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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Doug, can you lend your expertise to remove some POV from the article. There's a bit of stuff that I don't understand re genetics etc (Abecedare seems to be culling that now), but I've taken the article to FAR as it clearly fails FA standards and there's also some serious issues around sourcing. There are some problems listed on the talk page too, and the article history over the last few months is quite telling. While I don't expect the article to stay as a Featured Article, I'm at least hoping that we can bring it to B standards by the time FARC is done. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.label
which use a TermLookup instead of loading a full entity to get labels. (
phabricator:T93885)"'Afro-centrism' is the normal term, and the one Lefkowitz uses....Remember that this is an article about her, not about Afro-centrism, a term invented by Asante I believe which further makes me wonder why you don't like his term."
Molefi Keti Asante's own words: "If I may be permitted, under the entry on "Afrocentrism" it is claimed that I coined the word in l976. As far as I can tell I never used the word "Afrocentrism," it remains a word used by those who seek to attack Afrocentricity. My book, Afrocentricity, was published in l980.. While I am on Afrocentricity, let me also say that the most significant intellectual movement in the African world for the past twenty years has been the Afrocentric movement and not to have a thorough and intelligent discussion of it is a major flaw in this project.
Robert Fay, the graduate student who wrote the piece on "Afrocentrism" spent most of his time attacking Professor Leonard Jeffries. This leads me to the political agenda. I did not find a bibliography to indicate what was read by the writers before they wrote their entries; Robert Fay surely suffered from the lack of reading."
http://www.asante.net/articles/35/afrocentricity/
'Afrocentrism' is a racist term that racists like Lefkowitz use to disrespect the humanity and history of African people and the work they've contributed to Afrocentricty. And I've heard two things about Wikipeda: 1. That information here has improved and that it's factually correct. 2. That Wikipeda Eurocentric, white supremacist, and run by a bunch of white racists who pretend to be rational. Seems as though I was proven right about number 2. I guess your information is only correct if you're writing about whites. Is it only 'fair' that we go to Anne Frank's wiki page and include what Nazis had to say about that time for 'balance.'
Even though I'm thoroughly disgusted by your false, intellectually limited, lazy, Eurocentric arguments based on Eurocentric "scholarship", I'm not surprised by it. I'm sure no one will EVER know the REAL and FACTUAL name of the movement Asante started from Wikipedia, especially with you around. You should read "Yurugu" by Dr Marimba Ani, because it totally breaks down the white supremacist mentality that allowed you to come on here and attempt to "correct" me about something you know nothing about, especially concerning African culture. It's the same white supremacy that allowed Lefkowitz to create her racist "scholarship." Ta-Seti Kmt ( talk) 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: Your post on my talk page, someone asked questions about the subject. I didn't say anything that wasn't included in the works of Illig and others. in fact, in some cases I tried to sue the exact same wording. I feel that including information from the relevant books, articles etc. is improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 ( talk) 09:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings sir,
I'm seeking your input regarding the sources collected for the Parwez article here [1], in order to build consensus on the content before I edit the main page.
It looks like most of the sources are being accepted, just two questions remain:
Your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Code16 ... Logic Bomb ! 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Pgbrux ( talk · contribs) has been continuing to edit-war at Atacama skeleton. I've no time to write up a report for WP:AN/EW until perhaps tomorrow. Diffs and warnings on his talk, including two editors which he may be a socking. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon about the autors of the book, and I beg your pardon about my English: in fact I am not mother language. But, actually, I do not understand your criticism: what is the problem about the statement: "The nuragic civilization was the first European great civilization west of Minoan Crete". It is a fact: do you know any other bronze age European civilization so "productive" in terms of architecture? In terms of numbers, I mean, but also in terms of technical progress. It is a fact, no archaeologist could have any doubt about this. It is not an idea of mine, it is not an opinion of mine, it is common opinion. Could we say that Greek civilization was the more advanced in its era? I say that is common sense. But if you you think that Wikipedia can't accept such kind of consideration, please, delete it. No problem. With amity Mauro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 8 September 2015 (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:
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) 09:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
== Nuragic civilization ==
First of all I described the nuragic civilization as the greater in its era (early bronze age), Vinča culture is more ancient of about two millenies. In second time, the nuragic civilization had produced a site that is inscribed in the UNESCO List of World Heritage sites. Vinča culture had not. Nuragic civilization produce advanced architecture. Vinča culture had not. Nuragic civilization produced the first sculpture of human body in Europe. Vinča culture had not. If you think that it is "hyperbole", I'm so sorry but you have serious problems about knowledge of European history and European Art History. P.S. In which page of the book of Gary S. Webster there is the statesment" the term "civilization" for Nuragic, "great" is hyperbole"? Thank you Mauro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
In respect to the book of history of medes Igor M Diakonoff and the book of history of iran Cambridge vol 2 history of the establishment of the Median Empire was 678 Bc Fahesh ( talk) 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton ( talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello in respect to different references history of the establishment of the Median state was 728 to 678 Bc.in respect to book history of medes Igor M Diakonoff median kingdom in 650 BC was a powerful kingdom but change medes to empire by cyaxares was in 625 BC. Please note this: Medes were not persian but were aryan race and established the first ancient iranian empire. Achaemenid were persian and aryan race and established the second Iranian empire. THANKS Fahesh ( talk) 21:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello . The history of beginning and establishment of medes is challenging and in different sources and references are different. But in book of the history of medes Igor M Diakonoff (this book is most specific book for history of medes ) Medes were a powerful kingdom in 650 BC and by cyaxares change to empire. Medes were aryan race and established the first ancient iranian empire and Achaemenid Empire was the second ancient iranian empire. THANKS Fahesh ( talk) 08:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello dough weller. History of change medes to empire was 625 BC by cyaxares. For this date was agreement in different sources. Please note this: please write in page of medes that median empire was the first ancient iranian empire and Achaemenid Empire was the second ancient iranian empire. In page medes in Wikipedia Achaemenid Empire mentioned that the first ancient iranian empire. This is wrong. THANKS Fahesh ( talk) 10:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. You can study the own information of the photograh. It's not a neutral colecction. Manu Lop ( talk) 08:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your scope.please read two books of the history of medes Igor M Diakonoff and the book of Achaemenid Empire briant peare. About history of the establishment of medes 615 BC in Wikipedia is wrong. At least 650 BC Mede were a kingdom. For example in Wikipedia the history of established ottoman empire written 1399 AC whereas ottoman change to empire in 16th century. Hence the history of the establishment of medes in Wikipedia must correct at least to 650 BC. We must respect to history of countries and don't ignore other thoughts. Fahesh ( talk) 11:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
How does one edit a Wiki re-direction??!! I have just looked up "Ubiquitous learning" to be told there's a page on it ... but there isn't: clicking on it takes one to "Educational technology" which is (or should be) a vast "page" and anyway has no mention of what I'm searchng for.
I am of course happy to do a para as the start of a page on Ubiquitous learning, but meantime urge that the above error be closed!
Thanks and best wishes - Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Deeson ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks douge weller for last edit in page of Median empire. If you are editor manager page persian Empire I want discuss you.in page of persian Empire in Wikipedia mention Parthian Empire was the second Persian Empire.please note this:ancient persian peoples were Achaemenid and sassanid empires.medes and parthia were aryan race but were not persian. Parthian Empire was established the third ancient iranian Empire after medes and Achaemenid Empire. Fahesh ( talk) 19:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
...and how relevant need it be to the particular request? That is, would similar behaviour on indirectly related articles be appropriate to add at the point that people are starting to do word-counts? Anmccaff ( talk) 18:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me put a cut and paste clip here of a statement you made on Talk:Oath Keepers:
"I note that the editor tagging this article thinks the ADL and SPLC, Salon, etc are far left & I'm not convinced these tags are in good faith (AGF is not a suicide pact)."
To set the matter of what I think about this article straight, I didn't come to it with preconceived notions. I made up my mind reading what I read. I stumbled on the article thinking this was just another article which needed some structural changes to meet Class C or even B standards but the more I read of recent edits and the more I looked at the available resources the more I came to the conclusions I posted. For instance here is a sampling of the 150,000 Google hits for "oath keepers"+"libertarian" link the more I realized that it was mis-categorized. You've got to admit that it carries some weight when at the top of the search is a Mother Jones article.
What I think about the SPLC is a bit more complex and I'd never edit their article since I'm too close to them. Morris is a friend of a friend and I know two of the younger staffers, nice people and I'll leave it at that since we never talk politics, and they're on my side for some key state litigation unrelated to the article. For the record here is a search with about 36,000 hits for the terms in quotes of "southern poverty law center"+"left leaning" link, or the 16,000 hits for their name plus "far left" link. Salon? I've read Salon since before the internet and if you can read them and not think their opinion is spinning to the left, well then that's your opinion. Trilobitealive ( talk) 00:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
Hi, Doug. Quick favor (of a sort I used to ask of Malik, actually): do you mind semiprotecting Yom Kippur, at least through September 23 (one week from today, which is actually Yom Kippur). We tend to get a fair amount of vandalism on holiday articles in the days leading up to the holidays. Thanks. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not the holiest day. Sabbath is, because it is mentioned in the 10 commandments. It is a day of awe originating from the rabbinical auspices. It does hold much importance. Rosh Hashannah, Succot, & Pessach are again more important as they are pilgrimages. Please speak to a scholar before writing about this or other festivals. May I suggest Rabbi Mirvis, who is chief Rabbi of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.85.202 ( talk) 10:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi.the truth is that the statement i made was based on my own scholarship (i can read the original Hebrew).I included the link by way of explanation not the scholastic merits of the author.Can you please explain what makes a source acceptable to you.For instance if i link a similar article by someone with a degree in biblical studies would that be OK? Juda15 ( talk) 20:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Juda
OK.Thanks for your time.I simply thought that my statement which was basically a casual remark on the plethora of opinions one finds when dealing with this subject,obvious.I mean it would be pretty hard to find a quote like that .I believe the article has a very biased approach.Some sections (such as Divine battle vs divine speech)present as fact something that can easily be refuted ,or at the very least interpreted differently. There is no attempt at neutrality at all. NO opposing sources are cited, despite it being a rather controversial subject.I think this needs really needs to be cleaned up. Juda15 ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)juda
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised that no damfool pointed out that one man's Mede is another man's Persian. (Up til now, that is.) Anmccaff ( talk) 02:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I noticed
this and would like to comment that I indeffed them for the legal threat but also stated in the SPI that they were indeed also guilty of socking. If anything, the block should be converted down to 72 hours for the socking if the retraction of legal threats is accepted. I also noticed that you didn't unblock them. :)
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, total mistake. I was trying to fix the formatting mistake (an unnecessary space between the 2015 population estimate and the reference) by doing control+f to find the population section (hence the "pop"), and must have accidentally typed that without noticing it when I did the control+f. I now fixed the original formatting error I was trying to. Hah!
Gossamers ( talk) 20:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't vandalized Stormfront article. Read the Stormfront talk page for more information about my editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent de Lyon ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I have figured out how to explain why I don't like how the article is written. Have you ever read the books of George Orwell? If yes, you might remember the term doublethink. People are supposed to have double standards. While British nationalism are [British] nationalism, Chinese nationalism are [chinese] nationalism, but white nationalism is a violent supremacist organization set out on crusades to kill and oppress. This isn't logical and nationalism don't need to, and very seldom does, contain anything else than kinship. 129.177.179.164 ( talk) 14:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So what if he is a journalist?
Are you the protector of the prestige of the Aztecs.
These are historical facts.
I will just post them again, and again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perico~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I notice you've stuck your nose in there. Thanks, but can you advise on the endless reverts by the anon at 47.x.x.x IP addresses? The article has been semi-ed before over this business; and, as is sometimes the case, I have no idea if I'm edit warring or reverting vandalism. Pinkbeast ( talk) 15:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
For when you see what's been happening on this page and your user page lately. John Carter ( talk) 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Like I stated on the talk page, I didn't have access to my browser's password saving feature on a different computing device. I never edited "at the same time" as Fyddle claimed on the talk page. This morning after waking up I talked on the different talk page without logging in to Wikipedia only because I had just woken up and weren't at my best. That's the "same time" he posited, even though it happened 10 hours later. After noticing the mistake, I corrected it. Other than that, there's a clear timeline of when I had access to my password again. My password consists of both letters and numbers, like it should. In addition, I very early on claimed that I will soon be back on my user account. Oh, and there were two who undid my edits which I simply reverted back once each as in two in total, not in a row and half an hour apart and with great descriptions of why their undo is unjust; which still I believe is the bad edit behavior. In the edits after that I drop some bits I were fighting for or change the wording to work towards concensus progressively. I also declare the changes I have made to my own stance in the description of the edit. This is a much more realpolitik-like way of finding concensus. But even regardless of that I were always very active on the talk page. But I'll take the recommended break from editing. All of this stresses me out greatly. I will continue talking to prove my point, though. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Doug-
Thanks for all your hard work for so many years!
On the Star of Bethlehem page, under "explanations", it crossed my mind that a mention of the Hebrew (and Biblical) cosmology would help to explain the star story. In the Star story, the star leads the wise men, first to Jerusalem (west), then to Bethlehem (south). In our understanding today, No actual astronomical event could do this - especially since it would rise and set, being in different directions at different times. Plus, an actual star would incinerate any house it "hovered over" - as would be needed if a real star were to designate a single house or neighborhood.
However, when viewed as the writer (and his readers) would have viewed it back then, it makes more sense. The Bible is clear - especially in Genesis 1 but throughout to Revelation (6:13, etc) and many more, that the writers assume the ancient hebrew cosmology of a flat earth under a domed sky, with the stars as little lamps attached to the dome (I can provide references/scholarly explanations if you like). In that cosmology, it would have been easy for a star to move along a little ways above the earth, guiding wise men wherever, and then designating a single house with ease.
It seems to me that such an addition would benefit the the Star of Bethlehem page, but I'm a newbie (I've donated, but done no editing I can remember). Do you think I should try to write such an addition, or what? Thanks- Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.163.2.113 ( talk) 20:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
many others our out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.22.122 ( talk) 00:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Doug;
I was working to cite from a book, when my edit kept disappearing. It was part of the history section of the page, and just kept losing the save before I could save the sources cited. Thanks for the message, was not my aim, my aim was just to add new information from this book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xatian11968 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 August 2015
Mile-
I don't know what you mean by "agreement". There are different types of miles listed on that page. I am only trying to contribute. Isn't that part of what wikipedia great, that anyone can be a part of it? Please Doug, I will show you kindness. Please show me the same. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bubbasbro (
talk •
contribs) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
Look, I am unsure what you don't want me to do...
1. just post research...
or
2. just use the sources (Not Dr. Otto Muck but Ignatius Donnelly or other) that they want me to use.
So, how about this.
Can we put the link back in to the discussion at Wiki University that I just posted to today? That way, people could go there if they like. I have a potential author looking at this. There may even be a book here.
The research that I posted was recent, done by the University of the Azores. There are a lot of geologic abnormal phenomena occurring in this area, things that geology cannot yet explain, such as why does the magma samples from the Azores volcanoes get less like that from the mid-Atlantic Ridge as you go toward the mid-Atlantic Ridge?
I explain my theory of what is going on on Wiki University. But from the Atlantis location site, well, you cannot get to Wiki University from there.
SO, to keep peace, can I please have a link from the Location Atlantis site to Wiki University Atlantis supervolcano site where I post a lot so that interested readers can get there?
Please let me know. E-mail me at jgarner812@gmail.com This has already taken more time than it needs to. IMHO, currently, the Atlantis Location site is little more than a support device for what is going on at Thera in the way of research/excavation and the volcano there. But it is only 1 volcano. There are many in the Azores, not to mention the triple plate conjunction with the supervolcano caldera and Mantle Plume feeding it...
Thanks!
Your friend and mine,, LOL...
John G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYLEIGH22 ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a cease and desist message. You just left the following harassing, threatening, defamatory message (in toto) on my talk page. You did not explain to what your threat and harassment referred, but it doesn’t matter, since you were lying and defaming ME, to begin with. I haven’t added “unsourced” or “defamatory” content anywhere. That makes you a liar and abully. 24.90.121.4 ( talk) 15:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
His chapter was about speculation on possible locations of the lost ark - his note about no mention by the Babylonians simply means that they did not view it as a "lootable treasure" and that is about all the weight he gives to the "contemporary" bit. It is not a "learned treatise" by the way ... it is aimed at the "popular market" here. Collect ( talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added advert and unreferenced templates to this article and they have been deleted by a priest of the church. Can you take a look please and see what you think. Dudley Miles ( talk) 22:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hugh George de Willmott Newman - a few sources, but what is "Bisho Persson" - hardly a verifiable source.
Leon Chechemian - hm, it does say "According to Bertil Persson, "Checkemian has not, as has been stated, been consecrated a Bishop in The Armenian Catholic Church." - perhaps that's our Persson - note the OR just after that line.
There are more. The use of notes is particularly bad as they seem to be often just OR trying to prove things.
Doug Weller ( talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Any particular reason why the links you just removed from Kensington Runestone aren't reliable? I'm just curious because the content of those pages has important implications with regards to the subject of the article.
Thanks,
Mizzou1993 ( talk) 21:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Care to explain why you moved Sengupta source under F* and yet claim it's copyvio? what does that source have anything to do with F* found in China? Entire study in about South Asian population. I have pointed it out before, the source you removed is mentioned in the given source, see under "Indigenous and Exogenous HGs Represented in India" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.201.235 ( talk) 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Doug Weller, sorry to disturb your holiday. I have an issue here on Xerxes I's talk page and I would be very grateful if you can tell who is wrong and who is right, and why. I don't want to risk of being banned but I may already be wrong by don't giving up. Thanks. Khruner ( talk) 13:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
isn't twinkle use reserved for vandalism? (i saw you use it to revert an edit that was no vandalism, like JzG.) am i missing something?-- Wuerzele ( talk) 05:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Doug Weller Thank you.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem - and you are quite correct - although it frustrating when an arguement (even one properly cited) has clear flaws, limitations or is just wrong. Here it was just a limitation , caveat that was needed. As I assume you can appreaciate. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 07:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I sent you an e-mail some time ago regarding some external matters. I am far less than sure how the matters involved in it can be addressed now, and would appreciate any input you might be able to offer. John Carter ( talk) 17:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Kennewick_Man
" Kennewick Man Powell said that the Ainu descend from the Jōmon people who are an East Asian population with "closest biological affinity with south-east Asians" rather than western Eurasian peoples".[24]
Source: Powell, Joseph F.; Rose, Jerome C. Chapter 2 Report on the Osteological Assessment of the Kennewick Man Skeleton (CENWW.97.Kennewick). Retrieved September 10, 2011.
It doesn't make sense to include only south asians. - 77.98.238.98 ( talk) 22:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Sir I am sorry if I seemed that way, The truth is you are right however I still feel that that person that I mentioned isn't really trying to help the Wikipedia cause. But the truth is it seems you have noticed this whether you agree or not I am not certain. If you would like to edit my comment that it be civil, than I will accept it. Thank you for your work in Wikipedia :-) Sadya goan ( talk) 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I thought you were going to delete it? OK I removed it (I not available every day so wasn't able to do this till now). OK so let's make it clear, if I feel in the future that this happens again how do I preside?? Again Thank You for all your effort. Sadya goan ( talk) 20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Oh I realized.. never mind I deleted it now Sadya goan ( talk) 20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Renew PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC) George Ho at the moment it seems too infrequent to bother. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Precious again, your not supporting to loose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings,
Hi, i obsrved you have supported article Anthropology of religion well enough. I am looking for support for a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. At this stage, undersigned seeks your help specially to improve defenition and lead sections of the article.
Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.
Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations and dances around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.
While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.
Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.
This request is made to you since culture related topics may be of intrest to you.
Thanking you with warm regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 11:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jedediah Smith. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Doug Weller, and I really appreciate your tips on how to make my Wikipedia article edits better! Wikipediauser993 ( talk) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)wikipediauser993
Good evening Doug Weller, sorry I did not mean to waste your time in my talk page, but obviously the notification has arrived to you despite my correction. And I thank you for the kind words, I greatly appreciated it.. Khruner ( talk) 20:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
hi there, I think I made mistakes in editing the page, do u know what part I've not quoted?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuAUb2AEIoU&feature=youtu.be&t=52m20s - Stubblebine in this Sept 2013 interview states that the information that was in that interview that is used to character assassinate him is used to make him look like an idiot. Various "sources" on his article are intended to make him look bad solely because he questioned the 9/11 pentagon attack. The entire article needs to be re-written to be more biographical than a smear campaign. Marty2Hotty ( talk) 22:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Dough
I totally agree with you, but was an accident! I wanted to leave a message on his talk page, and edited the whole page. Before I saved, he canceled his page, so I got an edit conflict message. I did not want to lose my message, so I used the back button and saved everything. You can check the times of the edits about that. :-( As you say, there is no reason to restore what the others write, and besides that, it is prohibited! MEA CULPA MEA CULPA MEA MAXIMA CULPA. :-) .
Alex2006 (
talk) 17:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about this edit to Analects? [7] Corinne ( talk) 17:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
This has been going on too long and need more of a senior editors input. I was going to possibly try and clean up the article with new sources and possibly changing the name based on suggestions listed in the talk page, but it may be a waist of time as the edits may be reverted. Please give your input on the talk page if possible. Thanks LRappaport ( talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that I was not admonished in [ [8]]. The result was that my action was "suboptimal" (which most of the parties disagreed with, but hey) but it was not an admonishment. I would appreciate it if you considered that in your comments on the current case. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey Doug, how are you doing these days? Hope fine! :-) I was wondering, what is your opinion about Percy Sykes and using his publications in history-related articles? Definite no-go, right? Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 15:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Sintra_Arunte-Bronte -- Muzammil ( talk) 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The Shaolin Monastery article states, “In the past, many have tried to capitalise on Shaolin Monastery fame by building their own schools on Mount Song. However, the Chinese government eventually outlawed this; the schools were moved to the nearby towns. However, as of 2010, the Ta Gou kung fu school, one of the largest martial arts schools in China, owns and practises on land below Shaolin Temple. Current 31st Grand Master of the fighting monks is Shi De Yang, a disciple of the late abbot Shi Suxi.”
My first reaction was a bit of shock. In a nutshell this paragraph says that many schools tried to “captialise” (sic) on the original Shaolin Temple (original historical entity) but the government outlawed this with the exception of one school which “practises” (sic) below Shaolin Temple. Then out of the blue it mentions Shi De Yang, giving the impression that he was one of those who broke away from the Shaolin Temple and started the the Ta Gou kung fu school attempting to capitalize on the Shaolin Monastery fame.
Shi De Yang is too important of a character in the Kung Fu world to leave this vague statement. "Shi De Yang continues to reside in the Shaolin Temple, absorbed in his studies and teaching there and is head master of the fighting monks in the Temple. However, he has added the management of his external school, Shaolin Wuseng Houbeidu, to his duties." [9]
Either this should be explained or references to Shi De Yang removed. It is important it be realized he is still part of the Shaolin Temple.
We could go back and forth adding and deleting, but to save time would you please carefully study my position and make the necessary changes. It would be much appreciated.
Thank you. CWatchman ( talk) 07:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. And the way it was written could easily lead a casual reader to assume Shi De Yang was grandmaster of one of the schools attempting to capitalize on the Shaolin Temple. It was just poorly put together.
By the way, what is Wikipedia's position on English and British spelling? I am assuming "capitalised" and "practises" was either added by a Brit or was a misspelling by someone in the states. Just curious. CWatchman ( talk) 21:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #114
Why exactly did you revert the article Ambrosius Aurelianus to a unsourced version and eliminated sourced additions? Dimadick ( talk) 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually most of the previous version of the article provides no sources, primary or not. I have already asked you to provide sources for it. Be my guest, add them to the article. One think I have not done is claim ownership of the article. Dimadick ( talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have Zheng He on my watchlist and I noticed you had reverted a change to it this morning. In checking out the diff I made an error, thinking it was an invalid reversion (blame it on a lack of coffee). On reexamination I realized my mistake and undid my mess (reverted my reversion of your reversion - whew!).
In any case, your fix still stands and I wanted to apologize if I caused any confusion.
KNHaw (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, can you please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LouisAragon/Archive#23_November_2015 . I have mentioned you there, regarding your this message to LouisAragon ( talk · contribs). I am 100% convinced that he is engaged in active sockpuppetry (both the IP and his user page indicate Netherlands as the location). This lengthy writing about me by User:Human10.0 and this lengthy writing about me by LouisAragon make it pretty obvious that both is one and the same person. The following confirms it, LouisAragon stated to someone in 2014: "You seem to have severe inferiority complexion. But I don't blame you as you're an Afghan" and now Human10.0 states to me at the end of 6th paragraph: "(I say "your nation" because you are Afghan).". He is not WP:HERE to help the project but to sock and fight, and fill Wikipedia with his nonsensical opinions. [10] Btw, I never revealed to anyone my nationality. Thank you.-- Krzyhorse22 ( talk) 20:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could consider User_talk:210.3.38.33's behaviour. You have blocked him before and his behaviour shows a long systemic abuse of the project, in fact it appears almost all of his edits are nonconstructive or abusive. I seem to have attracted his abuse of late, and as this is a work computer several others may cop his unwanted attention so I don't want to publicly request some kind of big fandangled inquest or .. idek what the proceedure is but I'm avoiding even logging in because I don't want this grommet to fixate on my user account and find my social networks from it, etc, but yeah the guys spamming articles with stuff like 'kkk jesus white power' or other insightful gems such as here here he randomly adds 'anal sex' to sentences, or arab two girls one cup among others. This has been going for years it seems.
The dude's a failtroll. He has a history of several years of abusive posts. And yet he is still allowed to edit freely. Please, please re-visit your ban on his IP, it was righteous first time around it's just unfortunate it ended. 121.211.33.244 ( talk) 06:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Kmp42, I am new to editing Wikipedia, and am only editing anthropology pages for a graduate level class. I do not know how to go about redirecting the Genetic anthropology page to the Molecular anthropology. The genetic anthropology page should be redirected because it technically is the same field as molecular anthropology. I was hoping you could help me with this, but is will try to redirect the page by myself. I am not too familiar with most of the editing and maintenance processes..... Thank you. 23:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmp42 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Doug Weller, AraCrap (166.170.48.56) wants to play edit war but I don't want to. Seriously speaking, is it possible to put up some temporary IP-range filters? Or maybe introducing a rule in ClueBot which can recognize and revert his stupid adds? It's ridiculous that nobody could do anything with this. Khruner ( talk) 14:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you please semi-protect Narmer? some 166...- IP is trolling there. Regards;-- Nephiliskos ( talk) 22:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Is currently ruining the page on Ancient Egyptian architecture. Could you protect the page/ban his IP? He currently uses: 166.171.122.176. Iry-Hor ( talk) 21:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
And back again... [11]-- MONGO 22:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case where is the peer reviewed citation saying it was a human skull? There is no citation (or it is an error state)
The page on Lloyd Pye discusses in great detail a variety of subjects. The wording i changed is factually correct as in it comes from having read the content and i have used my own words to input the information. The page, whether peer reviewed or not, gives the DNA results as performed by a professional institution. They are a matter of fact and of record. This page at least deserves to show ,factually, what is reported in Lloyds page and without the sleight towards sarcasm and the false claim that th skull was human when it is a matter of fact that it wasn't human
And since it is an informational page, why would anything need peer reviewed. It should state lloyds beliefs and views as opposed to actual provne peer reviewed facts. Its about him and his views and his journey which included him being a part of getting the DNA tested and publishing the results on his site
Why would you NOT want to have a page about Lloyd be factually correct about his beliefs views and life??
Are you saying we need to have all our opinions about anything peer reviewed? Do you have any pages on Gods or Deities? Is there proof of a God that has been peer reviewed that i missed?? Can beliefs be peer reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haggisnneeps ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi please come to this page. Arman ad60 ( talk) 07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
What can you tell me about the book, Worlds Together Worlds Apart? I believe I have run across one of those "new users" using this book. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
...and since you mentioned the name, I thought you'd appreciate the following if you haven't read it already... [12]. I love WP because it affords us an opportunity to continue learning. Atsme 📞 📧 21:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What is your opinion concerning this edit and the sources;
As I explained to the IP on Isabella I of Castile's talk page, that the only reliable source was the Alkire source. And, that the Alkire source does not support the paragraph in question. Sorry to bother you with this, I know you are busy. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So...special asst. to prez, isnt obama? I think youre uneducated. I think that, because I bothered to read, as you can too. And its NOT AT ALL about UFO's - tho Mr. Schoch would like to educate in that slanderous direction. How about quantum physicists? Do only Rocket scientists or nuclear physicists fly for you? I have viewed every single video on those two official/non official site links I gave, and the word UFO does not exist in ANY of them. From where do you get this misled info??? (I dont do UFO!) Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC) http://starburstfound.org/bio-for-paul-laviolette/ http://starburstfound.org/letters-of-support/
there are TWO more links I could have put, if not for your rude censorship bigoted robot. Also may have to do with my MENSA membership. from the link above BIO: He is the developer of subquantum kinetics, a novel approach to microphysics that not only accounts for electric, magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces in a unified manner, ... (like, holy crud, Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC) doug weller) see the bottom for the asst director of a nasa division, and the 2 senators letters to national science foundation. Senator Kennedy, ever hear of him?
I see now. Youre educated via WIKI???? Ho ho ho. May want to update a page for this very well respected scientist so you can become more informed and its apparent you used WIKI as your source (OMG, its user submitted). Why not be fair and give the man a proper page, with the accolades I just supplied you with? Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC) You might also learn that Dr. Osmanagich was given a similar congressional letter from his local :(TX?) rep. This is just absurd how youre demeaning this important find; it is no longer 2006 infancy, its very far advanced now. Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
UFO: subject for the uneducated about 1950s hover craft created by US gov featured in last Oct or Nov. Popular Mechanics after being declassified, complete with a photo provided by said gov. Dont compare Paul La Violette to the woo woo likes of Giorgio Hairopolis or any of these other youtube idiots -- youre rejecting a link to a scientific international conference due to being hosted on Tube to be seen, equals woowoo?????? Think again and VIEW it before you leap to offensive conclusions.
Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC) PS Im screenshotting your comments and forwarding to Mr. La Violette, absolutely shocking. Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Link titleLetters of Support
Superwave Theory
• Letter from Senator Packwood to the U.S. National Science Foundation
• Letter from Senator Packwood to the U.S. National Science Foundation
• Letter from Christopher Lehman, Special Assistant to the President
• Letter from Dr. Korotkovitch (Leningrad) to the National Science Foundation
• Letter from Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts
• Letter from Sir Crispin Tickell UK Mission to the UN
• Letter from Wilbert Chagula, Tanzanian ambassador to the UN Cosmology
• Letter from professor Georges de Vaucouleur, University of Texas, Austin
• Letter from professor Jean-Claude Pecker, College of France and professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, director of research CNRS
• Letter from professor Jean-Claude Pecker, College of France
• Letter from professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, director of research CNRS
• Letter from Grote Reber, father of radio astronomy
• Letter from professor Paul Marmet, National Research Council of Canada
• Letter from professor Dean Turner, University of Northern Colorado Feeling Tone Theory
• Letter from professor Karl Pribram, Neuropsychology Laboratory, Stanford University
• Letter from professor Walter Freeman, Division of Neurobiology, UC Berkeley
• Letter from professor Ted Packard, Chairman, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah
• Letter from professor Richard Rowan, Director of Counseling Services, The Evergreen State College
• Letter from Dee Dickinson, Coordinator, New Horizons for Learning
• Letter from Hazel Henderson, Co-Director, Princeton Center for Alternative Futures Aerospace Technology: NASA Space Plane Correspondence
• Letter from Charles Morris, Asst. Dir. NASA Aero-Space Plane Program
• Letter to Charles Morris, Asst. Dir. NASA Aero-Space Plane Program
Requests for Information
• Institutional affiliations of people requesting information on Starburst research (1984-1989) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterhead330 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No you are not right. I am not in an edit war. I have good relation with Mr. Eperoton. Actually he told me to do the edits in the main article. He just asked me a question and I have given him the answer. Nothing more than that. Arman ad60 ( talk) 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Bowman Creek/archive1. Nergaal is - in my view - unfairly abusing Jakec for nominating an article at FLC which he does not consider interesting. Dudley Miles ( talk) 00:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If you insist on having a disambiguation page at this title, please fix the incoming links. If you find these links are unfixable because they refer to the concept of the Persian Empire, please restore this to an article, or tag it as an SIA, since the concepts are not unrelated. bd2412 T 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
New user. Naive and uneducated in Wikipedia culture and procedures. I've never made an entry, but read your entry on "Worm Theology." I generally agree with the entry, and I would suggest/add that worm theology in Christian circles has its Biblical roots in Isaiah 41:14 and Psalm 22:6. In the Psalm the author writes he is a worm and not a man. The context of the Psalm is suffering and affliction in the light of God's holiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.73.97 ( talk) 10:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you have noticed and reverted some edits by a user who, in all but two edits according to this contribution page, plugs a book named "Worlds Together, Worlds Apart" along with not-very-useful-looking changes. Do you think anything more should be done? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caste system in India. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Five Suns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nahua. 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) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Doug,
While I agree this shouldn't be used as a "real article" (I think it was just fine priorly), ever since it has been changed to a dab page it has caused extensive content problems as numerous dab bots have changed everything that formerly stated Persian Empire (an historical entity created by numerous empires based in what is modern-day Iran) to Greater Iran (a loosely defined ethno-cultural region). This is simply not correct, yet it has already been mass-changed on every article that used to have the dab link of "Persian Empire" [14]. I had brought up the concerns to the bot owner who afterwards reverted the changes back (resulting in the links now having been de-linked) but right now its still an issue. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 09:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on this source;
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The editor removed my edit on the Almoravid page claiming that he can find several "reliable" sources that proves that the name Almoravid comes from the name Al Muribatin. We reject this claim and asks the editor to cite just two reliable sources that conclusively shows his position. Sheik Way-El 17:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El ( talk • contribs)
Can you take a look at [Mawlid] and the My tirade, I mean discussion, at the talk page. Islam related it is, so help you can provide. I am mightily pissed off at the moment about the blind reverting going on perhaps you can lend a hand. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Doug Weller,
I think this request might get buried under all of the verbiage above but I was hoping you could review your block for
User talk:Chrisdunn1. He states that he has sent in information confirming his identity to Wikipedia and I was wondering if you would have access to this. Thanks if you could take a moment and see if this block can be lifted.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Chrisdunn1 ( talk) 14:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You reverted my corrections and I may not have a problem with it , but could you plz be a bit more accommodative if I question your explanation to ' my motives '. rahila 17:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Chrishitch All I meant is that you've probably seen it that way elsewhere, nothing sinister. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Thanks for the effort.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In regards to your subtle but snide remarks: "ok, here's the relevant quote, that was almost as easy as tagging." I am surprised by your touch. Did you try to blame me for unnecessary tagging? Keep in mind that it took you the time that it did only because you were familiar with the source and/or had access to it-- not me (at least, at that time). This was not a drive by tagging ( WP:DRIVEBY). It is as if you are trying to keep people away rather than creating a welcoming environment for new users ( WP:BITE). Rosario ( talk) 12:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller, thanks. I suspected that this has been the experience with that article. The best it could happen is that a team of editors would semi-protect it while working on a better structure. But, we can only wish. I am aware of the program. It is on my to-do list. Thanks again. Rosario ( talk) 16:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please advise. Semitransgenic talk. 17:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I think that in the last days Darius I was - and still is - a targed of some kind of "fanboy" activity. I actually suspect that the edits were made by a single user with multiple accounts. Khruner ( talk) 14:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed
your edit to
Corduene. I'd agree that not everything verifiable should be included
and we should avoid giving certain points of view
WP:UNDUE emphasis. Perhaps
Cyril Toumanoff's opinion on Carduchian dynasties should be lower in the article and not in the lede. But I'm surprised you felt it appropriate to completely delete this information, which appears to accurately summarize Toumanoff's opinion. Our article on him says his works have significantly influenced the Western scholarship of the medieval Caucasus.
I have no particular axe to grind about east Anatolian history, but it seems better to include this view (and others that disagree or concur) than to cut them out. Frankly, there's little scholarship at all on Corduene, so the more we can do to separate solid history from nationalist myth, the better.
Rupert Clayton (
talk) 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Could you please take a look at Talk:Ancestry of the Godwins. An IP keeps vandalising it. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #186
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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Doug, can you lend your expertise to remove some POV from the article. There's a bit of stuff that I don't understand re genetics etc (Abecedare seems to be culling that now), but I've taken the article to FAR as it clearly fails FA standards and there's also some serious issues around sourcing. There are some problems listed on the talk page too, and the article history over the last few months is quite telling. While I don't expect the article to stay as a Featured Article, I'm at least hoping that we can bring it to B standards by the time FARC is done. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.label
which use a TermLookup instead of loading a full entity to get labels. (
phabricator:T93885)"'Afro-centrism' is the normal term, and the one Lefkowitz uses....Remember that this is an article about her, not about Afro-centrism, a term invented by Asante I believe which further makes me wonder why you don't like his term."
Molefi Keti Asante's own words: "If I may be permitted, under the entry on "Afrocentrism" it is claimed that I coined the word in l976. As far as I can tell I never used the word "Afrocentrism," it remains a word used by those who seek to attack Afrocentricity. My book, Afrocentricity, was published in l980.. While I am on Afrocentricity, let me also say that the most significant intellectual movement in the African world for the past twenty years has been the Afrocentric movement and not to have a thorough and intelligent discussion of it is a major flaw in this project.
Robert Fay, the graduate student who wrote the piece on "Afrocentrism" spent most of his time attacking Professor Leonard Jeffries. This leads me to the political agenda. I did not find a bibliography to indicate what was read by the writers before they wrote their entries; Robert Fay surely suffered from the lack of reading."
http://www.asante.net/articles/35/afrocentricity/
'Afrocentrism' is a racist term that racists like Lefkowitz use to disrespect the humanity and history of African people and the work they've contributed to Afrocentricty. And I've heard two things about Wikipeda: 1. That information here has improved and that it's factually correct. 2. That Wikipeda Eurocentric, white supremacist, and run by a bunch of white racists who pretend to be rational. Seems as though I was proven right about number 2. I guess your information is only correct if you're writing about whites. Is it only 'fair' that we go to Anne Frank's wiki page and include what Nazis had to say about that time for 'balance.'
Even though I'm thoroughly disgusted by your false, intellectually limited, lazy, Eurocentric arguments based on Eurocentric "scholarship", I'm not surprised by it. I'm sure no one will EVER know the REAL and FACTUAL name of the movement Asante started from Wikipedia, especially with you around. You should read "Yurugu" by Dr Marimba Ani, because it totally breaks down the white supremacist mentality that allowed you to come on here and attempt to "correct" me about something you know nothing about, especially concerning African culture. It's the same white supremacy that allowed Lefkowitz to create her racist "scholarship." Ta-Seti Kmt ( talk) 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: Your post on my talk page, someone asked questions about the subject. I didn't say anything that wasn't included in the works of Illig and others. in fact, in some cases I tried to sue the exact same wording. I feel that including information from the relevant books, articles etc. is improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 ( talk) 09:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings sir,
I'm seeking your input regarding the sources collected for the Parwez article here [1], in order to build consensus on the content before I edit the main page.
It looks like most of the sources are being accepted, just two questions remain:
Your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Code16 ... Logic Bomb ! 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Pgbrux ( talk · contribs) has been continuing to edit-war at Atacama skeleton. I've no time to write up a report for WP:AN/EW until perhaps tomorrow. Diffs and warnings on his talk, including two editors which he may be a socking. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon about the autors of the book, and I beg your pardon about my English: in fact I am not mother language. But, actually, I do not understand your criticism: what is the problem about the statement: "The nuragic civilization was the first European great civilization west of Minoan Crete". It is a fact: do you know any other bronze age European civilization so "productive" in terms of architecture? In terms of numbers, I mean, but also in terms of technical progress. It is a fact, no archaeologist could have any doubt about this. It is not an idea of mine, it is not an opinion of mine, it is common opinion. Could we say that Greek civilization was the more advanced in its era? I say that is common sense. But if you you think that Wikipedia can't accept such kind of consideration, please, delete it. No problem. With amity Mauro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 8 September 2015 (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:
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) 09:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
== Nuragic civilization ==
First of all I described the nuragic civilization as the greater in its era (early bronze age), Vinča culture is more ancient of about two millenies. In second time, the nuragic civilization had produced a site that is inscribed in the UNESCO List of World Heritage sites. Vinča culture had not. Nuragic civilization produce advanced architecture. Vinča culture had not. Nuragic civilization produced the first sculpture of human body in Europe. Vinča culture had not. If you think that it is "hyperbole", I'm so sorry but you have serious problems about knowledge of European history and European Art History. P.S. In which page of the book of Gary S. Webster there is the statesment" the term "civilization" for Nuragic, "great" is hyperbole"? Thank you Mauro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
In respect to the book of history of medes Igor M Diakonoff and the book of history of iran Cambridge vol 2 history of the establishment of the Median Empire was 678 Bc Fahesh ( talk) 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton ( talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello in respect to different references history of the establishment of the Median state was 728 to 678 Bc.in respect to book history of medes Igor M Diakonoff median kingdom in 650 BC was a powerful kingdom but change medes to empire by cyaxares was in 625 BC. Please note this: Medes were not persian but were aryan race and established the first ancient iranian empire. Achaemenid were persian and aryan race and established the second Iranian empire. THANKS Fahesh ( talk) 21:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello . The history of beginning and establishment of medes is challenging and in different sources and references are different. But in book of the history of medes Igor M Diakonoff (this book is most specific book for history of medes ) Medes were a powerful kingdom in 650 BC and by cyaxares change to empire. Medes were aryan race and established the first ancient iranian empire and Achaemenid Empire was the second ancient iranian empire. THANKS Fahesh ( talk) 08:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello dough weller. History of change medes to empire was 625 BC by cyaxares. For this date was agreement in different sources. Please note this: please write in page of medes that median empire was the first ancient iranian empire and Achaemenid Empire was the second ancient iranian empire. In page medes in Wikipedia Achaemenid Empire mentioned that the first ancient iranian empire. This is wrong. THANKS Fahesh ( talk) 10:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. You can study the own information of the photograh. It's not a neutral colecction. Manu Lop ( talk) 08:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your scope.please read two books of the history of medes Igor M Diakonoff and the book of Achaemenid Empire briant peare. About history of the establishment of medes 615 BC in Wikipedia is wrong. At least 650 BC Mede were a kingdom. For example in Wikipedia the history of established ottoman empire written 1399 AC whereas ottoman change to empire in 16th century. Hence the history of the establishment of medes in Wikipedia must correct at least to 650 BC. We must respect to history of countries and don't ignore other thoughts. Fahesh ( talk) 11:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
How does one edit a Wiki re-direction??!! I have just looked up "Ubiquitous learning" to be told there's a page on it ... but there isn't: clicking on it takes one to "Educational technology" which is (or should be) a vast "page" and anyway has no mention of what I'm searchng for.
I am of course happy to do a para as the start of a page on Ubiquitous learning, but meantime urge that the above error be closed!
Thanks and best wishes - Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Deeson ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks douge weller for last edit in page of Median empire. If you are editor manager page persian Empire I want discuss you.in page of persian Empire in Wikipedia mention Parthian Empire was the second Persian Empire.please note this:ancient persian peoples were Achaemenid and sassanid empires.medes and parthia were aryan race but were not persian. Parthian Empire was established the third ancient iranian Empire after medes and Achaemenid Empire. Fahesh ( talk) 19:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
...and how relevant need it be to the particular request? That is, would similar behaviour on indirectly related articles be appropriate to add at the point that people are starting to do word-counts? Anmccaff ( talk) 18:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me put a cut and paste clip here of a statement you made on Talk:Oath Keepers:
"I note that the editor tagging this article thinks the ADL and SPLC, Salon, etc are far left & I'm not convinced these tags are in good faith (AGF is not a suicide pact)."
To set the matter of what I think about this article straight, I didn't come to it with preconceived notions. I made up my mind reading what I read. I stumbled on the article thinking this was just another article which needed some structural changes to meet Class C or even B standards but the more I read of recent edits and the more I looked at the available resources the more I came to the conclusions I posted. For instance here is a sampling of the 150,000 Google hits for "oath keepers"+"libertarian" link the more I realized that it was mis-categorized. You've got to admit that it carries some weight when at the top of the search is a Mother Jones article.
What I think about the SPLC is a bit more complex and I'd never edit their article since I'm too close to them. Morris is a friend of a friend and I know two of the younger staffers, nice people and I'll leave it at that since we never talk politics, and they're on my side for some key state litigation unrelated to the article. For the record here is a search with about 36,000 hits for the terms in quotes of "southern poverty law center"+"left leaning" link, or the 16,000 hits for their name plus "far left" link. Salon? I've read Salon since before the internet and if you can read them and not think their opinion is spinning to the left, well then that's your opinion. Trilobitealive ( talk) 00:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
Hi, Doug. Quick favor (of a sort I used to ask of Malik, actually): do you mind semiprotecting Yom Kippur, at least through September 23 (one week from today, which is actually Yom Kippur). We tend to get a fair amount of vandalism on holiday articles in the days leading up to the holidays. Thanks. StevenJ81 ( talk) 14:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not the holiest day. Sabbath is, because it is mentioned in the 10 commandments. It is a day of awe originating from the rabbinical auspices. It does hold much importance. Rosh Hashannah, Succot, & Pessach are again more important as they are pilgrimages. Please speak to a scholar before writing about this or other festivals. May I suggest Rabbi Mirvis, who is chief Rabbi of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.85.202 ( talk) 10:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi.the truth is that the statement i made was based on my own scholarship (i can read the original Hebrew).I included the link by way of explanation not the scholastic merits of the author.Can you please explain what makes a source acceptable to you.For instance if i link a similar article by someone with a degree in biblical studies would that be OK? Juda15 ( talk) 20:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Juda
OK.Thanks for your time.I simply thought that my statement which was basically a casual remark on the plethora of opinions one finds when dealing with this subject,obvious.I mean it would be pretty hard to find a quote like that .I believe the article has a very biased approach.Some sections (such as Divine battle vs divine speech)present as fact something that can easily be refuted ,or at the very least interpreted differently. There is no attempt at neutrality at all. NO opposing sources are cited, despite it being a rather controversial subject.I think this needs really needs to be cleaned up. Juda15 ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)juda
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised that no damfool pointed out that one man's Mede is another man's Persian. (Up til now, that is.) Anmccaff ( talk) 02:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I noticed
this and would like to comment that I indeffed them for the legal threat but also stated in the SPI that they were indeed also guilty of socking. If anything, the block should be converted down to 72 hours for the socking if the retraction of legal threats is accepted. I also noticed that you didn't unblock them. :)
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, total mistake. I was trying to fix the formatting mistake (an unnecessary space between the 2015 population estimate and the reference) by doing control+f to find the population section (hence the "pop"), and must have accidentally typed that without noticing it when I did the control+f. I now fixed the original formatting error I was trying to. Hah!
Gossamers ( talk) 20:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't vandalized Stormfront article. Read the Stormfront talk page for more information about my editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent de Lyon ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I have figured out how to explain why I don't like how the article is written. Have you ever read the books of George Orwell? If yes, you might remember the term doublethink. People are supposed to have double standards. While British nationalism are [British] nationalism, Chinese nationalism are [chinese] nationalism, but white nationalism is a violent supremacist organization set out on crusades to kill and oppress. This isn't logical and nationalism don't need to, and very seldom does, contain anything else than kinship. 129.177.179.164 ( talk) 14:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So what if he is a journalist?
Are you the protector of the prestige of the Aztecs.
These are historical facts.
I will just post them again, and again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perico~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I notice you've stuck your nose in there. Thanks, but can you advise on the endless reverts by the anon at 47.x.x.x IP addresses? The article has been semi-ed before over this business; and, as is sometimes the case, I have no idea if I'm edit warring or reverting vandalism. Pinkbeast ( talk) 15:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
For when you see what's been happening on this page and your user page lately. John Carter ( talk) 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Like I stated on the talk page, I didn't have access to my browser's password saving feature on a different computing device. I never edited "at the same time" as Fyddle claimed on the talk page. This morning after waking up I talked on the different talk page without logging in to Wikipedia only because I had just woken up and weren't at my best. That's the "same time" he posited, even though it happened 10 hours later. After noticing the mistake, I corrected it. Other than that, there's a clear timeline of when I had access to my password again. My password consists of both letters and numbers, like it should. In addition, I very early on claimed that I will soon be back on my user account. Oh, and there were two who undid my edits which I simply reverted back once each as in two in total, not in a row and half an hour apart and with great descriptions of why their undo is unjust; which still I believe is the bad edit behavior. In the edits after that I drop some bits I were fighting for or change the wording to work towards concensus progressively. I also declare the changes I have made to my own stance in the description of the edit. This is a much more realpolitik-like way of finding concensus. But even regardless of that I were always very active on the talk page. But I'll take the recommended break from editing. All of this stresses me out greatly. I will continue talking to prove my point, though. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Doug-
Thanks for all your hard work for so many years!
On the Star of Bethlehem page, under "explanations", it crossed my mind that a mention of the Hebrew (and Biblical) cosmology would help to explain the star story. In the Star story, the star leads the wise men, first to Jerusalem (west), then to Bethlehem (south). In our understanding today, No actual astronomical event could do this - especially since it would rise and set, being in different directions at different times. Plus, an actual star would incinerate any house it "hovered over" - as would be needed if a real star were to designate a single house or neighborhood.
However, when viewed as the writer (and his readers) would have viewed it back then, it makes more sense. The Bible is clear - especially in Genesis 1 but throughout to Revelation (6:13, etc) and many more, that the writers assume the ancient hebrew cosmology of a flat earth under a domed sky, with the stars as little lamps attached to the dome (I can provide references/scholarly explanations if you like). In that cosmology, it would have been easy for a star to move along a little ways above the earth, guiding wise men wherever, and then designating a single house with ease.
It seems to me that such an addition would benefit the the Star of Bethlehem page, but I'm a newbie (I've donated, but done no editing I can remember). Do you think I should try to write such an addition, or what? Thanks- Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.163.2.113 ( talk) 20:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
many others our out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.22.122 ( talk) 00:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Doug;
I was working to cite from a book, when my edit kept disappearing. It was part of the history section of the page, and just kept losing the save before I could save the sources cited. Thanks for the message, was not my aim, my aim was just to add new information from this book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xatian11968 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 August 2015
Mile-
I don't know what you mean by "agreement". There are different types of miles listed on that page. I am only trying to contribute. Isn't that part of what wikipedia great, that anyone can be a part of it? Please Doug, I will show you kindness. Please show me the same. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bubbasbro (
talk •
contribs) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
Look, I am unsure what you don't want me to do...
1. just post research...
or
2. just use the sources (Not Dr. Otto Muck but Ignatius Donnelly or other) that they want me to use.
So, how about this.
Can we put the link back in to the discussion at Wiki University that I just posted to today? That way, people could go there if they like. I have a potential author looking at this. There may even be a book here.
The research that I posted was recent, done by the University of the Azores. There are a lot of geologic abnormal phenomena occurring in this area, things that geology cannot yet explain, such as why does the magma samples from the Azores volcanoes get less like that from the mid-Atlantic Ridge as you go toward the mid-Atlantic Ridge?
I explain my theory of what is going on on Wiki University. But from the Atlantis location site, well, you cannot get to Wiki University from there.
SO, to keep peace, can I please have a link from the Location Atlantis site to Wiki University Atlantis supervolcano site where I post a lot so that interested readers can get there?
Please let me know. E-mail me at jgarner812@gmail.com This has already taken more time than it needs to. IMHO, currently, the Atlantis Location site is little more than a support device for what is going on at Thera in the way of research/excavation and the volcano there. But it is only 1 volcano. There are many in the Azores, not to mention the triple plate conjunction with the supervolcano caldera and Mantle Plume feeding it...
Thanks!
Your friend and mine,, LOL...
John G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYLEIGH22 ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a cease and desist message. You just left the following harassing, threatening, defamatory message (in toto) on my talk page. You did not explain to what your threat and harassment referred, but it doesn’t matter, since you were lying and defaming ME, to begin with. I haven’t added “unsourced” or “defamatory” content anywhere. That makes you a liar and abully. 24.90.121.4 ( talk) 15:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
His chapter was about speculation on possible locations of the lost ark - his note about no mention by the Babylonians simply means that they did not view it as a "lootable treasure" and that is about all the weight he gives to the "contemporary" bit. It is not a "learned treatise" by the way ... it is aimed at the "popular market" here. Collect ( talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added advert and unreferenced templates to this article and they have been deleted by a priest of the church. Can you take a look please and see what you think. Dudley Miles ( talk) 22:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hugh George de Willmott Newman - a few sources, but what is "Bisho Persson" - hardly a verifiable source.
Leon Chechemian - hm, it does say "According to Bertil Persson, "Checkemian has not, as has been stated, been consecrated a Bishop in The Armenian Catholic Church." - perhaps that's our Persson - note the OR just after that line.
There are more. The use of notes is particularly bad as they seem to be often just OR trying to prove things.
Doug Weller ( talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Any particular reason why the links you just removed from Kensington Runestone aren't reliable? I'm just curious because the content of those pages has important implications with regards to the subject of the article.
Thanks,
Mizzou1993 ( talk) 21:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Care to explain why you moved Sengupta source under F* and yet claim it's copyvio? what does that source have anything to do with F* found in China? Entire study in about South Asian population. I have pointed it out before, the source you removed is mentioned in the given source, see under "Indigenous and Exogenous HGs Represented in India" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.201.235 ( talk) 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Doug Weller, sorry to disturb your holiday. I have an issue here on Xerxes I's talk page and I would be very grateful if you can tell who is wrong and who is right, and why. I don't want to risk of being banned but I may already be wrong by don't giving up. Thanks. Khruner ( talk) 13:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
isn't twinkle use reserved for vandalism? (i saw you use it to revert an edit that was no vandalism, like JzG.) am i missing something?-- Wuerzele ( talk) 05:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Doug Weller Thank you.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem - and you are quite correct - although it frustrating when an arguement (even one properly cited) has clear flaws, limitations or is just wrong. Here it was just a limitation , caveat that was needed. As I assume you can appreaciate. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 07:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I sent you an e-mail some time ago regarding some external matters. I am far less than sure how the matters involved in it can be addressed now, and would appreciate any input you might be able to offer. John Carter ( talk) 17:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Kennewick_Man
" Kennewick Man Powell said that the Ainu descend from the Jōmon people who are an East Asian population with "closest biological affinity with south-east Asians" rather than western Eurasian peoples".[24]
Source: Powell, Joseph F.; Rose, Jerome C. Chapter 2 Report on the Osteological Assessment of the Kennewick Man Skeleton (CENWW.97.Kennewick). Retrieved September 10, 2011.
It doesn't make sense to include only south asians. - 77.98.238.98 ( talk) 22:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Sir I am sorry if I seemed that way, The truth is you are right however I still feel that that person that I mentioned isn't really trying to help the Wikipedia cause. But the truth is it seems you have noticed this whether you agree or not I am not certain. If you would like to edit my comment that it be civil, than I will accept it. Thank you for your work in Wikipedia :-) Sadya goan ( talk) 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I thought you were going to delete it? OK I removed it (I not available every day so wasn't able to do this till now). OK so let's make it clear, if I feel in the future that this happens again how do I preside?? Again Thank You for all your effort. Sadya goan ( talk) 20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Oh I realized.. never mind I deleted it now Sadya goan ( talk) 20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Renew PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC) George Ho at the moment it seems too infrequent to bother. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Precious again, your not supporting to loose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings,
Hi, i obsrved you have supported article Anthropology of religion well enough. I am looking for support for a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. At this stage, undersigned seeks your help specially to improve defenition and lead sections of the article.
Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.
Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations and dances around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.
While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.
Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.
This request is made to you since culture related topics may be of intrest to you.
Thanking you with warm regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 11:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jedediah Smith. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Doug Weller, and I really appreciate your tips on how to make my Wikipedia article edits better! Wikipediauser993 ( talk) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)wikipediauser993
Good evening Doug Weller, sorry I did not mean to waste your time in my talk page, but obviously the notification has arrived to you despite my correction. And I thank you for the kind words, I greatly appreciated it.. Khruner ( talk) 20:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
hi there, I think I made mistakes in editing the page, do u know what part I've not quoted?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuAUb2AEIoU&feature=youtu.be&t=52m20s - Stubblebine in this Sept 2013 interview states that the information that was in that interview that is used to character assassinate him is used to make him look like an idiot. Various "sources" on his article are intended to make him look bad solely because he questioned the 9/11 pentagon attack. The entire article needs to be re-written to be more biographical than a smear campaign. Marty2Hotty ( talk) 22:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Dough
I totally agree with you, but was an accident! I wanted to leave a message on his talk page, and edited the whole page. Before I saved, he canceled his page, so I got an edit conflict message. I did not want to lose my message, so I used the back button and saved everything. You can check the times of the edits about that. :-( As you say, there is no reason to restore what the others write, and besides that, it is prohibited! MEA CULPA MEA CULPA MEA MAXIMA CULPA. :-) .
Alex2006 (
talk) 17:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about this edit to Analects? [7] Corinne ( talk) 17:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
This has been going on too long and need more of a senior editors input. I was going to possibly try and clean up the article with new sources and possibly changing the name based on suggestions listed in the talk page, but it may be a waist of time as the edits may be reverted. Please give your input on the talk page if possible. Thanks LRappaport ( talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that I was not admonished in [ [8]]. The result was that my action was "suboptimal" (which most of the parties disagreed with, but hey) but it was not an admonishment. I would appreciate it if you considered that in your comments on the current case. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey Doug, how are you doing these days? Hope fine! :-) I was wondering, what is your opinion about Percy Sykes and using his publications in history-related articles? Definite no-go, right? Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 15:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Sintra_Arunte-Bronte -- Muzammil ( talk) 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The Shaolin Monastery article states, “In the past, many have tried to capitalise on Shaolin Monastery fame by building their own schools on Mount Song. However, the Chinese government eventually outlawed this; the schools were moved to the nearby towns. However, as of 2010, the Ta Gou kung fu school, one of the largest martial arts schools in China, owns and practises on land below Shaolin Temple. Current 31st Grand Master of the fighting monks is Shi De Yang, a disciple of the late abbot Shi Suxi.”
My first reaction was a bit of shock. In a nutshell this paragraph says that many schools tried to “captialise” (sic) on the original Shaolin Temple (original historical entity) but the government outlawed this with the exception of one school which “practises” (sic) below Shaolin Temple. Then out of the blue it mentions Shi De Yang, giving the impression that he was one of those who broke away from the Shaolin Temple and started the the Ta Gou kung fu school attempting to capitalize on the Shaolin Monastery fame.
Shi De Yang is too important of a character in the Kung Fu world to leave this vague statement. "Shi De Yang continues to reside in the Shaolin Temple, absorbed in his studies and teaching there and is head master of the fighting monks in the Temple. However, he has added the management of his external school, Shaolin Wuseng Houbeidu, to his duties." [9]
Either this should be explained or references to Shi De Yang removed. It is important it be realized he is still part of the Shaolin Temple.
We could go back and forth adding and deleting, but to save time would you please carefully study my position and make the necessary changes. It would be much appreciated.
Thank you. CWatchman ( talk) 07:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. And the way it was written could easily lead a casual reader to assume Shi De Yang was grandmaster of one of the schools attempting to capitalize on the Shaolin Temple. It was just poorly put together.
By the way, what is Wikipedia's position on English and British spelling? I am assuming "capitalised" and "practises" was either added by a Brit or was a misspelling by someone in the states. Just curious. CWatchman ( talk) 21:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #114
Why exactly did you revert the article Ambrosius Aurelianus to a unsourced version and eliminated sourced additions? Dimadick ( talk) 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually most of the previous version of the article provides no sources, primary or not. I have already asked you to provide sources for it. Be my guest, add them to the article. One think I have not done is claim ownership of the article. Dimadick ( talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have Zheng He on my watchlist and I noticed you had reverted a change to it this morning. In checking out the diff I made an error, thinking it was an invalid reversion (blame it on a lack of coffee). On reexamination I realized my mistake and undid my mess (reverted my reversion of your reversion - whew!).
In any case, your fix still stands and I wanted to apologize if I caused any confusion.
KNHaw (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, can you please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LouisAragon/Archive#23_November_2015 . I have mentioned you there, regarding your this message to LouisAragon ( talk · contribs). I am 100% convinced that he is engaged in active sockpuppetry (both the IP and his user page indicate Netherlands as the location). This lengthy writing about me by User:Human10.0 and this lengthy writing about me by LouisAragon make it pretty obvious that both is one and the same person. The following confirms it, LouisAragon stated to someone in 2014: "You seem to have severe inferiority complexion. But I don't blame you as you're an Afghan" and now Human10.0 states to me at the end of 6th paragraph: "(I say "your nation" because you are Afghan).". He is not WP:HERE to help the project but to sock and fight, and fill Wikipedia with his nonsensical opinions. [10] Btw, I never revealed to anyone my nationality. Thank you.-- Krzyhorse22 ( talk) 20:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could consider User_talk:210.3.38.33's behaviour. You have blocked him before and his behaviour shows a long systemic abuse of the project, in fact it appears almost all of his edits are nonconstructive or abusive. I seem to have attracted his abuse of late, and as this is a work computer several others may cop his unwanted attention so I don't want to publicly request some kind of big fandangled inquest or .. idek what the proceedure is but I'm avoiding even logging in because I don't want this grommet to fixate on my user account and find my social networks from it, etc, but yeah the guys spamming articles with stuff like 'kkk jesus white power' or other insightful gems such as here here he randomly adds 'anal sex' to sentences, or arab two girls one cup among others. This has been going for years it seems.
The dude's a failtroll. He has a history of several years of abusive posts. And yet he is still allowed to edit freely. Please, please re-visit your ban on his IP, it was righteous first time around it's just unfortunate it ended. 121.211.33.244 ( talk) 06:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Kmp42, I am new to editing Wikipedia, and am only editing anthropology pages for a graduate level class. I do not know how to go about redirecting the Genetic anthropology page to the Molecular anthropology. The genetic anthropology page should be redirected because it technically is the same field as molecular anthropology. I was hoping you could help me with this, but is will try to redirect the page by myself. I am not too familiar with most of the editing and maintenance processes..... Thank you. 23:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmp42 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Doug Weller, AraCrap (166.170.48.56) wants to play edit war but I don't want to. Seriously speaking, is it possible to put up some temporary IP-range filters? Or maybe introducing a rule in ClueBot which can recognize and revert his stupid adds? It's ridiculous that nobody could do anything with this. Khruner ( talk) 14:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you please semi-protect Narmer? some 166...- IP is trolling there. Regards;-- Nephiliskos ( talk) 22:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Is currently ruining the page on Ancient Egyptian architecture. Could you protect the page/ban his IP? He currently uses: 166.171.122.176. Iry-Hor ( talk) 21:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
And back again... [11]-- MONGO 22:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case where is the peer reviewed citation saying it was a human skull? There is no citation (or it is an error state)
The page on Lloyd Pye discusses in great detail a variety of subjects. The wording i changed is factually correct as in it comes from having read the content and i have used my own words to input the information. The page, whether peer reviewed or not, gives the DNA results as performed by a professional institution. They are a matter of fact and of record. This page at least deserves to show ,factually, what is reported in Lloyds page and without the sleight towards sarcasm and the false claim that th skull was human when it is a matter of fact that it wasn't human
And since it is an informational page, why would anything need peer reviewed. It should state lloyds beliefs and views as opposed to actual provne peer reviewed facts. Its about him and his views and his journey which included him being a part of getting the DNA tested and publishing the results on his site
Why would you NOT want to have a page about Lloyd be factually correct about his beliefs views and life??
Are you saying we need to have all our opinions about anything peer reviewed? Do you have any pages on Gods or Deities? Is there proof of a God that has been peer reviewed that i missed?? Can beliefs be peer reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haggisnneeps ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi please come to this page. Arman ad60 ( talk) 07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
What can you tell me about the book, Worlds Together Worlds Apart? I believe I have run across one of those "new users" using this book. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
...and since you mentioned the name, I thought you'd appreciate the following if you haven't read it already... [12]. I love WP because it affords us an opportunity to continue learning. Atsme 📞 📧 21:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What is your opinion concerning this edit and the sources;
As I explained to the IP on Isabella I of Castile's talk page, that the only reliable source was the Alkire source. And, that the Alkire source does not support the paragraph in question. Sorry to bother you with this, I know you are busy. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So...special asst. to prez, isnt obama? I think youre uneducated. I think that, because I bothered to read, as you can too. And its NOT AT ALL about UFO's - tho Mr. Schoch would like to educate in that slanderous direction. How about quantum physicists? Do only Rocket scientists or nuclear physicists fly for you? I have viewed every single video on those two official/non official site links I gave, and the word UFO does not exist in ANY of them. From where do you get this misled info??? (I dont do UFO!) Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC) http://starburstfound.org/bio-for-paul-laviolette/ http://starburstfound.org/letters-of-support/
there are TWO more links I could have put, if not for your rude censorship bigoted robot. Also may have to do with my MENSA membership. from the link above BIO: He is the developer of subquantum kinetics, a novel approach to microphysics that not only accounts for electric, magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces in a unified manner, ... (like, holy crud, Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC) doug weller) see the bottom for the asst director of a nasa division, and the 2 senators letters to national science foundation. Senator Kennedy, ever hear of him?
I see now. Youre educated via WIKI???? Ho ho ho. May want to update a page for this very well respected scientist so you can become more informed and its apparent you used WIKI as your source (OMG, its user submitted). Why not be fair and give the man a proper page, with the accolades I just supplied you with? Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC) You might also learn that Dr. Osmanagich was given a similar congressional letter from his local :(TX?) rep. This is just absurd how youre demeaning this important find; it is no longer 2006 infancy, its very far advanced now. Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
UFO: subject for the uneducated about 1950s hover craft created by US gov featured in last Oct or Nov. Popular Mechanics after being declassified, complete with a photo provided by said gov. Dont compare Paul La Violette to the woo woo likes of Giorgio Hairopolis or any of these other youtube idiots -- youre rejecting a link to a scientific international conference due to being hosted on Tube to be seen, equals woowoo?????? Think again and VIEW it before you leap to offensive conclusions.
Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC) PS Im screenshotting your comments and forwarding to Mr. La Violette, absolutely shocking. Letterhead330 ( talk) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Link titleLetters of Support
Superwave Theory
• Letter from Senator Packwood to the U.S. National Science Foundation
• Letter from Senator Packwood to the U.S. National Science Foundation
• Letter from Christopher Lehman, Special Assistant to the President
• Letter from Dr. Korotkovitch (Leningrad) to the National Science Foundation
• Letter from Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts
• Letter from Sir Crispin Tickell UK Mission to the UN
• Letter from Wilbert Chagula, Tanzanian ambassador to the UN Cosmology
• Letter from professor Georges de Vaucouleur, University of Texas, Austin
• Letter from professor Jean-Claude Pecker, College of France and professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, director of research CNRS
• Letter from professor Jean-Claude Pecker, College of France
• Letter from professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, director of research CNRS
• Letter from Grote Reber, father of radio astronomy
• Letter from professor Paul Marmet, National Research Council of Canada
• Letter from professor Dean Turner, University of Northern Colorado Feeling Tone Theory
• Letter from professor Karl Pribram, Neuropsychology Laboratory, Stanford University
• Letter from professor Walter Freeman, Division of Neurobiology, UC Berkeley
• Letter from professor Ted Packard, Chairman, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah
• Letter from professor Richard Rowan, Director of Counseling Services, The Evergreen State College
• Letter from Dee Dickinson, Coordinator, New Horizons for Learning
• Letter from Hazel Henderson, Co-Director, Princeton Center for Alternative Futures Aerospace Technology: NASA Space Plane Correspondence
• Letter from Charles Morris, Asst. Dir. NASA Aero-Space Plane Program
• Letter to Charles Morris, Asst. Dir. NASA Aero-Space Plane Program
Requests for Information
• Institutional affiliations of people requesting information on Starburst research (1984-1989) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterhead330 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No you are not right. I am not in an edit war. I have good relation with Mr. Eperoton. Actually he told me to do the edits in the main article. He just asked me a question and I have given him the answer. Nothing more than that. Arman ad60 ( talk) 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Bowman Creek/archive1. Nergaal is - in my view - unfairly abusing Jakec for nominating an article at FLC which he does not consider interesting. Dudley Miles ( talk) 00:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If you insist on having a disambiguation page at this title, please fix the incoming links. If you find these links are unfixable because they refer to the concept of the Persian Empire, please restore this to an article, or tag it as an SIA, since the concepts are not unrelated. bd2412 T 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
New user. Naive and uneducated in Wikipedia culture and procedures. I've never made an entry, but read your entry on "Worm Theology." I generally agree with the entry, and I would suggest/add that worm theology in Christian circles has its Biblical roots in Isaiah 41:14 and Psalm 22:6. In the Psalm the author writes he is a worm and not a man. The context of the Psalm is suffering and affliction in the light of God's holiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.73.97 ( talk) 10:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you have noticed and reverted some edits by a user who, in all but two edits according to this contribution page, plugs a book named "Worlds Together, Worlds Apart" along with not-very-useful-looking changes. Do you think anything more should be done? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caste system in India. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Five Suns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nahua. 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) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Doug,
While I agree this shouldn't be used as a "real article" (I think it was just fine priorly), ever since it has been changed to a dab page it has caused extensive content problems as numerous dab bots have changed everything that formerly stated Persian Empire (an historical entity created by numerous empires based in what is modern-day Iran) to Greater Iran (a loosely defined ethno-cultural region). This is simply not correct, yet it has already been mass-changed on every article that used to have the dab link of "Persian Empire" [14]. I had brought up the concerns to the bot owner who afterwards reverted the changes back (resulting in the links now having been de-linked) but right now its still an issue. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 09:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on this source;
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The editor removed my edit on the Almoravid page claiming that he can find several "reliable" sources that proves that the name Almoravid comes from the name Al Muribatin. We reject this claim and asks the editor to cite just two reliable sources that conclusively shows his position. Sheik Way-El 17:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El ( talk • contribs)
Can you take a look at [Mawlid] and the My tirade, I mean discussion, at the talk page. Islam related it is, so help you can provide. I am mightily pissed off at the moment about the blind reverting going on perhaps you can lend a hand. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Doug Weller,
I think this request might get buried under all of the verbiage above but I was hoping you could review your block for
User talk:Chrisdunn1. He states that he has sent in information confirming his identity to Wikipedia and I was wondering if you would have access to this. Thanks if you could take a moment and see if this block can be lifted.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Chrisdunn1 ( talk) 14:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You reverted my corrections and I may not have a problem with it , but could you plz be a bit more accommodative if I question your explanation to ' my motives '. rahila 17:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Chrishitch All I meant is that you've probably seen it that way elsewhere, nothing sinister. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Thanks for the effort.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In regards to your subtle but snide remarks: "ok, here's the relevant quote, that was almost as easy as tagging." I am surprised by your touch. Did you try to blame me for unnecessary tagging? Keep in mind that it took you the time that it did only because you were familiar with the source and/or had access to it-- not me (at least, at that time). This was not a drive by tagging ( WP:DRIVEBY). It is as if you are trying to keep people away rather than creating a welcoming environment for new users ( WP:BITE). Rosario ( talk) 12:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller, thanks. I suspected that this has been the experience with that article. The best it could happen is that a team of editors would semi-protect it while working on a better structure. But, we can only wish. I am aware of the program. It is on my to-do list. Thanks again. Rosario ( talk) 16:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please advise. Semitransgenic talk. 17:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I think that in the last days Darius I was - and still is - a targed of some kind of "fanboy" activity. I actually suspect that the edits were made by a single user with multiple accounts. Khruner ( talk) 14:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed
your edit to
Corduene. I'd agree that not everything verifiable should be included
and we should avoid giving certain points of view
WP:UNDUE emphasis. Perhaps
Cyril Toumanoff's opinion on Carduchian dynasties should be lower in the article and not in the lede. But I'm surprised you felt it appropriate to completely delete this information, which appears to accurately summarize Toumanoff's opinion. Our article on him says his works have significantly influenced the Western scholarship of the medieval Caucasus.
I have no particular axe to grind about east Anatolian history, but it seems better to include this view (and others that disagree or concur) than to cut them out. Frankly, there's little scholarship at all on Corduene, so the more we can do to separate solid history from nationalist myth, the better.
Rupert Clayton (
talk) 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Could you please take a look at Talk:Ancestry of the Godwins. An IP keeps vandalising it. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #186