based on several wiki articles about the subject. He engaged in an edit war by undoing and saying take it to the talk page. He is a POV pusher and on his own page he takes great pride in that. He only considers what in his mind makes his agenda. I told him to properly quote the source and not to take it out of context. Do your research and you will find he: 1.Started insulting an editor as a coward because he was an IP. 2. Engaged in Edit warring. 3. Misrepresented the source. 4. Tried to deceive an admin. Thanks for looking into the matter if you have time. I did internally link to an article about Islamic views on slavery which has many sources and editors that contradict the specious statement Kansas Bear was asserting based on a misrepresentation of the source he claimed. I am going with the majority opinion and not with someone with an agenda. He fails to use a neutral POV over and over. I have looked at his other contributions and arguments he has been involved in and there is a track record that will illustrate the point I am making. Yoel natan is not a real person but a psdeonym for a blogger. He was likely unaware that it may refer to a couple of Israeli terrorists. I pointed that out to him and said he needed to correct his edits by removing a made up name and reference that was not reliable. I also repeated that he needed to be careful to use references in context. I later pointed out that he needed to go with more than one source. This is especially true if the source contradicts multiple credible sources. I know you will see unprofessional behavior on both parts, but he clearly opened that can of worms as he has done to other editors as shown on the articles talk page. He clearly has an unprofessional tone towards other editors. I am not certain at this point what he will do to the article but your reworking of the couple of sentences in question would be fine with me as a neutral third party. I have seen you around before and believe you can reflect a neutral POV in the article in question. Maybe he can live with that also. Sorry to have wasted your time with this but he chose to escalate it as a last ditch effort to push an agenda. 172.56.11.122 ( talk) 08:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Heres is my first post after he posted on the T-Mobile IP talk page I was on. Apparently he is unfamiliar with how data cards work, you never get the same IP, it is not the fault of the user and is not deceptive, it is the way things are. In a year I will have had hundreds of IP's of all different ranges depending on where I am at. Due to all the internal politics I chose to remain unregistered. Not joining the club, but I do add edits that help improve articles. Some in wiki really despise that and that is unwiki of them as it is open to all. I am a scholar and very much agree with a neutral POV and reliable sources that are taken in context. Some good came out of all this. The article had an very unreliable and make believe name removed, it more accurately reflects the complicated early Islamic law and traditions, and now links an article that discusses that in detail. I also found this which may shed some light on his motivation. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Kansas_Bear&direction=next&oldid=551848264 It also leads me to ask is he operating as a sock or multiple accounts to wage an agenda war? Would a user check be appropriate to see what other accounts are using the same IP as Kansas Bear. It has been done before according to his log. He may be just someone with a set POV that he wants to convey due to his political beliefs. He clearly bashes certain cultures when possible. Is he Islamaphobic? Not being Islamic and part of that argument I am not certain what really qualifies as such but I see a disturbing POV pushing and lack of regard for context when it does not suit his agenda.

My agenda? You continue to lie about me, 1)calling me a terrorist, 2)that I restored Natan, 3)Islamaphobe, 4)accusation of sockpuppetry.

Professional? Statements like this, "Possibly dealing with student in Kansas with unsubstaniated claims". Accusing another editor of being a terrorist or member of a terrorist organization is professional? [4] Accusing another editor of bias and being Natan. "What is your connection to Yoel Natan as I have researched your past edits and see disturbing similarities in bias. Are you one and the same? If so please remember wiki is not a place to promote oneself. It would also be considered original research. If you are someone else remember that sources need to be reliable, that is something accepted by more than a few extremists." followed by this odd statement, "Really??? You kept restoring his accusation when I took it away. By the way you are a dumba$$ for not realizing that Yoel Natan is a blog and not a real person." "Go back to your blog to do that." Accused me of restoring Natan(which was never removed). [5], which is a lie. Yeah, real professional!

Here are the facts.

YOU left Natan. [6] Even your second edit left Natan. [7] And your third edit again removed the referenced section and left Natan, again! [8] I simply added references to the other part of the sentence, which was separated by a semicolon. Your inability to understand that I did not add nor restored Natan(since you never removed it) to the lead is your own problem and I have clearly shown your statements are clearly false. Your own edits indicate you left Natan and removed the second half of the sentence which was clearly referenced(Mikaberidze & I. Metin Kunt). Even your own edit summary shows what you were removing, "Removed commentary that is not from the reference or of Sharia law. It is only against sharia law to enslave muslims. All other groups are allowed to be enslaved in Islam." Clearly you can not or will not take the time to realize the sources(Mikaberidze & I. Metin Kunt) are reliable and this Natan nonsense is simply a ruse to cover up your continued harassment.

Odd, that someone who was so worried about removing Natan, ranted an accusation at another editor about Natan, even accused another editor of being a terrorist, couldn't remove Natan from the start!? Yet after I removed Natan(which had not been removed previously) you reworded the referenced sentence following it(the one you continued to remove). [9] [10] [11] Which as the sentence stands right now is original research So, if you wanted Yoel Natan and the sentence before the semicolon removed, why didn't you do it yourself? You had plenty of opportunities. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This. [12] Is the editor that added Yoel Natan. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. Sorry for the IVC; there seems to be an endless reservoir of frogs all quacking the same song. Tried this time to start friendly, hoping to keep this one at bay. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Joshua Jonathan: No problem. We often find editors at the article on oldest cities try to claim a city is as old as the earliest signs of habitation. That's as silly as calling my home town, Miami (founded in the late 19th century), 2700 years old because there was an Indian village there then. Or dating London, founded by the Romans, to the earliest habitation. Dougweller ( talk) 09:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism Began has some nice remarks on simplism:

"One extreme is the deadly over-simplification which is inevitable for beginners but out of place in a university, the over-simplification which says that 'The Buddha taught X' or 'Mahayanists believe Y', without further qualification."

A delight to read, amidst all the rhetorics - should I say, "frogthorics"? - at India-related articles. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a great quote. Dougweller ( talk) 11:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edit summary regarding Gene Cho at article Zhu Zaiyu was pretty funny. I have to mention though that Gene Cho is on the faculty of the University of North Texas College of Music http://music.unt.edu/faculty-and-staff/detail/19, that he's got some credibility as a music theorist and a composer, and that I've seen his work about equal temperament in Europe and China (mentioned in the article you edited) referenced by other works. Now I'm not saying that particular work and/or its thesis are necessarily reliable but by and large Cho has got some credibility. It is true through that his claims that articles from the Ark of the Covenant of the Jerusalem Temple made their way to Japan and are now housed at the Ise Grand Shrine (incredibly repeated on his UNT page!) do not do him any favor. Contact Basemetal here 17:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Basemetal: Thanks. What really made my spidey sense tingle was the publisher, the Edwin Mellen Press. Not reliably published. Maybe he'd scrape through, but I'd like a better source. Dougweller ( talk) 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I hadn't noticed. You're right. Then let's leave Cho out as a source for that particular article. Note I did not mean to necessarily defend the reliability of that particular book and its thesis (see my message above), I was just observing that what Cho has to say has to be assessed on a case by case basis even if he's got nutty ideas in other domains. I did not mean to imply necessarily that your removal of that source was inappropriate. Just that your edit summary, although it made me laugh, has to be taken with a grain of salt since Cho's ideas on the fate of the Ark of the Covenant do not really have any bearing on how we assess his point in other matters. Cheers. Contact Basemetal here 19:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Nwbocploumouic ( talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a rather spurious warning. DW was doing what anything that assumed bad faith in the slightest. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Doug--is this not rollback abuse? I don't know what ever happened with the Twinkle/rollback discussion, but these edits that were reverted (boneheaded as they were) were not vandalism. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Drmies: I see events have overtaken this and that he doesn't have rollback. Frankly though I'd ban CensoredScribe from anything to do with categories, I think he/she has real problems there, particularly after having seen El Cid added to a category for mythological sword fighters. I warned him about that and he didn't even reply. I'll support the new topic ban but it doesn't go far enough. Dougweller ( talk) 06:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle incorporates rollback, if I'm not mistaken; I thought we were going to have TW permission just like we have rollback permission. Ryulong should have argued, I think, that he was reverting disruption or a topic ban or something like that. Anyway, thanks for your note. I'm a bit more positive toward CS's contributions, but not much. Drmies ( talk) 06:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, Twinkle is its own thing, separate from rollback. As far as a Twinkle permission goes, the genie is out of the bottle; there's no way to make a Twinkle permission that can't be easily circumvented by using the old versions of Twinkle that didn't require it. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 06:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, since I know your online, there is an IP with someone who I suspect is mentally ill. It might be a good idea to block them for a while here. I am One of Many ( talk) 06:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@ I am One of Many:I was on my way to an early morning gym session when you wrote this. However, I decided that although there hadn't been more edits the problem with the IP seemed serious enough to warrant a 24 hour block. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Dougweller ( talk) 16:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I do not understand what You wrote about the sources in this article, I mean about the references, I am afraid You are mistaken... -- Gian piero milanetti ( talk) 09:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I do not understand why You write this opinion in the article of Martinoli where there is nothing from that author

-- Gian piero milanetti ( talk) 19:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

His book was there, see [13]. I hope it wasn't actually used. Dougweller ( talk) 19:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see, I did not know that, actually that book has not been quoted... but what happened raises a matter: most of anglo-saxon storiography is used to ridiculize Italian armed forces and armaments, and wikipedia is/was going the same way, that book is one of the very few that casts a less negative light on Italian partecipation in WWII, that's why it had been included in the bibliography of some Regia Aeronautica pilots and aircraft. -- Gian piero milanetti ( talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand the problem. But a book written by an ex-Nazi who also believes and writes about Atlantis, etc does not meet our criteria for sources. Dougweller ( talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Harikumar_Pallathadka#Scope_of_this_article. Should I go for WP:3O even though it is early days in the discussion? I feel that it is not going to progress and there are a shedload of other problems that I've not even mentioned in detail yet. - Sitush ( talk) 13:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shelem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian ( 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) 09:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nwbocploumouic was on Administrator intervention against vandalism‎ but was not blocked, I thought he looked familiar and added my suspicion who he was. Apparently I was right and he was soon blocked. Bevo74 ( talk) 14:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Military history of Italy during World War II may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the incredibly poor quality of the Italian artillery shells saved many British soldiers' lives.{{#tag:ref|The account by an Australian Battery Sergeant Major during the 10th Army's destruction: "

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Concordia College (South Australia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {| class="wikitable"
• | 2010 || ''[[Grease (musical)|Grease]]'' (all four shows sold out){{cn

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 09:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Göbekli Tepe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• //www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/12/19/111219fa_fact_batuman?currentPage=all The New Yorker]

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller,

Thank you! /info/en/?search=User_talk:Scottlovessue

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottlovessue ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I'm a little concerned about this editor who appears to have a bee in his bonnet about the Celticity of Picts. I'm stepping back from any admin related activity with him as I'm wp:involved, so it might be good for another admin to keep an eye on the situation. Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Catfish Ok. I asked him a question but that doesn't make me involved. Dougweller ( talk) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you deleted the poem from the article. I'm not bothered whether or not the "long" rede is included in the article in toto, but it was decided by a debate at wikisource that it is not a copyvio. This is on the basis that Porter claimed that the poem had been passed down to her through generations of "witches". The full text is there [14] Paul B ( talk) 16:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask User:Moonriddengirl. Dougweller ( talk) 16:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dougweller. I am still learning policies, and I noticed you reverted my edit here. I read your note on the summery, so if that statement is in one of the sources, then my apologies for removing it. I wanted to let you know that this source no longer exists. Is it okay for me to remove it and the statement sourced by it since the source was not found? I'll take the time to read the other sources to confirm. Thanks! Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on a potential replacement for the List of demons in the Ars Goetia article, and I keep getting this nagging worry in the back of my head that I might be doing OR. Since Goetia is already (rightfully) treated as broader than the first book of the Lesser Key of Solomon, I thought I might just broaden it to "List of Goetic demons" and include a bunch of works that either outright describe themselves as Goetia, are discussed in relation to Goetia, or share plenty of spirits with the LKoS. This arrangement covers more than the current article, but hopefully will occupy less space as many of the demons have enough sources to be notable (turning the list into more of an article index).

My concern is that while I might have two works that overlap with the LKoS, they do not overlap with each other. For example: To say that Agares in the LKoS is Agares in the Grand Grimoire is not OR, and to say that the LKoS Agares is le Livre de Esperitz' Agarat is not either; so does it count as SYNTH to put LKoS Agares, GG Agares, and LdE Agarat next to each other as the same character? Or am I correct in assuming its just juxtaposition? Thanks. Ian.thomson ( talk) 04:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

HI Ian.thomson. You should be ok if you just state what the sources say. I think I'd need to see the suggested edit. Dougweller ( talk) 15:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's at User:Ian.thomson/Sandbox. I tried copying an example, there was no way to get it right. Each row sticks to the text in so far as one work relates to another (all entries for Agares relate to the LKoS one), but the sources for each do not mention all the other parts (the Livre des Esperitz entry doesn't mention the Grand Grimoire). Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I see the problem. Tables like this are always very tricky. You'll need some sort of caveat, either an explanation at the top of the table or a note (as in a reference but the note type). Best to make it clear at the top of the table I'd say so that people will be clear about it. Sorry not to reply earlier. Dougweller ( talk) 19:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I think I'll narrow it down to "the following demons appear in the LKoS and these related works," and take out the demons that aren't mentioned in the LKoS. I haven't done but like ten other guys that aren't in the LKoS, so it's not much work to fix. This will also let me collapse some of the columns together, which might give me enough room to put the descriptions in the table. Thanks. Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 09:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I got recently some trouble with a certain user concerning besaid article. He put in some citation-labels (which was, for its self, ok). One of them was ok in my opinion and I have put sources in. The other is, in my opinion, redundant. Now the user is blindly reverting my edits instead of contacting me or just leaving the article. Could you please do something about it? Regards;-- Nephiliskos ( talk) 12:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Nephiliskos, Sorry, but I think that " Contradictorily, Huni was long remembered in Egyptian traditions, but as good as no contemporary document, object or monument has endured." is confusing. What does "as good as no" - do you mean "virtually no...."? Also, the use of 'today' is ambiguous. Some editors use "as of...". Wild Bill right but his edit summary wasn't as clear as it could have been. Dougweller ( talk) 13:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay. It might be my national origin, but I found it not so confusing.^^ What I'm upset about is the behaviour of this user. If I had a certain problem with an article, I would at least contact the main author or his project. And not blindly reverting his work and deleting put in sources. This is childish and diva-like. I'll look what I can do about an non-confusing phrasing. Regards;-- Nephiliskos ( talk) 13:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed a few edits to Clovis culture today (after I had made some edits to improve clarity and conciseness that are unrelated to the more recent edits). In one edit, a few edits back from the latest one, an editor changed "North and South America" to "Central and South America". I thought, from reading the article, that members of the Clovis culture were thought to be ancestors of most of the Native Americans in North America, if not also Central and South America. This edit leaves out North America. I wondered if that were correct. CorinneSD ( talk) 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD thanks. I've fixed it but am not happy with the broad claim, which I've commented on at the article's talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 06:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I created a section on the talk page and manually rewrote the entire section on Islam based on two sources, but I don't want to spend the time reverting each edit the use Special:Contributions/Mdshoaibayasaki makes. It seems to be an SPA.
There were two photos of mosques and other WP:UNDUE material on the page as well as misrepresentation of statements in the sources. The chart is wrong for both Muslims and Christians, with Christians accounting for less than 1%, and Muslims not statistically having numbers to be represented, I would assume. I reverted their edits earlier and was re-reverted before long. The content being added would basically seem to be promotional in nature.-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you uninvolved enough to put your admin hat on and get a handle on this, or should I ask someone else? I don't want to put you in a bind. Let me know. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm too involved, you want someone completely uninvolved. Sorry Ignocrates. Dougweller ( talk) 19:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you recommend an uninvolved and impartial admin with at least a general knowledge of the subject? This is strictly a policy call on the appropriate way to use primary sources in article content and whether WP:PSTS is being knowingly and willfully violated. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Really no idea, sorry. Dougweller ( talk) 21:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello my friend

Can you help us improve the Cro Magnon page rather than undo edits, i think there is a lot of important information not covered-- Kovkikz ( talk) 03:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That was an improvement. Removing badly sourced and inaccurate statements is always a good thing. Dougweller ( talk) 06:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What is inaccurate about it-- Kovkikz ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Kovkikz, a discussion like this belongs at the article talk page. The source itself fails WP:RS quite clearly. Dougweller ( talk) 15:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, you are correct that those accusations, as normally used, are inconsistent, and so you must be in a middle ground. On the other hand, of course, technically an Arab supremacist IS pro-Semitic, since the Arabic language is a Semitic language and the Arabs are a Semitic people (descended from Ishmael, who was descended from Shem). The term "anti-Semitic" as a synonym for anti-Jewish has been nonsensical and obsolete in the second half of the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century, now that Arab anti-Jewishness (too often covered up as being only anti-Zionist) is a problem. Carry on. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Being nonsensical has never disqualified an idiom or expression from widespread use; to insist on a literal or logical reading is a form of etymological fallacy, no matter how much cognitive dissonance it may create for those ‘in the know’. Despite that no modern ethnographer could credibly refer to Jews (or anyone else) as “Semites“, the meaning of anti-Semitic in English is still “prejudiced against, or hostile to, Jewish people”, so I would challenge your “technically“ and “obsolete“ both. The expression is opaque, like a dead metaphor, to the extent that its users (and listeners or readers) are thinking of neither the Shem legend nor the language family when they say (or hear) it. I’ve certainly seen it applied to Arabic-speakers without the faintest sense of irony. That said, the neologistic pro-Semitic has nothing like the currency of anti-Semitic, and I can’t imagine a Jewish organization describing itself so—but only time will tell whether or not it gets any traction in the language. (I would hope not.)— Odysseus 147 9 03:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. "Anti-Semitic" has always meant anti-Jewish. And the editor calling me pro-Semitic is a known anti-Semite. Dougweller ( talk) 06:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I will agree that I was being pedantic. Odysseus at least agrees with me that when the term "anti-Semitic" is applied to Arabs "without the faintest sense of irony", the lack of irony is itself ironic. I agree that the neologism "pro-Semitic" is not only nonsensical but useless. I would add that the expression is not only opaque, like a dead metaphor, but opaque in the sense of obscure. That is, if one doesn't know that anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish, one doesn't know that anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish. It isn't intelligible by anything other than a dictionary lookup. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information regarding improper references (ireport cnn). I have cleaned that up. Rabindahal ( talk) 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to withdraw an Afd nomination. Georgia guy ( talk) 17:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Doug, I believe in the ideals of Wikipedia, but I also believe that for it to work, we should focus on our strengths and areas of expertise when editing, and tread cautiously when we are on unfamiliar ground. There is someone trying to delete Degen's eight-square identity simply because he finds it "uninteresting". (It being a consequence of Pfister's theorem, no mathematician in the world would think that.) If the results of difficult subjects like mathematics, the sciences, and others are deleted (not just edited, but total deletion) by the "preferences" and "interests" of laymen, then the scholarly integrity and content of Wikipedia will be in trouble.:-( Titus III ( talk) 07:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the prompt action! By the way, someone inserted the phrase "Painfully Ordinary" into the first line of my comment in the Deletion sub-page. Since the page now says "please do not modify it" (which I believe moderators are exempt), are you still able to delete that phrase? Titus III ( talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller: Thanks for your interest/assistance regarding the Bat Creek article--I'm not a Wikipedia expert, obviously. I read the links that you provided me with regarding the no-no's of "original research" &c, but am still confused as to why you deleted the addition, in part because nothing that I posted seems to violate any of the criteria: all of the references are factual, readily verifiable, and so on. Macoy's book doesn't (of course) mention the Bat Creek stone, but it is referenced in the discussion, so I'm not clear as to why a list of the sources that he might have borrowed from can't be mentioned. Nor am I clear as to why the fact that the "Holiness to the Lord" inscription appeared frequently in nineteenth-century theological works should be considered irrelevant to the larger discussion. I'm sure that you are as busy as I am, and I hate to take up more of your time, but I did spend some time writing the business up, and don't like to think that it was wasted! Zimiamvia ( talk) 19:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Zimiamvia: - off to bed soon, I'll look at it again tomorrow in more detail and reply. Dougweller ( talk) 21:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Zimiamvia, Looking again, it is very good stuff but not for Wikipedia. It is your own research about a list of the sources that he might have borrowed from, ditto the "Holiness to the Lord" material. I would like to see it in the article myself and agree with you, but it needs to come from a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. You can ask again at WP:NORN to see if anyone takes a different view. I'm really sorry about this. Dougweller ( talk) 11:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just redirected a new article here on the grounds that it is a coatrack job and in grave danger of breaching BLP.

Some of the issues mentioned are noted in the Jayalalithaa article and many more have been discussed at that article's talk page. Mostly, the things mentioned were allegations rather than charges, and they got nowhere. Maybe Jayalalithaa is good at avoiding court cases etc or maybe this is just the usual Indian political game of unsubstantiated muck-raking supported by a hyperbolic, breathless media but - either way - the article seemed to be quite a jump.

Was I wrong to redirect? I did leave a note at the creator's talk page. - Sitush ( talk) 09:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Sitush: No, you were correct and there were BLP problems in that article. Dougweller ( talk) 11:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't want to run a fight here in a user talk page, but adding here for the sake of continuity. The article about Jayalalithaa does not carry most of the details listed in the new article. It doesn't even have a word about the major scams where there have been convictions. The discussion in the article talk page were debatable as they were abt her attitude towards alliance, media and a few abt the scams- the claim of "many have been discussed" is not "many charges". She is the first chief minister in India barred from contesting an election, one of the few to have been convicted, one of the few to have been made to appear in court during tenure and only one made to pay losses - all related to the scams/convictions and not merely charges. The claim that it is a media induced story is actually superlative, considering the court verdicts. The political implications were too large and i feel it is necessary to have the article like we have for filmography and discography of individuals. Each of these scams can have separate pages IMO. Please suggest what portion is a potential BLP issue, so that I can look at correcting this article and in my future creations. I have used "alleged", "accused", "convicted" and "charged" as-is, so there is no exaggeration or bias. Also, I was involved in quite a good portion of the parent article to included most references - so i was wondering about the claims of a coatrack cited for the redirect. Ssriram mt ( talk) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your ability to edit in a neutral manner. Pass a Method talk 03:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Created a new page for academic Kurt Noll but can't seem to fix the reference error even after reading the help page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Radath:Fixed, turned out to be a missing </ref>. The error message wasn't helpful! Dougweller ( talk) 10:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Doug, I'm trying to recover a password, but I've forgotten which email I used. I tried sending myself an email but found I needed to be logged in (Catch 22) So, I saw you were online - could you email

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isonomia 82.6.107.192 ( talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, @ Isonomia: Dougweller ( talk) 13:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit :Recent excavations in the Timna Valley discovered what may be the earliest camel bones found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This is seen as evidence that the stories of Abraham,Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time.[68][69]

Can you please note that the evidence of pictures of people riding on camels on cylinder seals contradicts the claims made last week that the patriarchs did not ride on camels. I suggest the following text to replace your original:

Recent excavations in the Timna Valley discovered what is claimed to be the earliest camel bones found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. Some have argued that this is evidence that the stories of Abraham,Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time.[68][69] Nevertheless, the presence of camels on cylinder seals in Mesopotamia dating as far back as 1800BCE is seen by many as evidence that camels were already domesticated in the days of Abraham. See for example http://art.thewalters.org/detail/27381/cylinder-seal-with-a-two-humped-camel-carrying-a-divine-couple/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.96.91 ( talk) 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

86.147.96.91 ( talk) 22:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)shirawiki@jewishspark.org

Hi. Every archaeologist in this area knows about the Sumerian seals, etc and that applies to Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen. I'll reply on the article talk page with some references. Dougweller ( talk) 09:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course they all know about the seals (except for Ben Yosef, it appears). So this one secular Israeli guy finds a bone and makes the outrageous claim that camels weren't domesticated until 900BCE when we all know they were domesticated much earlier. (Camels were used by important wealthy foreign folk like Abraham, who was not from Canaan, and were considered exotic and a sign of wealth. See the letter below.) How arrogant and ignorant for someone to assume that the lack of bones in Canaan is evidence that no one used camels in the middle east until 900BCE when other documents show that camels were used a millennium earlier! And he uses this 'evidence' to score points against religious folk by claiming that this is evidence that Genesis could not have been written at the time of Moses. And your recent edit makes his outrageous claim look like fact.

This is why it needs rewording, as I suggest above. It's unprofessional to allow one's political agenda to skew one's interpretation of facts. You and Wikipedia are being used by Ben Yosef to promulgate his [redacted] agenda when you have a duty to be objective and neutral. His claims should be stated as claims, conjectures, nothing more.

See also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10625036/Camel-bones-do-not-cast-doubt-on-Bible-stories.html

Thanks, 86.147.96.91 ( talk) 11:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Shira.

As I said, Talk:Timna Valley. Your comments on Ben Yosef are a WP:BLP violation and I've redacted them - you don't know his religious views but your agenda is very clear. I'm not replying here again. Dougweller ( talk) 12:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

With respect, you do not know my agenda. For your information, I am not a fundamentalist. People in that camp would consider me to be a heretic. I simply want you to remove an inaccurate statement, by qualifying it better. It is a matter of simple professionalism, not allowing ideology to bias interpretation of facts. The facts are clear that Ben Yosef's argument is hogwash. Anyone who knows anything knows that he has jumped to conclusions, but it makes a nice sound-bite so everyone repeats his claim without questioning his logic. Presenting it as fact undermines Wikipedia's reputation. Thank you. 86.147.96.91 ( talk) 13:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Shira.

I put that article in, the camels refer to copper mining of which no mention in the bible of the Patriarchs being involved. In the area where the Patriarchs came from North we have pictures of men riding or leading camels that date to the early second millenium BC. The are also mentioned as domesticated animals in Ugarit, which dates to the Old Babylonian period. It is an issue but it does not rule out the Patriarchs being real people. BernardZ ( talk) 16:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. One suggestion is that the stories were written down in the 6th or so century BCE and of course the writers assumed they had camels. But we have to go by sources that discuss these particular finds. Dougweller ( talk) 16:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of the oldest mosques in the world may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[Al-Aqsa Mosque]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You reverted an edit of mine on the page and I am here to explain why you were wrong, to avoid an edit-war.

I removed the unreferenced-tag on the section mentioning "Well known Vikings and Norsemen of the Viking Age", because all the references to specific individuals are given on the pages on these individuals. The section at hand just present a list of them.

You reverted that edit and wrote "we don't use other articles as references or for references, references must be in the article itself".

This would be true if we were talking about a normal text-block containing information on the subject for the specific page. This is not the case here. Not only is the situation different, it would also be unnecessary and a waste of efforts to duplicate references that is already given on a wiki-page that a list is linking to. One one point though, I would agree with you (and the one inserting the unreferenced-tag): It would be nice to have a reference to official lists of Well known Vikings and Norsemen of the Viking Age. But I am not aware of any official lists of that sort and if anyone feel they need them and tell the world, they could do so by writing on the talk page or insert a source needed template.

Unless I hear from you, I will removed the unreferenced-tag in a week or so.

RhinoMind ( talk) 05:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Rhino, as a page-lurker... I think Doug was right here. This isn't a simple list of plain wiki-links - it includes a lot of textual claims, in some cases up to a paragraph long. They do need to be referenced in the article concerned. Hchc2009 ( talk) 05:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take your point. But was this why Dougweller reverted my tag-edit? I would like to get his opinion, but he apparently refuse to reveal it, as he have intentionally neglected this post. If this is indeed the reason, it should at least be explained on the talk-page. Edit tags are intended for improving articles and clear up murky spots, not to attack editors or as mocking tools of selfrighteousness. Whoever inserted the tag in the first place, was apparently too lazy to make the needed improvements him/her-self. At least he/she should help and support future editors to make them, by explaining the underlying reasons. If we dont hear from Dougweller I'll take it, that the reasons are as you have explained here Hchc2009. RhinoMind ( talk) 04:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have 13,391 pages, not including talk pages, on my watchlist. I don't always have time to reply, especially when someone else has. I didn't see any need to amplify my comments on the talk page and Hchc2009 is correct. I have no idea what you are talking about when you use the words "attack editors" or "mocking tools of selfrighteousness", are you accusing me of doing these things? I think you need to read WP:AGF. Dougweller ( talk) 08:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, Im not accusing you specifically. Sometimes I am just fed up with people tagging everything and not caring to edit anything themselves. Im sorry if my frustration scorched anyone. Apart from that, thank you for replying, now I/we know what should be done. Great. RhinoMind ( talk) 20:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil reply. I probably tag quite a bit, but I spend a lot more time adding sources than tagging. Dougweller ( talk) 20:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read your email. Perhaps the best bit of it was the quotes in the subject line: that the editor can describe him/herself in those terms is interesting, and the other self-description which you quoted from him/her in the email even more so. However, I strongly suspect that he/she really means it, and is genuinely blind to the nature of what he/she is doing. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That's the most parsimonious way of explaining their actions. Dougweller ( talk) 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Basic income". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is something strange in the formatting at the criticism section of Christ Myth Theory. The paragraph has lost soft line breaks, and I can't seem to fix it. Radath ( talk) 15:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:I Love Rock 'n' Roll. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't using Stephen Fitz as source, neither I ever did on main page. I was only discussing about him. James Fitzjames Stephen is him.

BTW, what you thought about Talk:Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians' requested move? Moves are obviously based on consensus. Excluding my vote, there were 3 votes for "Caste system among Christians in South Asia", and one oppose. Bladesmulti ( talk) 02:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a user called "Truthsayer62" who called edits, which were a million times better referenced, as "Vandalism". Truth is that "Truthsayer62" is part of the Shugden cult. If you look in his history, all he promotes is the Shugden cult. If you are unfamiliar with this whole topic, please ask a Buddhist. TiredofShugden ( talk) 04:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

The quality of the Hungarian Turanism article was very poor. It stressed the fascist and antisemitic aspects of it, but those are a minor part of the matter. Turanism, e.g. the belief that the Hungarians have an Asian origin and Mongol and Turk kinship played and still plays an important role in Hungarian culture, including science.

The two Gestas do not mention "Turanism", but describe the Hungarians as the descendants of Huns and Scythians. I added links to these texts, available on the pages of Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár, our national library. Körösi Csoma Sándor was a follower of the Uighur-Hungarian kinship theory, this belief motivated his travel to Asia. I linked in the web page of MTA (the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) about Körösi Csoma Sándor's life.

Perhaps I broke editng rules linking to wikipedia pages, but I have not know that it is forbidden. But each and every of my edits was objective and neutral, in strong contrast with yours.

I know Hungarian history well, and believe in the power of good, quality science, and not least honesty.

Your attitude is well represented in restoring this sentence:

"According to Hungarian researchers the modern Hungarian Turanism became a kind of business called "Szittya biznisz" (Scythian business) and it has not got much to do with ancient Hungarian traditions."

The reference given is an interview, published in a weekly political magazine, with one historian, Igaz Levente, who expresses his personal opinion about the souvenir and merchandise business grow around reenactment and traditionalist groups. Leaving a sweppingly generalizing, unfounded sentence in place is not a telltale sign of a good editor.

Your work destroys the quality and reliability of, and the trust in Wikipedia, as a source of quality knowledge.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maghasito ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Maghasito: Sorry that I didn't get back to the article as quickly as I'd planned - I had other things to do as well, but it was open in my browser for me to work on today. Insulting me because I've been doing other things isn't going to be helpful. I've replaced Levente's name - not sure that he meets WP:RS. I've also turned a copyright violation into a quotation from Krisztián Ungváry. I removed the "seen as heresy" that you added as it wasn't in the source. As you say, "The two Gestas do not mention "Turanism"" so the article shouldn't suggest that, although it might well discuss their influence on Turanism. What I suggest you do is to build up the material on modern Turanism. Sources must discuss the subject Turanism, and our criteria for sources is at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. We can't call Turanism a scientific notion, that is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. So was adding "state controlled" to Hungarian Academy of Sciences, a deprecating term that looked to me as though it was casting doubt on the Academy (which says it is self-governing in any case). Our Ural–Altaic languages article doesn't mention Turanic. You would need to link the term "dignity of humgary" and the metaphor of a raped woman to Turanism (with sources). As you can see, I've reworded quite a bit and explained in edit summaries what I was doing. Some of your edits were good, others clearly were not. Between the two of us I think the article is better now than it was before your edit. Dougweller ( talk) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Did any of the people involved in the recent Tarkhan-related mess end up being referred to SPI? I had some involvement in it and Sikh-history ( talk · contribs) was also there, trying to stem a tide of poor POV edits etc. I ask because the contributions of Singh31689 ( talk · contribs) seem to be following a broadly similar line of interest, including recreation (IIRC) of an article about the Ubhi clan that had been deleted. If there was a prior SPI then there might be justification for requesting a checkuser. - Sitush ( talk) 22:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You clearly are abusing your powers arbitrarily. I demand redress of superior jurisdiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 ( talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If I block you you can always appeal. Dougweller ( talk) 19:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Dougweller being an Auspicious Looshpah, there's not many who outrank him. (I myself am merely illustrious.) But I will ping Mandarax, who is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate. Drmies ( talk) 20:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that if I were an admin, I would not abuse my powers arbitrarily. I would abuse them very methodically. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 22:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mock the caged beast. Yuck it up, real impressive. Karma exists, the world sees your pettiness of spirit and lack of equity.

Oh no, I am not American English by birth, curse my inferior blood! Thus my diction and lexicon and verbose meandering can be dense and difficult and almost unintelligible at times - yet, it is still better to be a good-willed person who lacks rhetorical sophistic skill than a mere amoral rhetorician of a dessicated scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 ( talk) 22:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Nor am I. I'm not any kind of English. It's not that you meander verbosely, although that doesn't help, it's that you couch rather ridiculous assertions, suggestions, and accusations in such diction and syntax. And at some point you were making fun of our pedestrian dumbed-down language, weren't you? Well, it's called encyclopedic language, for a broad readership. Drmies ( talk) 22:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Dorje Shugden controversy page again. TiredofShugden ( talk) 05:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this Harics456 ( talk · contribs) again? The whinging, the very fractured English, the inability to capitalise names etc? - Sitush ( talk) 00:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The reference link associating the basque with the Magnons is some kind of fantastical bulls*it,, out of thousands you seem to be the only editor who has a problem with my edits,, why?-- Kovkikz ( talk) 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ‎

Because you are using sources that don't mention Cro-Magnon perhaps? And adding unsourced material? And sources that use material from our articles? There aren't thousands of editors watching your edits or Cro-Magnon in any case. I'll respond more fully on the talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 11:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Magnon, Cro Magnon, EEMH,AMHS, (or whatever their coming out with these days) were talking about Paleolithic Europeans here, all links support my edits, the variant EEMH is even mentioned in the lead-- Kovkikz ( talk) 12:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Kerala brahmin section. Please have a discussion before deletion. You may put a citation needed tag, if necessary.- Prasanthnnamboothiri ( talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You were already told about the gazetteer, and if text doesn't match the source it should be reverted. Dougweller ( talk) 14:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You may please conslut with Sitush also. Actually the content was there. I added an old reference. But you have deleted the major content Nambutiri from the section. That was a big mistake. Here source is not the problem. - Prasanthnnamboothiri ( talk) 14:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You have reverted my edits without proper discussion or proper study. Please check up with earlier edits, before my edits. What you did is a mistake. Please try to correct it. - Prasanthnnamboothiri ( talk) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As you say, I haven't got reverted by three people. I have been reverted only by Sitush. The other reversions for the edits of some body else. OK. Now plese read the portion that you have retained. With out the deleted portion, it makes no sense. Actually, Kerala Brahmins are Nambutiris, Pottis, Pushpakas, Nambiathiris etc. You deleted that Malyali Brahmin portion and retained Migrant Brahmin portion. Your reverting/editing has become a matter for laugh. - Prasanthnnamboothiri ( talk) 14:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already discussed this matter with [ user Darkness Shines]. He/she also did the same thing. Actually, for what you people are standing for. Please see talk with user Sitush also. - Prasanthnnamboothiri ( talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is your media attention: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/02/10/national-alliance-chairman-erich-gliebe-facing-two-million-dollar-lawsuit/ I sourced the NARRG site because they are the ones filling the lawsuit. Use the SPLC source instead if you want, the info I posted is accurate. My previous comment on the Strom case stands. I made you aware that there is copyright infringement involved. Anello.wiki ( talk) 19:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of source that makes it ok to add the lawsuit. So far as Strom goes, at the moment there are only allegations of copyright infringement, and that isn't a reason to remove the paragraph about him. I note that the SPLC article doesn't mention copyright in any case. So, the lawsuit can be mentioned but there is other material in the SPLC article that should go in. How about you suggesting some text on the talk page of the article for us to discuss so that we can get somethng agreed? No disrespect, but you are new and will be unaware of some of the nuances of editing an article such as this one so that it doesn't violate WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Dougweller ( talk) 06:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You do realize you had Strom's website as the source for the claim of a continuation of the NA, so what was wrong with how I sourced my edit if the previous was sourced okay?

Purposed text for NA Lawsuit section: The National Alliance Reform & Restoration Group (NARRG), is suing the NA Chairman Erich Gliebe and the group’s two remaining board members, Ryan Maziarka and Jayne Cartwright. According to a posting on the NARRG website, the lawsuit is a civil action that aims “for the removal of said persons from their positions of authority in the organization and also each person to be held financially accountable for damages done to the organization under their watch.” ^[2] Anello.wiki ( talk) 19:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Because one was about a legal action, that's the difference. The only problem with the above is that it's incomplete - there's a lot more in the SPLC article that should be in this article. Dougweller ( talk) 21:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I was sort of using a machete approach to editing there - figured if I inadvertently cut out a decent source poorly used someone would restore it and then we could chat about it at talk. :) Simonm223 ( talk) 14:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Dougweller ( talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Doug, I stumbled across a rather curious situation and I thought you might like to know about it.

There is an author named Mike Campbell who is in the business of selling a book about Amelia Earhart. [ [15]] On his blog he claimed that a man he called “DC Dave” informed him that a reference to his book had been inserted into the article on Amelia Earhart. [ [16]] The reference was inserted into Amelia Earhart by User:RoosterEnroughty. [ [17]] “DC Dave” runs a website through which he expresses his various conspiracy theories. [ [18]] A comparison between User:RoosterEnroughty’s [ history] and “DC Dave’s” website reveals some alarming commonalities.

“DC Dave” has an obsession with James Forrestal. [ [19]]

User:RoosterEnroughty edits Forrestal. [ [20]]

“DC Dave” writes about Vincent Foster. [ [21]]

User:RoosterEnroughty edits Foster. [ [22]]

“DC Dave” writes about the DC madam. [ [23]]

User:RoosterEnroughty edits her page. [ [24]]

“DC Dave” writes about Andy Rooney. [ [25]]

User:RoosterEnroughty edits Rooney. [ [26]] And the source he inserted was written by none other than “DC Dave”.

Now it’s difficult to be sure that User:RoosterEnroughty actually is “DC Dave”. He could, after all, simply be a “DC Dave” enthusiast. Nevertheless, the situation is all kinds of suspicious and stinks of several different brands of impropriety. Furthermore, if Mike Campbell is in cahoots with “DC Dave”, and “DC Dave” (as User:RoosterEnroughty) is promoting Campbell’s book through Wikipedia then we have a WP:COI to contend with.

I’ve never seen a situation like this before, so I figured you would be a good person to ask.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up on the new chronology. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 09:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't want to out an editor - the DCDave website is a personal website and I think fails WP:EL and should be removed from [27]. Dougweller ( talk) 17:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And what of the funny business with Earhart? 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 22:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I was able to remove 19 of the links from [28]. The remainder are on talk pages or are being used as references so I don’t think I can use WP:ELNO as a justification for removing them. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 07:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Wouldn't touch talk page links unless they were illegal or added by banned/blocked editor after the block/ban, but the others I'll look at, including the Earhart one. Dougweller ( talk) 09:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed your recent edit and wanted to ask you to look at a BLP issue where I may be wrong. I've reverted 3 times and seem to be the only person who believes reporting a persons death requires a reference. The fact that so many seemingly different people are adding this information gives me pause, but I remain uneasy because I can not find a source myself. Please look at the matter if you have the time. The article is Paco de Lucía. Thank you.— John Cline ( talk) 09:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Actully, I see that a source has now been provided. Thanks— John Cline ( talk) 09:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, glad it's sorted. These can be tricky. Dougweller ( talk) 09:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Doug. I'm answering here instead of at RSN because over there they generally seem to want questions of the form "is source X reliable for statement Y" rather than general discussions of source reliability (which is no rebuke of your post there, I'm indifferent to that kind of thing). Tami Blumenfield has become, since writing that document, an internationally recognized expert on the Na, editor of this:

• Blumenfield, Tami; Silverman, Helaine (14 May 2013). Cultural Heritage Politics in China. Springer. pp. 8–. ISBN  978-1-4614-6874-5.

and author of fairly well-cited papers (given how new they are) on the subject. She's also mentioned in pretty many acknowledgement sections by other authors. In your questioned document she says "Recognizing that publication of my book may be a distant event, I have compiled a short fact sheet that may help separate fact from fiction in the Na case." Whatever book she's talking about will certainly be a reliable source when it's published, and it's plausible that it'll be based on her dissertation, published the year after she wrote the fact sheet:

• Blumenfield, Tami. Scenes from Yonglin: Media Creation in China‘s Na Villages. Diss. PhD Dissertation. University of Washington, 2010.

That makes me think the stuff on her fact sheet is probably mostly in her dissertation, although I can't check quickly because it doesn't seem to be available online. I think this would make it reliable for pretty much any statement of fact as it would be the author's own summary of what's unquestionably a reliable source. If you think it'd be helpful and you don't otherwise have access to it I can almost certainly get a copy of the dissertation for you in a few days. I don't know if this will help you at all, but it's no trouble for me.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 11:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok alf laylah wa laylah, I'll accept that, thanks. It does make sense. I understand why the x reliable for Y thing is important, but there are also times when its a legitimate question to ask if X is reliable for anything at all, as so many sources simply aren't. I appreciate your responding here. Thanks for your comments at Talk:Invasion of Banu Qurayza - do you know anyone else who might be interested in this? We have a real problem in certain areas of Wikipedia with the lack of experienced or interested editors (and Admins). Dougweller ( talk) 12:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly ask Nishidani and Zero0000 about Banu Qurayza. I don't know if they're interested in working on less modern historical topics, but they're the editors working on Middle East articles whose work I respect the most around here. They might also have suggestions for other editors to ask as well. The more I look at that, the more I think the material ought to be in one place, since the two accounts have diverged to a disconcerting degree. I don't feel up to sorting through it enough to form a defensible opinion right now, though, but will certainly weigh in on proposals, should there be any.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 12:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, great idea. Nishidani has already weighed in. Dougweller ( talk) 16:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone agreed the Dreyfus source was the best Shugden reference. Both Chris Flynn and kt66 mention that Dreyfus should be a priority reference. But again that Shugden cultist, Truthsayer62, deleted all the direct quotes, and called them "inaccurate". TiredofShugden ( talk) 03:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Everyone" is agreeing that only one source is accurate? You may say that Dorje Shugden History is not a reliable source but the present introduction to the article does not represent a balanced view or the truth; it is only since the Fourteenth Dalai Lama's rejection of the practice that Dorje Shugden has been regarded as a Gyalpo. There is a view that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, and that was the majority view amongst Sakyas and Gelugpas before 'history' was changed by Dreyfus. Wikipedia should be accurate and at the moment the article does not represent truth - the previous version was more accurate because it said that there is some disagreement in terms of how Dorje Shugden is viewed. The present version is black and white and gives only one side. Also, I object to being called a "cultist". Dear Dougweller, can't you see that when someone called "tiredofshugden" who is calling me a cultist entreats you to take action against me, it is certainly not neutral and not in the best interest of the article? Best wishes Truthsayer62 ( talk) 07:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, ,y warning has nothing to do with TiredofShugden's post above, which I've only just seen. It has everything to do with the clear consensus at WP:RSN concerning your source. Alternative sources that would help improve the introduction have been suggested, but you've ignored them and replaced the unreliable source. If you really want to make the introduction better, why have you not used them? Dougweller ( talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I was not aware of the consensus or party to it. I am investigating alternative sources and will use them to change the article accordingly, thanks for your time and sorry for any inconvenience caused. Truthsayer62 ( talk) 10:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Please do use some of the sources provided. I agree that someone called TiredofShugden is probably not the best person to call someone else names, but I'm trying to pay attention to the real issues, not personal ones, and to be honest, we tend to be wary of people with names such as Truthsayer62. I used to think such names were ok - before my Wikipedia times, then realised that 'truth' is often elusive and sometimes for some subjects often hard to determine. Dougweller ( talk) 10:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62 is claiming Dreyfus changed history, even though Jeff Watts, who is an expert in Tibetan art, showed there was NO Shugden art before the late 1800's. I think we should reinsert that sentence into the lead Dougweller. P.S. Is it okay to register with a new name? TiredofShugden ( talk) 18:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just open a new account, and on the user page say that you formerly edited as TiredofShugden putting that as a link. Minor point, it's Jeff Watt, not Watts, but you probably know that. Dougweller ( talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, could you revdel these [29] [30]. vzaak 06:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

It would be great if you would tell me in detail, why you had reverted my last edit to the article in Hungarian Turanism.

The original article has been and is very like a few pages from a kommunist book of propaganda, full of skewed and distorted, unscientific trash.

Its main sources are short articles, published in weekly political magazines. The Budapest Times and Heti Válasz are not the best points of references in scientific matters, so to speak.

This is from an interview with Igaz Levente, published in Heti Válasz politikal weeky:

"A csizmám meg ugyan jellegzetes, felkapó orrú, keleti stílusú lábbeli, ám nem titok, hogy modern cipészműhelyben, így szerszámokkal készült, ráadásul egy jó nevű veszkócsizma-készítő alkotta. De az illető képes volt az elé tett keleti szabásmintából tartós, mi több, kényelmes, gyaloglásra és lovaglásra egyaránt alkalmas, vízhatlan holmit készíteni, ami bizony az esetek többségében nem mondható el a „hagyományőrző boltokban”, például a Nazcánál kapható, kétes formavilágú portékáról. Az vegytiszta szittya biznisz.

Vagyis létezik a szittya biznisz?

Igen, kétség kívül, mint a „túloldali”, tehát hivatalossá sosem váló hagyományőrzésre, történészkedésre épült iparág, amelyet manapság sok ezer embert lát el autentikusnak, vagy korhűnek mondott árucikkekkel – a ruházat elemeitől egészen a fegyverekig, utóbbira a különböző keleti népekről elnevezett üvegszálas íjak a legjobb példa."

And the English translation of it:

"And my boots are characteristically Oriental style footwear, with whip up noses, but it is no secret, that it was made in a modern workshop, with tools, and top of it all, it was made by a reputable wester/cowboy boot maker. But the person was able to make from the Oriental patterns put in front of him a durable, even comfortable, waterproof thing, wich is suited for walking and horse riding, and this is certainly in most cases can not be said for the ambiguously styled goods sold in "traditional stores", such as "Nazca". That is pure Scythian business.

So, there is a Scythian business?

Yes, without doubt, as an industry built to the "opposing", so officially never recognised, traditionalism, historicism, which supplies thousands of people with goods said to be authentic, or faithful to the period - from parts of clothing to weapons, the latter is best exemplified by fiberglass bows, named after Oriental peoples."

This is a personal opinion of Igaz Levente, and not a scientific fact.

My edits were objective, factual and referenced. My sources and references are reliable, like The Chatolic Lexicon,the Electronic Library of The Hungarian National Library, "Valóság", the journal of Hungarian Lyceum, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the works of Vámbéry, and Max Müller.

I know Hungarian History well. I believe in free speech, in the freedom of science, and I hate any kind of censorship.

Your editorial work in this case was/is nothing else, just plain censorship.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maghasito ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Maghasito, We should not call this hypothesis/concept a "scientific notion" - in common English the term is restricted to the hard sciences such as physics. Subjects such as linguistics, ethnography, history, archeology, and Orientalism are considered social sciences in the English speaking world. We attribute material to show it is their opinion, but we do not say "personal opinion". If you want to say that the root of Turanism are considered by some (ie in your terminology is their personal opinion) to be in the Gestas, find academic sources and attribute them. I'm sure that you could improve the article if you followed our guidelines. Do it bit by bit. Turanism is not scientific but a political/historical viewpoint, so we can use both academic and media sources. We don't have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, we have guidelines and policies which you need to follow. The article doesn't follow them entirely but some of your changes didn't help. Others am restoring at least in part. I did mention some issues in my edit summary. If you want to use Farkas Ildikó as a source, do, but attribute the text to him. If you want to say "This tradition served as starting point for the scientific research of the ethnogenesis of Hungarian people. Kőrösi Csoma Sándor" fine, but you need a source that says that. I'll copy this to the article's talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 13:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As you pointed, the template info says: "This template indicates that the article needs additional inline citations. This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article.". That adjust totally to the previous situation of the article, wich had many sources, of course, but still lacks some, in other words, are insufficient. Im glad that you or other user could find rapidly sources for that citations needed, because as far as I know the refimprove tag is used for that, to make editors aware of that lack of sources in an article and motivate them to search for them and fix the article, so the tag could be removed. So, I cant understand why you felt annoyed for that, and I found very disturbing your advice of ignoring the citation needed tags, moreover coming from an administrator. Hope that it was only a misunderstanding.-- HC PUNXKID 19:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) I don't know about Dougweller, but I found it annoying because the sources were so very easy to find. The time it took you to edit-war the template back in and to write the above note was undoubtedly more than the time it took me to find the sources. Why not just look for sources if their absence bothers you so very much?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 19:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In any case, HCPUNXKID is completely wrong that the template applies to an article with that many references. Virtually all but maybe some FA articles lack 'some' references. It's meant for articles that are so unreferenced that a few citation tags wouldn't be sufficient. And yes, there are times when I ignore citation need tags - for instance, when they are relatively recent, or when they are for things that can easily be sourced. I don't have time to fix every citation needed tag on every article I edit or revert vandalism on. Once again, what was annoying was that User:HCPUNXKID decided to tag the whole article incorrectly rather than fix the problem if he felt so worried about it. That's what a good editor should do. Dougweller ( talk) 21:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As you dont have time to fix every citation needed tag on every article you edit, I dont have time to search for sources in every article I review. And sorry, but stop saying that I did wrong by adding the refimprove tag, because thats not true according to the template info, wich dont says anywhere that a determinate number of sources given is enough to not add the template, thats your personal interpretation and POV. If the article lacks inline citations (as there was the ADL articles case) the tag could be added, as I did. Then you found and added the sources required, and the tag was removed (as that was the purpose of its adding, move editors to found and add the required citations), so I dont know where is the problem. It seems to me that you felt the tag add as an attack on the article, something I cant understand.-- HC PUNXKID 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Bgwhite. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Could you check this editor's contributions? They keep removing references and referenced information from a great number of articles. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 12:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You said you were into Dog agility. You might be a better person to judge this trainer, because it is true, I don't know much about agility and dog contest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Ho. For the moment it looks like some socks are also involved in voting like with 5 votes and it is kind of embarasing, and sockpuppet investigation is ongoing, but I don't want to be unfair. Can't really check notability, tried but got nothing. But it is possibly a narrow subject. Hafspajen ( talk) 11:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So, they were socks, as we suspected. But still, I am not quite sure about this guys nonability. I don't think he is that notable, but things might escape me. Do you have any idea? Hafspajen ( talk) 23:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

		The AFD Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama and its gazzilion plus one related issues, I, Ad Orientem, hereby award you this barnstar. -- Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this, I have been searching for an admin. Basically this user 67.188.88.161 ( talk · contribs) has admitted to being a banned sock puppet (you will need to read his two posts), I respect his honesty and he's admitted he only coming back to Wikipedia to reply to a post so he probably won't be coming back, but as he has been banned on quite a few accounts and IPS, I believe he should still be blocked per Wikipedia policy. If you have time perhaps you could look into it. Thanks. Goblin Face ( talk) 22:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A bit late now to block. Sorry I didn't respond this asm - if it happens again, better to find someone in your time zone. Dougweller ( talk) 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Doug. I just wanted to get your view on User talk:Mahmoodyaqub. He made edits [31] which i felt had no citations and were something of an advertisement for the website, so I deleted parts of what was written. [32]. Other thing I noticed was that the article was coming across as more about the program than the speaker itself. Anyway, he reverted me back to how it was, and also removed the "ad", so to speak [ [33]]. I've no intention of going into an edit war (I put that down to exams and laziness) and so I notified him that I'd bring in a third-view. [34]. Judging from his talk page, its not the first time he's been warned about adding ads. Could you have a look please, and edit the article and his talk page as you see fit. GiggsIsLegend ( talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just seen your edit. In particular, your "don't link to a person, what is DFW? we don't care if it's near someone" made me chuckle. He's been warned many times before I think. Thanks for that. GiggsIsLegend ( talk) 23:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. 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. — 10.4.1.125 ( talk) 00:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your input in this matter. I am a novice in making new subjects here in Wikipedia. I have "asked" someone in Wikipedia, whose passion seems to be anything about golf, to make the 2014 edition of this new LPGA event. I just do not know how to make such a page easy, for ordinary Wikipedia editors and readers alike, to read. For example, I think it will need a new infobox, for starters. Never mind inputting images relevant to the subject at hand. I hope you could help me here, if you want. Rockies77 ( talk) 08:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Because you took care of some similar earlier edits by this IP, I'd like you to take a look at this edit summary: [35], and delete it if you think it's appropriate to do so. (I reported it yesterday at RFPP, but was turned down there.) Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, way to slow! Looked at it yesterday and thought I'd replied, but obviously didn't. Sorry again, don't think I can do anything about that, rev/del doesn't apply. Dougweller ( talk) 14:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly OK, thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, just after I wrote that, someone else semi-ed the page, and hid the edit summaries. I realize now that I misspoke when I referred to edit deletion, when I should have just said edit summary deletion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If some-body is suspended for a mistake, how long does it lasted to reconciliation, the person becomes anonymous, and if student mistakenly wrote 'A' where he/her would write 'B' what would Instructor do: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.11.73 ( talk) 13:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If some-body is suspended for a mistake, how long does it lasted to reconciliation, the person becomes anonymous, and if student mistakenly wrote 'A' where he/her would write 'B' what would Instructor do: 41.206.11.71 ( talk) 13:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but if [36] is you I've added instructions about how to appeal your block. Dougweller ( talk) 14:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be useful if you and other experienced editors get involved in the Out-of-place artifact article. At this time, one editor has dismantled the the article twice because the examples of Out-of-place artifacts are "unsourced" and he believes that they are mostly "unvetted hoaxes," which do not belong in this article as they are of "questionable notability." It looks like an edit war is possible. It would be helpful if some experienced editors need to get involved to keep the peace. An example of this rather drastic editing of this article can be seen in Revision as of 00:25, 7 March 2014. Paul H. ( talk) 03:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul H. He means well. He was very helpful at Kumari Kandam. Dougweller ( talk) 15:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Unite Against Fascism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  ^{operator /  talk} 19:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, i have been to the preference settings as was adviced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/special preferences#mw-prefsection-echo/ ' i appreciated your kind-help, because we peer2peer university scholars are still learning many techniques of OER and wiki's, we know wikipedia is wiki's which any body can edit, comment, and correct grammars and spellings Thanks for the immediate understanding of my riddle, of 'A & B' misplacement, am Jesmion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.11.72 ( talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and removed the map on Template:Indo-European topics. Krakkos ( talk) 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I was logged in on my PC and my daughter did something to the Poodle and Pie pages. Although she has been told not to edit Wikipedia, even under her own name- she is eleven- she was experimenting with the text editing and didn't realise that the page was 'live'. Grant McKenna ( talk) 22:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the William C. Dodge page, your edit caused a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Doug, I've looked at some of your edits around Wiki and I think you do great work.

I have two questions/concerns though regarding edits on the Aaron Jack page. The page says he is an American businessman and politician. That is not exactly accurate. He is a businessman but he is a former politician. That is a huge distinction that needs to be addressed.

Secondly, the wording of the sentence which begins, "According to the Topeka Capitol-Journal," is written in a way which suggests the Capitol-Journal is reporting that Jack was asked to resign or be fired as opposed to resigning voluntarily. I have searched everywhere and there is not a shred of evidence, other than the quote in this article or that which was derived from this article which seconds the notion Jack was forcibly given such an ultimatum. Jack says he resigned voluntarily and his going immediately back to the private-sector suggests this is a true or at least plausible statement. In truth, this appears to be a "he said, she said" disagreement. At any rate, shouldn't the sentence be re-worded so as not to suggest the Capitol-Journal is taking one side or the other?

Any help or advice would be appreciated. Thanks, KS Chamber — Preceding unsigned comment added by KansasChamber ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added former. But [37] has information, including at least one quote, that should be in the article. KansasChamber, your name suggests that you are representing the Kansas Chamber of Commerce. I'm going to block you as of the discussion at WP:UAA and you can change your name. Dougweller ( talk) 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a thread on you stalking my edits: [38]. -- Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

86.181.139.204 keeps saying that Richard Carrier is a blogger rather that an Ivy League educated historian and author of several published books. This same Christian inserted a Criticism section at Bart D. Ehrman. The talk page section indicates that a Criticism section made up primarily of Christian apologetics is useless. RosylynGrock ( talk) 15:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the lead has been changed several times. It's going to have to be resolved either at the talk page or at BP:BLPN. I'd call him an author not a historian as I normally only use that to describe academic historians. I note that the last time Carrier himself edited the page he left the lead at

"Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an American blogger and a writer on philosophical and historical topics. He is best known for his writings on Internet Infidels, otherwise known as the Secular Web, where he served as Editor-in-Chief for several years.

As an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, he has published articles in books, journals and magazines, and also features on the documentary film The God Who Wasn't There, where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus.[3] He currently contributes to The God Contention, a web site comparing and contrasting various worldviews.

I'd prefer something like that (maybe with the bit about the film in it), with information about his Phd, etc where it is already, in the 'work' section. Sorry if this isn't what you want but it seems to have satisfied him. Dougweller ( talk) 16:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History from an Ivy League university and sends all his work for blind peer review. Of course he is an academic historian. His archnemesis Bart Ehrman, says that he has an "impressive credential." RosylynGrock ( talk) 18:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Truthsayer62 has been making false charges of vandalism again, reinserting self-published material, and removing sourced material from Robert Thurman at 3 different pages. Heicth ( talk) 19:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is TiredofShugden. It has recently come to my intention that Wikipedia has a strict policy of biographies of living individuals. Clearly the four manufactured "controversies" at the 14th Dalai Lama should be deleted. Please advise. Heicth ( talk) 19:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that an editor changed the birth year and age at death for George Raft with no edit summary. I have no way to know which figures are correct. What do you recommend? CorinneSD ( talk) 17:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@ CorinneSD: Since we can't easily check the source, and Ancestry.COm isn't an RS as among other things it's hard to be sure who is who, as there may be similar names, I did a search on Gbooks with his death year as in an obit I found. Came up with [39] which confirms the current dates and could be added as a source. Dougweller ( talk) 18:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Since I've never added a source, I will have to do some reading in WP:MOS to learn how to do it right. I guess it would be a good idea for me to learn how to add a source. I can't do it right now, though. I'll get to it later today or tomorrow. Thank you again. CorinneSD ( talk) 20:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Dskcool ( talk · contribs) has recreated and then moved Ourambhr to Gaur Rajputs. There are no reliable sources for the Ourambhr usage as a synonym nor indeed as a caste community and this was why their previous attempt at Ouramber was deleted via PROD.

I've tried rolling back but cannot do it. I also tried searching for sources again, obviously. I've left a note on their talk page but basically the Ourambhr redirect needs to be deleted entirely. This cannot be done with the standard CSD rationales, unless A3 applies. Technically, re-PRODing is not a great idea but it is possible because the new redirect title differs in spelling from the previously deleted title. AfD won't work now because they've set it up as a redirect, so that seems to leave WP:RFD. If it gets deleted at RfD then I could deploy CSD G4 next time they try to promote their non-notable last name. Does RfD seem like the best option to you? - Sitush ( talk) 23:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, yes RfD is the way to go. Dougweller ( talk) 05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mummy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• research is not. If the research was published, it is superior as a source; see also below) --> shows that the mummies had [[Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)]] characteristic of western Eurasia in
• | accessdate = 8 November 2013}}</ref> American Sinologist []Victor Mair]] claims that "''the earliest mummies in the Tarim Basin were exclusively Caucasoid, or Europoid''"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of film production companies by country may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{empty section|date=March

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to your message on my talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you please move the article Chôrjapôdô back to Charyapada? A user has recently moved this article. As among admins, your name appears at the top of the contributions list, so I thought of requesting you. Thanks. Shovon ( talk) 17:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, commented at talk page also. Dougweller ( talk) 18:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dougweller. I reverted this edit on Neanderthal because I felt uncomfortable with the sources selected. I was reverted here, claiming that the sources are indeed reliable, and that I am a "POV-pusher", though arguably the other user is the one pushing POV by asserting that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons never interbred by citing TheGuardian, The Telegraph, and ScienceDirect, which is from 2012 and 2013, and does not represent modern interpretations. Would you mind giving your opinion and/or sharing your knowledge regarding the sources? Ice Age ^(talk) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Izotz Aro:If you read WP:SUMMARY I'm wondering if that bit of the article should really be a summary of Archaic human admixture with modern humans. I agree we should use the original papers. Dougweller ( talk) 18:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In short--

1. I need to shorten all quotations which I encapsulated within quotation marks. 2. All my paraphrases of another authors quotes must be rewritten entirely in my own words with infrequent direct quotes from the author within quotation marks.

Would this suffice?

Thank you.

CWatchman ( talk) 22:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at the latest edit to Mumbai? Besides adding content that probably does not belong there, the last part of the reference sounds like an advertisement. What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, That caption is not complete, it needs more detail, which captivity? where? I'm talking about this [40], just want to see how you see these things, KhabarNegar ^Talk 17:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

[[User:KhabarNegar[[, all of that is or should be in the article itself. "Cyrus the Great liberated the Hebrew exiles to resettle and rebuild Jerusalem, earning him an honored place in Judaism." is plenty. It's succinct, which a good caption should be, while informative. The article discusses the event, in fact there's some duplicate material about Ezra. There's no need for " Cyrus the Great ended the exile in the year in which he captured Babylon in 538 BCE, After the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Cyrus the Great, King of Persia" (which in any case would conflict with our date of 539). Dougweller ( talk) 18:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

good, Thanks . Just it would be great if you yourself change that sentence a little. You know why? Because right now if someone just read the caption he/she would think that Iranian/Persian have had that captivity (which in fact it was completely the other way) someone else ( Nebuchadnezzar), have had made that. You know it’s totally different & I do think it makes a change. Anyway, I am just happy you see what I mean, you know I don't care that much, please do what you think is right to do. Thanks for rep, Good Bye, KhabarNegar ^Talk 18:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks KhabarNegar ^Talk 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In your revision of a certain editor's work on the page "Sons of Ham," you wrote 'rv nonsense...Wolof is not even in the same class as Ancient Egyptian.' First off, you are in no position to call another person's work nonsensical. Secondly, if you know anything about language classification, and how they are related to the sons of Ham, you will realize that the current language classifications have nothing to do with the sons of Ham.

They are primarily based on CONJECTURE: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Let me break it down further for you, before you make any further errors. For example, John Greenberg labelled African languages on a RANDOM sampling of 50 words or less. And thus, classified African languages as such.

He did not take into account that most African languages can have more than one word to describe nouns, adjectives, suffixes, et cetera. Some African languages do not even have specific language families yet, even large languages like Songhai! Some are improperly classified, and yet others, are unknown. Others cause headaches - like Ongota.

Here's a startling example: Hebrew and Arabic are considered Afro-Asiatic, right? Yet, the MAJORITY of Afro-Asiatic languages (over 250) are found in Africa. Hebrew and Arabic are the only ones that spilled outside the continent of Africa. Hebrew and Arabic arose from Eastern Africa. Hebrew and Arabic are considered Semitic, but their African brethren who speak 'thus-classified' Afro-Asiatic languages are considered Hamitic.

How is that possible? So which is which: Semitic or Afro-Asiatic? Where does one classification begin and the other end?

Indians, Bangladeshi, Nepalese, Japanese, Mandarin, and even the now extinct Manchu language of China are descended from Shem. Are those languages considered Semitic? Of course not.

So when you write that 'Wolof is not even in the same class as Ancient Egyptian..' Class has nothing to do with what the fact is: and the fact is Wolof, as well as most languages of Eastern Africa, down to Southern Africa, and those in Western Africa, all have roots in the Nile Valley: Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia.

Just because they are not classified as so by hoity-toity linguists who consider their limited knowledge to be so superior when they really are pseudo-linguists, does not make common knowledge disappear. You should read Cheikh Anta Diop's Precolonial Black Africa.

Also, languages evolve over time. Just because Modern English does not say 'Thee' or 'Thou,' does that mean Modern English is no longer an Anglo language? Of course not.

This rigor-mortis-like attention to language class (or using it's cover to hide your ulterior motives) is not going to help nor work for you. Ramesses III's DNA matches that of people in the Great Lakes of Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi). But of course you're going to say 'lo, but the Great Lakes languages are not classified as Ancient Egyptian!

Wolof is not classified as Semitic, nor Afro=Asiatic, but the language is still virtually identical to Ancient Egyptian. Do not let cultural bias cloud your work when you are editing a website that isn't even yours. Either that, or go start your own encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebkheperiaure ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope this was meant to be a joke or parody. If you are serious, you can't be very happy here with our policies about reliable sources, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I found the "Indians, Bangladeshi, Nepalese, Japanese, Mandarin, and even the now extinct Manchu language of China are descended from Shem." part to be particularly hilarious. Ice Age ^(talk) 01:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Calvert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pınarbaşı ( 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) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you're an administrator, would you mind looking at the last ten or so exchanges of edits to Bangladesh? Aditya Kabir seems to be a thoughtful, responsible editor, and other editors keep reverting. The article might need to be semi-protected for a while. CorinneSD ( talk) 00:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that an editor has replaced a huge amount of text that was deleted by another editor with a very long letters-and-numbers IP address for no apparent reason. Shouldn't that editor who deleted so much of the article be temporarily blocked or at least warned? CorinneSD ( talk) 01:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see new user's 1st edit userpage. It appears to be WP:UP#PROMO and WP:USERBIO (and unsourced BLP)? And also, there is personal information in that edit's edit summary. —Telpardec ( talk) 07:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In the second paragraph in the lead/lede of the article on Barley, I wanted to add a conversion template to convert the square kilometer figure to square miles. I know how to add the template, and I did, and checked it in Preview, but it ended up with parentheses inside of parentheses, which didn't look good, so I didn't save it. It ends up being 219,000 square miles. I thought about adding, after a comma, "or 219,000 sq. mi.", but I realized I had not often seen "sq. mi." in WP articles, so I didn't save it. What do you suggest? (If you would rather I not bother you with minor things like this, please let me know.) CorinneSD ( talk) 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

talkstalk sez... Hi Corinne.  :-)   WP:UNIT suggests that the double-nested-parens is kosher, explicitly giving (44 kilograms (97 lb)) as an example. They also give another example, which is an archaic unit with rough translations, that uses a semicolon for the separator: 19 stone (266 lb; 121 kg). As for the use of sq.mi. this is prolly not desireable: "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times". Finally, there is the issue of conversion-errors; it looks like the original source was only using three significant digits and estimated 566,000 square kilometers under cultivation; after conversion to square miles... or to acreage which is prolly more traditional for agricultural topics... we would also want to have just three significant digits.

  Of course, the data in question is from 2007, and the archive.org link it mentions is faulty, so my first recommendation would be to use http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor (click WorldTotal and Barley and 2012 and then Ctrl-click all four Area/Yield/Production/Seed elements). That will tell you that as of 2012, estimates there were 132,886,519 tonnes produced (of which 7,931,225 tonnes was for barley seed), and 49,525,988 hectares harvested. The same site gives the 2007 data, which estimates there were 134,174,888 tonnes produced (of which 9,302,871 tonnes was for barley seed), and 55,859,943 hectares harvested. Per WP:CALC, wikipedia can say that production of barley-for-consumption was roughly the same in 2007 and 2012, at 125 million tonnes, but that acreage required to produce that total became 12% more efficient. Or skip it.  :-)   See also, Maize#Quantity for how somebody else presented figures like these. HTH. — 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 20:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Great response 74, nice to see you stalking here. I meant to respond but only to say ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. I'm not a lot of use with this sort of thing. Dougweller ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I came by to see about 86 and RosylynGrock actually; there was a post at the bladesmulti talkpage. Funny seeing Corinne here, small world.  :-)   TFIW. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 01:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. CorinneSD, there is a bug in Template:Convert which prevents it from rounding-aka-scaling multiple output-values. The correct way to represent the 2012 barley area under cultivation would be something like ({{convert| 49,525,988 |ha|e6ha e6acre e3km2 e3sqmi |0|lk=on|abbr=off|disp=output only}}) but that parses the unit-list improperly at the moment. See bug-report here — Template_talk:Convert#problem_with_e6_scaling_of_multiple-output-units. Recommend NOT using the workaround I listed, as it is a horrid kludge. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 01:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a great word – kludge – I'd never heard that before. Thank you for the information. Why do the figures have to be rounded? CorinneSD ( talk) 14:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, 74! That's a lot of interesting information. I clicked on the fao link, however, and followed your instructions (twice) and did not see any data. I see in the individual categories just below all the choices that the word "Barley" appears, but no other data. Is there something else I am supposed to click on to get the data to appear? What is "HTH"? Thanks also to you, Doug[weller]. CorinneSD ( talk) 00:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

((e/c))==((edit conflict)) HTH is interneteze for Hope This Helps, or conceivably I suppose, Hate That Hat. Please accept my apologies, if you were wearing a hat at the time!  ;-)   You may have a browser that isn't supported by their fancy new website? Or maybe... there is a button that says 'show data' which you have to click, it is kinda small and in a non-standard display-style, did you see it? But you don't have to retrieve the data yourself, I listed it above (132,886,519 et cetera). 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 01:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your recent contributions at Aamir Liaquat Hussain, you restored a deadlink and the information it referred into the article citing WP:DEADLINK, i will urge you to remove that please since this article is about a living person and this information is controvercial and insulting to a living person and it should be removed unless verifiable as per WP:BLP. Thank you. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 13:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sajjad Altaf, WP:VERIFY has WP:SOURCEACCESS which makes it clear that sources do not have to be online. See also WP:OFFLINE. Not that this is relevant as the link works. Dougweller ( talk) 13:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller Thanks so much for taking the time to review the copy. By "appears to be copyrighted" do you mean the sentence about the roots of holism? I wrote much of the page on EdgarCayce.org so thought I could use it. Or do you mean that I can't quote a line from the Journal of AMA? I thought a sentence was OK. Many thanks for clarifying. Alison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison.ray ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Help, i was indifinately blocked by Ststerwalker for disrupt editing, and it affected my studies with school of open 'oer' etc, the suspension for the mistake has been long, started in 2013, and how many months suspension? Thanks for understanding fate of scholars, am Jesmion 41.203.65.171 ( talk) 05:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Help, i was indefinitely blocked by Stwalkerster for disrupt editing in 2013, and affects my studies with 'oer' wikipedia school of open, the suspension has been long, and how many months would a student be suspended for participating in a school class, we are now in Round 1/week 3 of wikisoo wikipedia school of open, and i couldnt write at Etherpad or student's page discussion since 2013, except by Youtube or twitter, considering the fate of learner, please help! am Jesmion 41.203.65.171 ( talk) 05:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC) LGBT Right in Iraq I was just recopying what I saw in the summary (it has the citation). Got any questions? Let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jllproductions ( talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have questions about two recent edits to Radiocarbon dating:

1) In the latest edit, an editor changed the American "artifacts" "back to British spelling" and changed one other instance of "artifacts" to "artefacts". I thought WP:ENGVAR discouraged that kind of change unless the article is clearly already written in one variant or the other or the topic is clearly of a certain area where a particular variant is used. Both spellings are given in Wiktionary. Do you want to make a determination on this?

2) In the edit just before that one, an editor changed "datable by other techniques" to "dated by other techniques". The edit summary says "for readability", but "datable by other techniques" might make more sense in the context. What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 14:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

HHi CorinneSD. New editor (no talk page) who changed 'artefacts' to 'artifacts' and was reverted correctly. The article uses British English throughout - several instances of 'artefacts' and 'neighbourhood'. That new editor's change to 'dated' I thought changed the sense subtly so I reverted them. Dougweller ( talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD ( talk) 16:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anything about marine zoology, specifically Dolphins? Please see the note I left at User talk:Rothorpe and, earlier, at User talk:BabyNuke, who has edited the article in the past. CorinneSD ( talk) 16:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird choice to add an EL for Rick Still after you just explained there are no RS to connect Still with Hill. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

LuckyLouie I didn't add it. I just put the title in. It's not a reliable source anyway, it's an EL. Dougweller ( talk) 17:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see it was originally just a bare link to www.rickstill.com. My mistake. It should probably be removed altogether to avoid BLP problems. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont have a fix IP address Thunderpilot ( talk) 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This user ( other account) is using multiple accounts to edit war on serval pages, what should I do? I have asked him to make a comment on the corresponding talk pages, but he won't do it. This account also appears to be one of his. He has also continued to remove sourced content. AcidSnow ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@ AcidSnow:Jllproductions changed his name to Jacobkennedy, so that's just one account. I'll have a look. Dougweller ( talk) 06:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, used them both to edit war. Glad that's resolved. Dougweller ( talk) 06:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you would have helped, thank you! AcidSnow ( talk) 17:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That has been unsourced for two years. I think that is long enough to find some sourcing. If you cannot that you cannot include it into a BLP, much less any WP article. You are an admim, you should know this. Arzel ( talk) 13:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you go in and remove virtually everything without bothering to source any of it. Remove contentious stuff, fact tag specific items you see as dubious, etc, not a wholesale deletion. Dougweller ( talk) 14:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

KT66, Chris Fynn and I already agreed on the material for the article. For example Truthsayer62 keeps deleting a Thurman quote that KT66 added, not me. The three of us clearly already agreed on how the article should be. There is no excuse for Truthsayer62 deleting most of the academic material in the article. And the reason why I deleted Truthsayer62 comment from my own talk page, is that it was full of debunked Shugden propaganda, such as there being millions of Shugden followers, which is just a laughable claim. Heicth ( talk) 14:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You can delete anything you want from your own page, no problem. Dougweller ( talk) 14:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok that's good to here. When I saw that millions of Shugden followers propaganda on my talk page, my first reaction was to delete. Heicth ( talk) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that an IP editor changed the word "sandalwood" in one Indian language to the word in another Indian language, in the article on Sandalwood. Is there any reason for that? Should the edit stand or be undone? CorinneSD ( talk) 15:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed in the article on Burma that in the second paragraph in the section on "Etymology" there is a lot of pronunciation information for "Burma" and "Myanmar". For some reason, my computer does not show the Burmese script; instead, I see a series of boxes. But that's all right; I don't need that information, but I wonder whether all that pronunciation information belongs in "Etymology". Usually, that kind of information is right at the beginning of the article, and I see some pronunciation information there. What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You commented in a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard [41] on whether theses should be considered reliable. There is a question [42] on what the consensus was concerning the reliability of the specific thesis that originally prompted that discussion. Did you agree that that thesis should be considered reliable? Dezastru ( talk) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, I noticed that back in 2011 you marked Arab Spring article as 1RR bound in ARBPIA. Since then however all Syrian war related articles were put under a separate sanction system of WP:SCWGS per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Syrian_civil_war_articles ( [43]) and ultimately community consensus from August 2013. Considering the overwhelming dominance of Syrian civil war topic in the Arab Spring and the fact that all of the disputed issues there were in fact in this way or another related to Syrian civil war, in my opinion it is a clear case where WP:SCWGS should apply. Since the ARBPIA and SCWGS sanctions are pretty much the same, we don't need both as well. Is it possible to exchange the tagging to SCWGS, or shall i request another clarification in this regard (application of SCWGS for the entire Arab Spring topic)? GreyShark ( dibra) 12:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Greyshark09: Thanks, I've done that but why do we have 2 templates? I'm not clear exactly what "Pages may be tagged with {{Syrian Civil War sanctions}}, and {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} may be used for articles, to indicate that they are under general sanctions" means. Tag pages with one and articles with another? Can you clarify the language here for me please? Dougweller ( talk) 14:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, first of all thanks for updating the sanctions. Regarding the issue of 2 tagging templates - per motion and community consensus, which led to establishment of WP:SCWGS in 2013, it was decided that SCWGS will fully mimic ARBPIA sanctions. Hence since there had been {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} for talk pages, and in parallel {{Editnotice IP 1RR}} for articles, administrators and editors (including me) created both for SCWGS as well. Your question essentially refers to the origin of this duality in ARBPIA, which i don't have an answer for. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Greyshark09, I hardly ever use editnotices and had simply forgotten about them. I've done that now for the article. It would have helped if 'talk page' had been mentioned, not just 'Pages'. I do wish I understand why Facebook is being used on the Syrian Civil War article as a reliable source for actual facts at Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013-present)that's always puzzled me. I think I'll take it to RSN. Dougweller ( talk) 19:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think i got the meaning of both templates - in ARBPIA articles, the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} is used for talk pages (parallel to {{Syrian Civil War sanctions}}), while {{Editnotice IP 1RR}} is used for the articles themselves (you can see it when editing Israeli-Palestinian conflict page), thus {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} should be used accordingly for articles, seen when editing a tagged article page. GreyShark ( dibra) 18:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's right and I've added them to a couple more articles, may look to see where else it should be as this conflict seems to have spawned several other articles. I hadn't realised or I had forgotten how easy it is to created editnotices. Dougweller ( talk) 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Constantly_stalked_and_harassed_by_a_user -- Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 20:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Boring. I couldn't ignore that obvious OR but raised it at RSN first before I edited it. Dougweller ( talk) 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Semir_Osmanagi.C4.87, Sportfan5000 ( talk) 01:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

i actually am doing a school project and i am a girl not a guy, thank you.! and i will change everything back to how it was, i need the extra credit in my class because i am almost failing and my mom will kick my a** if i fail.! so i am doing this for a school project its just extra credit and not everyone had to do it and alot of people arnt. so if you would like to run your mouth i will run mine. i need this extra credit so i need a way to put "MR. FRIDAY" into the talk:Christopher Columbus artical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8113 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A comment was just added to the last section of the Talk page on George Raft, adding to a discussion that began in 2008 (in the section just above the last one). The last comment makes sense, but as an admin, would you like to weigh in on the best approach to this, and perhaps make the decisive edit? CorinneSD ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Besides my request for help in disambiguating a link that I had added (see my Talk page) to Surat, would you mind taking a look at the last few edits to the article? I don't know about the last one or two, but the third from last, the one just after my edit, contains the following:

"STPI Surat is good option for SME IT Entrepreneurs of South Gujarat and MNCs to expand business in Surat/South Gujarat at cheaper rate compare to Metros or IT Hubs."

To me, this sounds like advertising. What do you think about this and the last two edits? CorinneSD ( talk) 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. Thanks for providing some helpful advice to Heicth. Hopefully he heeds it. I did want to talk about another concern with that user though. I came across this discussion over on the 14th_Dalai_Lama talk page, and it struck me that ShenrabandNamdak's contribution seemed incredibly convenient for Heicth. Particularly given that ShenrabandNamdak is not a very active editor and has made six edits total. I am therefore wondering whether ShenrabandNamdak is a sock puppet of Heicth. As a more experienced editor than I, do you think I am right to be suspicious? And if so, how would you suggest I proceed? Cheers and thanks in advance for your help. Andrew ( talk) 00:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's possible, but it's also possible that they both simply live in more or less the same time zones, which wouldn't be at all surprising. At the moment there probably isn't enough evidence either way. Sorry I can't be more helpful, Andrew. Dougweller ( talk) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. It did seem awfully convenient that ShenrabandNamdak weighed in within 15 minutes of Heicth in complete agreement, having not made a contribution since Feb and having made only 5 edits previously, but if you think I am being overly cynical then I am happy to leave it. Thanks for your help. Andrew ( talk) 23:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not actually saying that, just that there isn't enough evidence to raise an WP:SPI, Andrew. Dougweller ( talk) 19:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Distinction noted. Cheers Andrew ( talk) 00:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

While 3 users (kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) are patiently discussing, editing and agreeing on the article in a careful manner, user Truthsayer62 deleted pretty much all the academic material in the article! Heicth ( talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As the Dorje Shugden Controversy article now stands, the introduction makes no sense because it doesn't present both sides of the controversy. The controversy is that some people believe Dorje Shugden to be a Buddha and others believe him to be a spirit so I wrote an introduction quoting David Kay, a an accepted academic commentator on this subject to replace the unbalanced introduction. kt66, Chris Fynn and Heicth are all on one side of the controversy and I am on the other so we all suffer from WP:COI. Chris Fynn himself has acknowledged this. How can we get the help of an unbiased third party editor to help with this? I have appealed for dialogue on the talk page of the article but we don't seem to be getting anywhere. Truthsayer62 ( talk) 09:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Like Truthsayer62 says, KT66, Chris Fynn and myself already agreed on the page. Heicth ( talk) 14:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So three people who are on one side of a controversy and have a vested interest in keeping the article the same have agreed to keep it the same, but how does that advance the cause of democracy, balance and fairness? At present the article is unbalanced and requires the input of a third party unbiased editor if we cannot come to an agreement about the content of the article. Can you help with this please dougweller? Truthsayer62 ( talk) 14:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62 is a longtime problem editor. See the talk page for Talk:New Kadampa Tradition. Heicth ( talk) 14:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

let's spare the ad hominems and get on with business. Can you please explain how we can progress this Dougweller? I'm looking to create a fair and balanced article that reflects both sides of the controversy and at present Heicth is opposing any change. We need some neutral input. Truthsayer62 ( talk) 23:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, the problem is that Truthsayer62 will never take no for an answer, although there is consensus. He is intent on deleting most of the academic material and returning the page to how it was. And like Kt66 said today, the Dorje Shugden Controversy page is massively unbalanced in FAVOR of NKT. Heicth ( talk) 01:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, I only changed the introduction. I used a recognised reliable source David Kay. I am not deleting most of the academic material on the page at all. Truthsayer62 ( talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This really all belongs at the talk page. What I suggest, Heicth and Truthsayer62, is WP:DRN, please try that as I don't think I have time to deal with this and they have a process for it. Dougweller ( talk) 19:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Dougweller I appreciate your help. I am trying to offer a collaborative edit at the moment but if that doesn't work we can try WP:DRN. Truthsayer62 ( talk) 08:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You said I was making false claims, but I pulled the information from a scholarly journal article. You cannot say that what I posted was not true. I was simply stating what the New Age Andean practitioners believed about Machu Picchu and its origins. You can read all about it in Michael Hill's article, "Myth, Globalization, and Mestizaje in New Age Andean Religion: The Intic Churincuna (Children of the Sun) of Urubamba, Peru." It was published by the The American Society for Ethnohistory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDoctorRobert ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You stated as fact that "It appears that the masonry at Machu Picchu cannot be reproduced by using any known tools today. Furthermore, there is no technology capable of moving these massive stones or assembling them so precisely." I doubt that Hill said this. Please discuss this on the article talk page, perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. Dougweller ( talk) 16:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Russia. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 18:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind reading the latest edit to Suriname? Is it appropriate for the article? I see at least two errors in it, a word misspelled and an incorrect capitalization. CorinneSD ( talk) 23:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's the one about same-sex relationships, someone removed it and I've restored it. I see quite a few potential sources, eg [44], [45] and more. Dougweller ( talk) 19:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you. CorinneSD ( talk) 20:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that an editor added the tag "Fact" (I guess meaning "Citation needed") to the article on Chocolate. I read the sentence where the tag was placed and then did a little searching on WP. I found some dates for the earliest consumption of cacao beans in the Americas in Cocoa beans#History. I am not sure whether another WP article can be used as a source, but perhaps the same source that is used in that "History" section could be used for the "Chocolate" article. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your questioning of a source. Whatever his other wild opinions, this one looked OK when I did a quick check. It's from 1983 and up to you to check first, before questioning. Doesn't your reason look a bit like POV? I don't want to embarrass you! Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 12:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page, this is a misunderstanding, he wasn't used as a source and I my fact tag was for something else. Dougweller ( talk) 13:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller,

Yes, I had put a lot of effort into my first article--- Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Cycladic architecture---which you have deleted. It was a work in progress and I had not yet added the verifiable information. The Wiki instruction said SUBMIT FOR REVIEW WHEN YOU ARE READY (are something similar). It was not yet ready for review! This is very disappointing. Your early review of my page suggests contributors cannot trust the Wiki instructions. Is this correct? Iantomferry ( talk) 17:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they can, but at the same time they cannot violate our WP:COPYVIO policy anywhere on Wikipedia, including articles for creation. And you were warned before about copyright violations. You can always appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Dougweller ( talk) 19:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Doubweller, I have read through the 'purpose' of Wikipedia:Deletion review. I am not sure I need to request a review, particularly as everthing appears so complicated. Can I simply re-commence the article, while observing the 'violation of copyright' Wiki requirements, which I now understand, even for pages being created? I would prefer not to be 'blocked' from contributing to Wikipedia in the future. I have found it to be a source of very valuable and detailed information. Please advise. Iantomferry ( talk) 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not realise I was being offensive or vandalising anything on the Freshman guitar page. I apologise and promise that it will not happen again. I am about to respond to teh NeilN talk concerning Creation. I noticed you commented on it. I get the impression you believe in evolution and you think it has all your answers. I am 14, and I encourage you to think again, as we should all be searching for truth (as I am - at the moment Creation seems to provide a huge amount more answers than Evolution). Sorry as I went off topic in this message - it seemed instinctive. Sorry again for that edit on the guitar page. CollettDavid ( talk) 21:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi CollettDavid. That's ok, no problem. You didn't vandalise anything at the Freshman guitar page, someone else had broken our WP:COPYVIO policy - you were absolutely right in your edit and I should have thanked you for it. It's great to see a 14 year old edit but you need to understand that this is actually a mainstream encyclopedia. You are probably better off editing other sorts of articles. And I believe in evolution no more and no less than I believe in gravity - in other words, they are simply the way the world works. Gravity is a theory just as evolution is a theory and we have seen them both in action. Dougweller ( talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks. Iantomferry ( talk) 00:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this edit looks like a knee-jerk reaction. In fact, the article uses "BC" multiple times, and the edit you reverted was making things consistent. As it turns out, there had been a discussion on the era used at Talk:David#BC/E. For what it's worth, I always check the article and/or the article history before reverting these sorts of edits. St Anselm ( talk) 12:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, St, I normally do spend time to make sure I'm on firm ground - my bad on both. Why we don't have consistency on biblical articles, eg Hebrew Bible BCE, NT AD, I don't understand. It would make life easier and avoid these problems. Dougweller ( talk) 13:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've apologised to the editor and mentioned edit summaries. Most of the time such edits are made without edit summaries they are BCE to BC type edits, although I have found, and reverted, ones the other way around. And found edit summaries that actually hid what was being done although those are rarer than just no edit summary. Dougweller ( talk) 15:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I said it was a duplicated paragraph and removed it in the accurate edit summary. Why do you think I should need to further explain why I removed it? Run to the hills, cos the end of the world is soon! ( talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It still belonged where it was. Now the section on Christian attitudes towards myth doesn't discuss Christian attitudes towards myth. The problem actually is that the lead doesn't follow WP:LEAD. It should just mention the dispute without details or sources. Dougweller ( talk) 21:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, Thanks for the lead on sources. I will check them out. My research in he NSW State Library in Sydney turned up little on the topic, though I found a limited academic piece online. I am happy to use 'The architecture of the Cycladic Isdands' as a title. Though I did came across several existing Wiki articles with a non existent link to 'Cycladic Architecture' which in some cases was incorrectly spelt 'Cycladitic Architecture'. regards Iantomferry ( talk) 22:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Every single article that I've read here, they included 'BCE'. That is why I thought that it should be BCE, but I know now. D4iNa4 ( talk) 10:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Remove protection from article Azerbaijani people. I will not wage war. Only edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

dear doughwell! i have seen that you left a message on my talk page about the ashfaz , and u nominated it for deletion. you may delete this but i have heard about ashfaz therefore i have written article on. You could delete if you feel its not benefitful . — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsmanPathanKhan ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 March 2014 (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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm crossing my fingers hoping I didn't cause you serious annoyance, and apologize once again. I honestly wasn't attacking you personally and I chose my word quite poorly. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 03:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please perform a WP:REVDEL on [46]? I made an edit while logged out by accident and I would like my IP address to remain private. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 09:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

-- Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust ( talk) 14:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Since user:Pan Brerus refuses to answer why he has changed a referenced sentence to reflect his own opinion into the Italian Wars article, could you protect this article?
Also, what is your opinion on the usage of primary sources? Pan Brerus added Francesco Guicciardini and Alessandro Benedetti, a physician from Verona, as sources to the Battle of Fornovo article. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to look at this, sorry. Our protection policy doesn't cover this sort of thing though. Tomorrow! Dougweller ( talk) 19:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Kansas Bear We can use Francesco Guicciardini but should attribute this to him (and when). We can quote Benedetti's description but not use him in this way. Dougweller ( talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of article weight, if it contains primary sources from the Italian side should we not be looking to include primary sources from the French side? Also, when secondary sources are added to the article should they not be given more weight in the article, since primary sources are usually biased and written from a singular perspective? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Dougweller ( talk) 17:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the section Tokamak#Toroidal_design, we find the sentence, "In the ITER tokamak, it is expected that the occurrence of a limited number of major disruptions will definitively damage the chamber with no possibility to restore the device." (Emphasis added.) Three references are given. However, these are rather long and technical sources. How do we request that the specific page be given that explicitly states the conclusion? (It could easily be someone's POV slant, and then covered up by technical sources with conclusions that may be subject to interpretations, or may have a caveat.) Titus III ( talk) 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Titus III Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources is where you need to look. {{request quotation}} or {{{{page needed}}}} That paragraph was the editor's only edit anywhere. [47] Dougweller ( talk) 14:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Have fixed it now. Titus III ( talk) 17:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Lazarus says that Hamilton is a pseudonym for Wallace Ward's son, and the USPTO says that the trademark "Mark Hamilton" is owned by Wallace H. Ward, so that's what we have about that.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

alf laylah wa laylah, I love the "admitted are sales pitches that lead to people receiving free pamphlets that spell out Neo-Tech ideas in greater detail." I'm still thinking Neothink may merit an article if only to make sure people know more about it. That is, if it's notable enough of course. I haven't searched under the other names enough yet. How did you find the LA Times article? Thanks for sending it to me. Dougweller ( talk) 17:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's in LexisNexis, which I get through work. I still haven't figured out how to generate links into their paywall yet, though, not even for subscribers. I think there's a reasonable case to be made for moving the Integrated Management Associates page to NeoThink. I believe I will redirect the 12 visions page, too. Check this.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Machu Picchu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aliens ( 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) 08:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Machu Picchu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aliens ( 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) 08:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you spare a couple of minutes between all that scoffing of cakes? Talk:Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin was created due to a POV title move some time ago. The article got moved back to Goud Saraswat Brahmin but the talk page remained where it had been redirected. I think Talk:Goud Saraswat Brahmin needs to be deleted and Talk:Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin put in its place. Ideally, Talk:Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin would then be deleted without a redirect, since it is a poorly-constructed POV title. - Sitush ( talk) 05:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Confusing at first! Sitush Dougweller ( talk) 16:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and, yes, it was confusing because the POV title move was a disaster. Alas, the person who did that is still warring about the issue today, hence the repeated attempts to change spellings at Goud Saraswat Brahmin. - Sitush ( talk) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you spare a couple of minutes between all that scoffing of cakes? Talk:Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin was created due to a POV title move some time ago. The article got moved back to Goud Saraswat Brahmin but the talk page remained where it had been redirected. I think Talk:Goud Saraswat Brahmin needs to be deleted and Talk:Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin put in its place. Ideally, Talk:Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin would then be deleted without a redirect, since it is a poorly-constructed POV title. - Sitush ( talk) 05:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Confusing at first! Sitush Dougweller ( talk) 16:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and, yes, it was confusing because the POV title move was a disaster. Alas, the person who did that is still warring about the issue today, hence the repeated attempts to change spellings at Goud Saraswat Brahmin. - Sitush ( talk) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)