This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
184.21.53.242 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), at least I am 99% sure it is Marburg, they are editing warring to revert to one of his 166 range socks and it geolocates to near his physical address in the Mandeville/Covington La area. He iro 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Doug,
Why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated by Nielsen's falacies and why did you decide to post this on the eve of my new show? This has all the appearance of malice on your part. The papers you cited are based on a 3D study on the KRS he won't allow anyone else to see and including the Runestone Museum who he tricked into letting him do to the study in the first place. Why do you think it is appropriate for him to comment on my geological work in the first place, he's not a geologist? Have you asked yourself why he has reversed himself on the work he once endorsed? This is clearly a personal vendetta that you apparently have been sucked into.
Your post is inaccurate and inappropriate, please remove it.
Scott Hookedx ( talk) 17:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Scott, it isn't mine, it's Deb ( talk · contribs)'s. And Deb is definitely NOT Nielsen, look at her edits. The editing is not part of a personal vendetta. You need to read WP:VERIFY. You can complain about a source at WP:RSN or your article at WP:BLPN if you think it violates WP:BLP, but what you can't do is simply remove criticism because you think it's wrong, part of a vendetta, etc. As the subject of the article you need to be very careful what you do, and this sort of editing will end up with you being blocked. I'm glad you stopped removing the material. Hopefully one of the volunteers from the Foundation will reply to your complaint but as that's handled by volunteers and it's Christmas it's hard to say how fast they will respond. Dougweller ( talk) 17:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Doug,
I am tired of this; please remove the entire listing and any reference of my name on Wiki. I will not have my name or research questioned based on fraudulent research. It's not Deb's fault, but I don't care to waste anymore time on anything related to garbage. Please remove my name from Wiki completely.
Thank you.
Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookedx ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised to see in the editsummary of this edit that you called that vandalism? I almost did that myself, because I think the tag was placed unjustly. Just that I decided to first resolve the issue on the talkpage. But to call it vandalism? By the way, since you were there already, perhaps you'd care to comment on the talkpage? Debresser ( talk) 23:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see this diff it may change your mind in reards to User:Eshwar.om's not engaging in Vandalism ?
RTPking ( talk) 18:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
What is my necessity to be logged out to edit when I am editing the article myself ? Please make you required tests and be sure whether I have / heve not edited by logging out. I am willing to undergo the test.
RTPking ( talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I had my suspicions, but basically I was too busy to check, especially as it was prodded anyway. Thanks for deleting and letting me know, merry Christmas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
History2007 (
talk) 12:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Dougweller! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Mangoe ( talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
All the best for the season, from dave souza, talk 15:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the holiday wishes. Merry Christmas and happy new year! — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
And thank you for the message. Hope all is well with you, four family and friends. Be safe!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Seasons greetings to you, Doug, and yours, thanks to timely technical assistance from Nableezy!
Nishidani (
talk) 07:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Admin,
If you look at the archives of the talk page of Richard Dawkins you will see how much effort has been put on trying to achieve an agreement for inclusion of criticism. Many experienced and unbiased users have posted their comments there. Many notability criterions for inclusion has been proposed. However, I doubt the consensus is ever achieved regardless of how reliable the source of criticism and how notable the content is. For instance, you can look at the last piece of criticism that was added from a book published by the Yale University Press and was cited by an academic secondary source. The edit was reverted on the sole basis of lack of consensus by an editor who -until a few days ago- thought the ciriticism of Richard Dawkins is mostly driven by conservative christian dogma and who is unaware of the necessity of having criticism in the article per WP:AUTO and WP:CRIT. I am writing this to ask you to reconsider your decision of redirectng Criticism of Richard Dawkins to avoid all this waste of effort and study for finding reliable sources and notable material in the last few years. The way I understand Wikipedia, opposing an ideology is never a good excuse for banning the inclusion of independently published academic texts.
Yours Truly -- User 99 119 ( talk) 08:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Dawkins attack to mainstream was followed by responses from different authors. For example, Terry Eagleton wrote: {{blockquote| Indeed, Dawkins seems to nurture a positively Mao-Like faith in faith itself - in the hopelessly idealist conception, for example, that religious ideology (as opposed, say, to material conditions or political injustice) is what fundamentally drives radical Islam. By contrast, Robert Pape's well-researched study of the subject, based on every suicide bombing since 1980, casts consierable doubt on this assumption. [1]
User 99 119 ( talk) 15:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it is more appropiate to indicate at what point in the text one should refer also to some other article... -- Againme ( talk) 14:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that someone with experience has managed to get round to looking at Madurai. As I said on the talk page, if it had been me reviewing the thing at GAN then it would not have passed in its then state. I fear the same may apply to the recently-nominated Tirunelveli. - Sitush ( talk) 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have Ucucha's tool installed - see the link at Talk:Madurai#Sfn_citations - and it seems to show a sea of red on many occasions due to misuse of {{ sfn}}. It was one of the several point I made in the immediate aftermath of the GAN. That article is still a mess: mutton dressed as lamb. - Sitush ( talk) 15:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the card. Belated best wishes to you and yours too! In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Leveratto needs to be added to a deletion sort notices. I am not sure which are the best, but that may generate more input. History2007 ( talk) 16:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry. I misunderstood the copy right en re a conflict of Interest rule in a "close relationship" with the subject. " I do not have a close relationship with Hank Harrison. I Just took a snap and assumed I would be able to post it. I would like, at this time, to withdraw my request to post a photo of Hank Harrison. zendogg@gmail.com ( talk) 17:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete the polygraph results as long as Mr. Harrison is under attack by Courtney's minions. He told me he does not need a wikipedia page and wants the entire page removed. zendogg@gmail.com ( talk) 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to archaeologist Sarah Parcak. See View History of wp:Tea. (",) 72.185.16.86 ( talk) 23:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
He's back. See the diff [1] on my talk page, his only edit so far. -- Drmargi ( talk) 07:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You blocked ערבי טוב זה ערבי מת ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious JarlaxcleArtemis sock. The user name is Hebrew for "A good Arab is a dead Arab" , and I think this should be hidden. My request to UAA was rejected as the account is already blocked. Could you please handle this? RolandR ( talk) 12:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The best of greetings to you and your family too Doug! ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
( 84.100.243.163 ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)) Dear Dougweller, the text in the article devoted to the De interpretatione you reverted on the 22 d of December was no paste/copy. Save perhaps in the last four lines that are blackened, no original research manifests itself . This I propose to you as a compromise: the removal of the blackened passage. I draw your attention to the fact that the logical hexagon is something known now in the literature. Gregbard created the corresponding article some months ago in wikipedia.
The logical square, also called square of opposition or square of Apuleius has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning, as follows: 1. "Every man is white" - the universal affirmative 2. "Not every man is white" (or "Some men are not white") - the particular negative, negation of "Every man is white" 3. "Some men are white" - the particular affirmative 4. "No man is white" - the universal negative, negation of "Some men are white". Robert Blanché published with Vrin his Structures intellectuelles in 1966, and since then, many scholars think that the logical square representing four values should be replaced by the logical hexagon which by representing six values is a more potent figure because it has the power to explain more things about logic and natural language. The study of the four propositions constituting the square is found in Chapter 7 and its appendix, Chapter 8. Most important also is the immediately following Chapter 9, dealing with the problem of future contingents. This chapter and the subsequent ones are at the origin of modal logic. [ Perhaps Blanché's hexagon is particularly useful in the domain of modal logic, in so far as it explains clearly the nature and importance of the bilateral possible. The notion of "bilateral possible" is crucially important to understand both logic and natural language when applied to modal values.]
Please don't distract discussions by introducing strawmen, as in this edit: [2]. Nobody had suggested that I or anybody be given special consideration as an experienced editor---certainly not the license to block indefinitely editors without needing to provide evidence enjoyed by administrators. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller:
You are right that I have a connection with Riane Eisler, and this is why i updated and corrected the page (I had not seen it before). There is a definite need for updating and correcting this page, and I did this precisely because i am familiar with her work.
I do not understand where there is a conflict of interests in this, and would greatly appreciate it if instead of just deleting what i spent a great deal of time and effort on to make the entry more informative and accurate, you would let me know what you object to in the edits. I will then proceed accordingly. I look forward to hearing and wish you all the best, David Loye — Preceding unsigned comment added by David loye ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
PS. I am a novice re editing on this site, and would appreciate your response re what i need to do. Here is my email;
[Hidden by Odysseus1479 ( talk) 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)]
I have just spent another half hour bopping around this site trying to figure out: 1. how do i sign this message (it says unsigned) 2. where do i enter my email 3. how can i retrieve the edits I made 9I did not keep a copy and they took a long time and lots of effort0 4. most important, what is needed to legitimize my edits thank you, David Loye — Preceding unsigned comment added by David loye ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
You're always a good guy. That's saying a lot. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Orangemike took care of Cherokee calendar, so problem solved. Happy New Years! - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
You said you'd come back to do some editing of this article based on a source you found. Do you still plan to? -- Elvey ( talk) 21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing
warning or blocking templates, as you did to
User_talk:Elvey apropos Earthquake prediction. Doing so is a violation of
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the
user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. In particular, I have looked at your warning on my talk page, and appreciate the input, but it looks to me to be misuse - quite out of line. Such warnings should be used with due care. Sentence one of EDITWAR:"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."
I'm going above and beyond to do the latter - "resolve the disagreement by discussion." I've actively engaged in discussion, whereas, in contrast, all other recent reverts were not accompanied by talk page comments, but did you warn those edits' editors? What warning would be appropriate? And I've put forward various solutions to try and reach agreement. It's not much of a discussion when I'm the only one talking on the talk page, but I've done my part and then some. Only to the extent that I need to be aware of 3RR when reverting even when it's clear there's an unwillingness of the other editor to engage in debate, I do see the warning as potentially apropos, but I don't think I've even violated 2RR, even in that situation. If you disagree, please let me know where my reasoning fails, OK?
I and other editors have not only provided a ton of evidence of notability (~5-6 RS citations) for the Coren research I added. Furthermore, I've painstakingly explained how the ton of evidence provides the notability required by policy, despite confusion of other editors regarding something else, "scientific notability" being the appropriate metric, and where I see they've gone wrong.
Lastly, but importantly, take a look at the content of the edit that I'm defending, and the additional sources I added to the talk page. The implication that I'm pushing pseudoscience as The Truth is just baseless when one looks at the content I've actually contributed. So I'm doing better at following policy both with respect to how I'm editing and interacting with other users and with respect to the content of the edits than the other editors I indicated. Couple more things: J. Johnson is alienating many editors of this article, and several have laid well-founds accusations of OWN violations; maybe I should take a break, but if anyone needs warning or more, it's JJ. Final point: my last edit to the article was not a revert - in whole or in part - BUT for some reason the edit summary indicates it was.
Elvey (
talk) 07:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 09:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Reverse immigration in the United States has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Just FYI.
Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)
(talk)
(contribs) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in this article. I originally, years ago (2007, I think), introduced the Lilith material, without the caveat about the controversiality of the timing of the allegations. An edit war ensued. An admin User:MPerel helped work out a consensus. Over the years, although I personally think the allegations need no caveat, I've tried to maintain the balance established by my initial edits and the caveat.
You're right, the refs backing the caveat, as you found them, were inadequate. I've reintroduced the caveat per a quote from one of the existing refs (which I've referred to in my edit summary), and one new ref, which I've similarly summarized in my edit summary, and one new ref where I've "hidden" the quote I'm relying on in the code.
If you start a new thread on the talk page and can help achieve a new consensus for removing the caveat, I'll agree. Happily. But short of that, please consider leaving things as they are, with the new refs you've prompted me to find and add. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello dear Dougweller,
as a user i have a problem, and i hope you can help me. I have uploaded a map, which is made by Professor M. Izady, Columbia University, USA. This map is describing the linguistic composition of middle east. And I have added that to wikipedia (Article: kurd ) or ( kurdish language ), in all languages in wikipedia. But a turkish fascist user, who hates kurds, delated my map. I did “undo” but now my commons picture ( the map ) is removed “becoz of licenzing”. I think, it is done by the same fascist user ( takabeg ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Takabeg
And now I don’t know what I can do against this vandalism. Here you see my scientifical source and the link to Professor Dr. Izady’s work in Columbia University.
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.jpg
example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language
I thank you for your help and info. Best regards, Sagapane Sagapane ( talk) 19:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thank you for your explain, i just have sent a message again to dr. Izady, it will work :-) new happy year Sagapane ( talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I decided to create the page so that other editors and anonymous can find the page more easily(?) and edit/expand it. If I did something against Wiki policies, I'm sorry. BTW, the text from that page is copied from his facebook page, I guess.-- Hydao ( talk) 14:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, would you help with a developing edit war on the article Ecclesiastes? There's an editor who insists on reverting to his own version and makes very little attempt to discuss on Talk. Havensdad is the problem - two other editors have posted on Talk, but they haven't been edit-warring. PiCo ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: this comment by you, Denzil Ibbetson is one of "my" rescue jobs, improved from some mostly unsourced stuff. For the full monty of Raj social engineering, H. H. Risley is more complete example. What a bunch of twits; and no wonder I tend to reject Raj sources in Indic articles! - Sitush ( talk) 12:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Please, come on. Stephen Latchford is my great-grandfather. What I'm trying to do is shed some light on his history, on his life. The reason I took out some personal information is because some of his relatives weren't too pleased about that stuff being online and wanted the article to be about Ste3phen Latchford himself only and not his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abmaoja ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Please review the recent edit history of this article. I'm trying to explain myself in edit summaries, but I have no wish to see this devolve into an edit war and the other editor seems to be ediing his relative's article with a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP David in DC ( talk) 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, is there any way to get this diagram of the ancient Israelite cosmos for wiki-commons? I'd like to use it for articles like Biblical cosmology and Genesis creation narrative. (You'd be surprised how little I know about the mechanics of Wikipedia).
And yes, I'll stick with the Talk page on Ecclesiastes. PiCo ( talk) 08:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm reasonably close to this incident, so let me lay it out a bit better. Jerry Weast was very controversial in his day; it's not surprising that people take potshots at him. That said, I would tend to read what went on as a bit of percussive sublimation: I wouldn't take the findings seriously and would understand that he was kicked upstairs and made to get rid of his business in order to snuff out the scandal. I therefore am inclined to reduce the material a lot, but not necessarily excise it entirely. Mangoe ( talk) 16:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As suggested, I read through his userpage; also his talk page.He certainly seems to possess very firm ideas, which are perhaps some way away from the norm of thought, even for those of us who subscribe to a mainstream religion. I feel that so long as he restricts himself to his own pages we should take no action - you could make a case for deleting his userpage as being outside the policy guidelines for a wiki userpage, but as it is essentially incomprehensible dogma I do not see it doing any harm; and his talk-page is, of course, his own. But I do agree that we should be very rigid in preventing any OR or POV content from slipping into mainspace, and should be fair but firm in warning or blocking as appropriate should his editing overstep the mark.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
No, those IPs are not mine. One is from Brazil, the other I have no idea. -- Hydao ( talk) 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course close paraphrase is out and using the actual copy-paste as a starting point is a total no-no. I din't mean to suggest that in my edit summary, although, as you point out, it could easily be interpreted that way. In any case WP:SPS already disallows almost all of the content in whatever form it was presented. Mathsci ( talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Ashrf1979 ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Ibrahim888 Deletes a photo of the currency because it proves that the Uyunid dynasty was a Muslim Shiite This behavior is very bad And damages the credibility of the article and its neutrality words written on the currency is (Ali Wali Allah) It is a proven Shiite faith of the Uyunid dynasty It's like a cross for Christians All other Shiite dynasties wrote the same words(Ali Wali Allah) on their Coins (Fatimids, Safavids and Buyids) I'm sorry because the source is in Arabic & My English is weak But you can verify the validity of these sources from neutral sources
http://up.arab-x.com/Jan12/vaM04902.jpgfmt
http://arabic.rt.com/forum/imagehosting/27443_01301471123.jpg
http://www.jasblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bahrain2_thumb.jpg
This is the problem You do not speak Arabic In fact they allied themselves with the Seljuk for a short Time But they turned against them And killed Bakosh Seljuk Sultan's brother (Malikshah)Was mentioned on Ali bin al Mugrab Al Uyuni in one of his poems. Abdullah bin Ali Al Uyuni Arresting and killing Bakosh Then the extermination of the Seljuk garrison ,After that Sultan Malikshah sent two thousand troops to punish Abdullah bin Ali These forces surrounded Al-ahsa one year But in the end, Abdullah bin Ali defeated those forces and expelled from Bahrain, Ibrahim888 The only display one page of history To say that this page is all history This is a wrong thing.
I'm sorry, my sources in Arabic and I will try to find the source of the English language But I think it's good that someone neutral Check my sources and other Side sources
(بعد الانتصار الكبير الذي حققه عبد الله بن علي العيوني على خصومه، أحس بأن القائد السلجوقي (البقوش) ينافسه على السلطة، حيث بدت مطامعه السياسية تتمثل في رغبته بإزاحة عبد الله بن علي، وانتزاع الأحساء من يده، فوقع الخلاف بينهما، وتطور إلى الحد الذي دفع بالأمير عبد الله بن علي العيوني إلى أن يقبض على القائد السلجوقي (البقوش) ويسجنه، ثم يأمر بقتله بعد ذلك.
أثار نبأ مقتل البقوش حفيظة الخلافة العباسية المتمثلة بالسلطة السلجوقية التي اعتبرت أن قتله تهديد لسيادتها ونفوذها على بلاد البحرين، التي تعتقد أنها أصبحت جزءاً من ممتلكاتها. فما كان من الخلافة والدولة السلجوقية إلا أن سارعت بتجهيز جيش قوامه ألفا فارس بقيادة القائد السلجوقي ركن الدين[11] ، الذي وصل إلى الأحساء وحاصر عبد الله بن علي لمدة عام كامل استمرت خلاله المناوشات بين الطرفين، وبعد أن مل جنود السلاجقة من طول الحصار، خرج لهم عبد الله بن علي ومؤيدوه الذين تمكنوا من إيقاع الهزيمة بهم، وإبعادهم عن الأحساء[12] .
يقول ابن المقرب ذاكرا هذه الواقعة:
والشركسية إذ جاءت تطالبنا
دم البقوش وفينا تَقْسِمُ القسما
كما قال أيضاً:
ضربنا وجوه الشركسية دونه
وأقفاءها بالسيف حتى تثلما)
Sources:
نايف بن عبدالله الشرعان ,نقود الدولة العيونية في بلاد البحرين ,صفحة49,مركز الملك فيصل للبحوث والدراسات الاسلامية 2002/1423 Nayef bin Abdullah Craan, coins of Uyunid state Bahrain, page. 41, King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, 1423 - 2002.
د. فضل بن عمار العماري، ابن المقرب وتاريخ الإمارة العيونية في بلاد البحرين، ص 23. D.fadal Ben Ammar Amari, bin al Mugrab Al Uyuni and the history of the Uyunid emirate Bahrain, p 25.
Hello, I am an Arabian historian who has been studying the Uyunid dynasty for more then 15 years. Al though my English is not the best, I try very hard to make sure that, wrong or fake information does not go out there which then gives people the wrong idea of what the Uyunid dynasty was really all about. Which was what this person Ashrf1979 was doing.Most of the information I have put in the article are translated from arabic.
I have valid documents and many reliable sources that indicates and shows that the Uyunid Family was Not Shia. When they defeated the quainins they negotiated with the Shia minority that lived in Bahrain that they must obey the rules of the Uyunid dynasty, who lived in al ahsa were it was a Sunni population.
The Uyunid family was a Sunni family from the start of Islam to this day. It's like the Bahrain royal family and the Bahraini Shia population. It was exactly the same, just because they ruled over Shias did not make the family it self Shia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim888 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Ibrahim888 ( talk) 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Burdi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Alliance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, saw that you had removed some non-links from this list. I notice that there are quite a few unlinked people still listed. Presumably those should be removed too? Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this article needs to be locked down. My reference stating they were Sunni was removed without explanation. Such edits usually initiate edit wars. I see no reason why User:Ashrf1979 can not use the talk page to explain his/her edits. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Ashrf1979 ( talk) 04:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)I provided two sources confirm my opinion And I can provide more And you remove a photo coin And you remove the image coin because they reveal the falsity of the claim. Ashrf1979 ( talk) 13:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)I also have sources confirm they are Shi'ite Muslims These sources are authors Saudis and Sunni Muslims Because we did not agree I suggested to ignore there religious beliefs I proposed to delete the reference to religious sect I suggested that writes in the article that they are Muslims and Arabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Armenianism#Cemetery_vandalism_in_Jerusalem -- Երևանցի talk 21:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Judging from this edit [8], it would appear that Bahrani people needs to be protected and the talk page utilized. I have yet to see user:Ashrf1979 post anything on either talk page. It appears user:Ashrf1979 and user:Ibrahim888 are edit warring over the Uyunid dynasty, Bahrani people and List of Sunni Muslim dynasties articles. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree! But, that is because Ashrf1979 would not prove any if his points nor will he/She talk on the talk pages. When Ashrf1979 edits he does not say why he changed this thing that I have a very clear and verified sources of, he would delete and change it without explaing why he did so. He has a wrong understanding of the subject and he is very keen in his idea. Ibrahim888 ( talk) 05:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller I fail to see how you draw the conclusion that I am involved in an edit war on the Theresa Spence page, when I have performed only one revert on that page, hardly a war!. Please explain how one revert is classed as an edit war? You have also chosen to deleate my reverted text without providing a reason other than the "edit war" excuse,please explain why you deleated the reverted text?-- Syncmaster941bw ( talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg | Have an enjoyable New Year! | |
Hello Dougweller: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
New Year! Cheers,
Northamerica1000
(talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
There are plenty of scholarly reviews that not included in the article positive and negative it would be nice if someone improve the article with scholarly material [9].I can provide you the full text sources if your intersted.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 15:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I
Since you were initially part of the discussion on the Uyunid dynasty article, could you give your opinion to my latest idea? I have proposed using the source I found and removing the "coin sources" and some obsure book by Al-Amari(which has no quote or page number), if no evidence is provided within a week. Thanks! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a video of Yates being interviewed discussing the Melungeon results he conducted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyW0Y85lho The above interview was for the TV Station KCSG and here is a link to their website: http://www.kcsg.com/
Here is another link on it: http://melungeons.com/articles/jan2008.html
The above site was one of the first websites specifically for the Melungeon research back in 2002.
This is a link that goes to the DNA report in it's entirety: "Toward a Genetic Profile of Melungeons in Eastern Tennessee," the study was co-authored by Donald N. Yates" https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yMvCaOMHRigJ:dnaconsultants.com/images/Article_Toward_a_Genetic_Profile_of_Melungeons_in_Tennessee.doc+Middle+Eastern,+Native+American,+Sub-Saharan+African+and+Iberian+ancestry+within+our+Melungeon+descendant+sample.&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMq5_hu9yMQthoTRus7W4pPIlei34voS_XuvQpny3_TkafDjxVbARBz9razXGe9qaby2a33AL2wdvrbIT41acurq0i64a3RQFy05AOx0FKtiFetEYWFYa7mfFQxBTBMZ06kHsQ&sig=AHIEtbTZxf2Puj66uR3gSiI3C5TjHzpqYg
This was also in The Appalachain Journal Vol.38 num.1
Appalachian Journal - A Regional Studies Review
Appalachian Journal, founded in 1972, is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed quarterly featuring field research, interviews, and other scholarly studies of history, politics, economics, culture, folklore, literature, music, ecology, and a variety of other topics, as well as poetry and reviews of books, films, and recordings dealing with the region of the Appalachian mountains.
http://appjournal.appstate.edu/issues/volume-38-no-1
Here is another link to it: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/55796144/toward-genetic-profile-melungeons-southern-appalachia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 07:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not sure which of the links to use, the google docs one lets people see the article in it's entirety, the other link was article wrote by Yates talking about the report, and then we have the peer reviewed pubished link but it does not let us read it fully. The other link is right the news station but it is a youtube link so it can not be used. So which of these links meet's wikipedia's standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 07:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can I clean up/revert such things from the talk pages? Do users/editors have right to clean/revert edits on the talk pages? Where should I report such behaviors? For example please see this talk page, this one, and this edit. Specially comments by these three users: 1, 2, and 3. Full of racist, insulting, hate speech, and anti-ethnic comments plus personal attack directed at editors (specially a specific ethnicity). How can/should I deal with them? Thanks. Zheek ( talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I want this diagram of the ancient Israelite cosmos for Wikicommons - it can illustrate Biblical cosmology and Genesis creation narrative and other articles.
The blog where I found it is kept by James McGrath, who is an academic in the field of biblical studies. That vouches for the drawing's accuracy, but only just.
The drawing was done by a graphic artist named Michael Paukner. Paukner has messaged me that he's happy to have it used provided he's identified as the artist/copyright owner.
Problems: being on McGrath's blog isn't really much good as proof of its authenticity, and I gather Paukner actually deisgned it for something called Logos 5 bible software], who might therefore be the real copy-holders now - I'm not sure how copyright works (I'll try and contact Logos 5).
Do you have any suggestions? PiCo ( talk) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the recent Theresa Spence-related disputes. Thank you. RedSoxFan2434 ( talk) 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 18:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Howdy. "Marine" and "marines' is never a proper noun unless it is modified by some sort of modifier thingee. Further, I am not sure if ol' AJ said the quote or if he wrote it. I suppose it would make a difference. In any case, I will adopt my middle road default as I do on minor disagreements; I will not change it, but I will not object if others do.
In any case, my valiant fight against overuse of capital letters goes on. Thank you so much for noting my work. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 07:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Americas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norse ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if you knew how Asa Goins' picture became used as the picture for Melungeons on the wikipedia page? I wrote more about who the man in the picture is on the Melungeon talk page. The man was never traced to the Melungeons. Asa Goins came to Hamilton county, Tenn in "1843". His parents was Jackson and Jennie Goins of Georgia. The Goins of Georgia was never traced to any of the Melungeon families, there is no records of any melungeons in Georgia. There is no records of who the parents of Jackson and Jennie Goins either. All that is known is they was born in Georgia in the 1700's. Which would make them no relation to any Melungeon families. There is no mention of anyone in this family called Melungeon or traced to any Melungeon families. The first and only time the word Melungeon was attached to Asa was in a book wrote in 2001 which was based on assumption due to the Goins name. The picture itself was taken in Graysville,Tenn not Hancock or Hawkins county, Tenn. When people see this picture on a page about a family from Newman's ridge, it gives a false image. Directly under the picture of Asa Goins it says "Originally in the vicinity of Cumberland Gap (East Tennessee and Eastern Kentucky. Later migrations to throughout the United States)". You can check google or anything else on "arch goins" and "asa Goins" and confirm that this guy and his family was never a part of these Melungeon families or near the Melungeon area. I figured I would bring this to your attention since you watch the Melungeon page alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I tried to trace the origins of that picture some more, the original submitter is still a unknown person who apprently passed it off to a barbara goins. It is not Asa Goins as originally thought. Barbara list it as Arch goins 1920, but other descendants of Arch says it is not Arch goins. I tried to trace these Graysville families to the melungeon families in hanockc county or hawkins county and closest i could get was grainger county without marriages to the known melungeon families. I added all i could find to the melungeon talk page. Personally I think the 1890 published and confirmed melungeon photo of Calloway collins would be a better photo since there is no confusion from any melungeon researchers as to where he was from and no question that Caloway was defiently melungeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Page 36 of North from the Mountains a Folk History of the Carmel Melungeon Settlement, By John S. Kessler, Donald B. Ball, http://books.google.com/books?id=7JIiaLRS4VMC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=%22a+typical+malungeon%22&source=bl&ots=Yxl3f3bh_Y&sig=GdpWlrtc2ZluhcsF82VZwHCrnys&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXjwUMu7HYb62gXv7oCgCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22a%20typical%20malungeon%22&f=false
This image of the newman's ridge melungeons should be used for the image of the melungeons since it is verified and was published in 1890, thus making it published before 1923. Will Allen Dromgoole (October 26, 1860-September 1, 1934) This means the life plus 70 years of author standard is met as well. What is your views on using the original image for the melungeon page? I have a copy of the original sketch.
It is also in "The Arena, Volume 3 By Benjamin Orange Flower, Harry Houdini Collection (Library of Congress)" on page 470-471 http://books.google.com/books?id=5m7XAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA470-IA1&lpg=PA470-IA1&dq=%22a+typical+malungeon%22&source=bl&ots=iRFB7aeBpP&sig=1MsDiXpjv5-f6v5MUm9RxU-9IrE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXjwUMu7HYb62gXv7oCgCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22a%20typical%20malungeon%22&f=false
You can also find it here: http://www.archive.org/stream/arena26conggoog/arena26conggoog_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller, you indicate on your user page that you're a member of Wikimedia UK and I was wondering if you'd be interested in an event that's been arranged for February. Wikimedia UK is committed to supporting our volunteers and to encourage them to teach others how to edit Wikipedia, we are running a weekend training workshop that will take place on the weekend of 23–24 February in Newcastle. Also, if you know anyone based in Scotland or northern England who might be interested going to the training please feel free to tell them about it. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 22:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Replied, ck ur email. He iro 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick thank you Doug and to your fellow wiki admin editors that you have got to help out on the Dwygyfylchi page. Much appreciated, keep up the good work. Ta :) Only Stone tools? ( talk) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you please help to protect this page from persistent sock puppetry. It has been targeted 5 times now by sockpuppets. Thanks and best regards.-- Tritomex ( talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
First off, thank you for handling the situation with the legal threat. Quite honestly, I wouldn't have known what to do about it if I had seen it before you banned the IP address. I do have a question, though. What should we in regards to Innocence and Nicholas Jarecki working on it, or not working on it. IMBd credits him as the co-executive producer, but after looking for another source I came up empty handed. What do you propose? AndThenTheySaid ( talk) 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug. FYI the Ebionite duplicate/Fork page has been recreated again. John Carter is most experienced with this area so have left message on his Talk page, hope he'll pick it up. In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you think this qualifies as a misleading edit summary, possibly sufficient for the starting of an RfCU? John Carter ( talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussions are progressing . Please go through the logic and supports for dating Vedic Period, Rigved, Ayurved etc. as 10,000 years old. I would like you to comment. Sudhirkbhargava ( talk) 02:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You put the discussions on dating of Ayurveda on Reliable Sources/ Notice Board. Discussions are progressing there, please comment Sudhirkbhargava ( talk) 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion about a possible rename for article Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) which we are discussing on the Talk page. Editor2020 ( talk) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure that I understood the problem with this source. What do you mean by "copyvio" and the original one? This article is from Fairlady, July 2011's edition. It has been written by Leandi Cameron, with the collaboration of Dr. Jeeva. These informations are available on it. According to WP:NEWSORG, it seems pretty reliable to me, since both Fairlady ans Leandi Cameron are pretty well known and considered as professionnals. Would citing Fairlady's article "Can we have your attention please?" by Leandi Cameron, July 2011, p.60 instead of the website work? I don't see anything in WP:RS that goes against that. What would I need to provide for it to be accepted?
Pol9 ( talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I just saw that copyvio means copyright violation. Yeah, that's right, it's not the original source. The original source, though, can be downloaded from the official Fairlady website and the index is available without download. If I cite the Fairlady article itself, it should be ok then? Am I wrong? What would I need to put in the ref tags? Pol9 ( talk) 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As Jimbo's page has now archived that thread I'll post what was going to be my reply to you here:)
Tito Dutta ( talk) 06:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, could you please take a look at this and take whatever action you think is appropriate? I'm involved. (In case Doug isn't around and there are any talk page stalking admins who feel like looking at it ...) Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I must admit that I'd forgotten all about that. I was still aware the article existed of course but as there's been no activity there for a while, so it faded away from my consciousness. Thanks for remembering and restoring the content. Paul B ( talk) 19:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I just reverted your revert on the IBC article and forgot to explain why. Sorry. I think it's great to have a picture of an IBC certificate and it seems to me that the poster's intentions were good. Having read the article the certificate refers to I don't think it looks at all promotional! Cheers Gillyweed ( talk) 03:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you a Pagan or Heathen? 1. It was National News that Mark Stinson shamed Asatru by stealing from his own mother. 2. Bear Rollins practices Druidry and holds the Rank of Master Druid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzerker1982 ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
None of Ping Pongs statements are of value because he is not smart enough to mind is own business.
Bear Rollins did have a page, but some little Christian Nazi like Doug over here, deleted it. Then they said that someone who works with the Military is not important, that someone who helps Vets deal with PTSD is not important, that someone that the leader of a International Druid Order is not important, and that someone who works with the disabled is not important. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Berzerker1982 (
talk •
contribs) 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
KIMO Industrie-Elektronik GmbH The creator of this article is apparently the contact person at the company viz. http://www.alibaba.com/member/de112028362/contactinfo.html The article looks like an advertisement for the company. I was unable to find anything about the company on the German Wikipedia. Do we need this here?-- Zananiri ( talk) 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Over time a lot of articles on Islamic History have appeared on wikipedia that are very relevant to Islamic history and are important events in Islamic history and could do with having links from the main Islam page so that the main article flows and people could also click on the link and find out more. I have provided a lot of citations and most of the citations are from the Quran and authentic Hadith books from the early days of Islam and all denominations of Islam agree on these events. All I have done is weave everything that already exists on wikipedia together so that people could get a complete view. I have spent a lot of time and effort on research and linking things on Wikipedia together. I spent months researching these changes so that I could tie everything together and went through a lot of books. I would appreciate it if you could un do your delete of my changes. John
Thanks for getting back to me. I did not copy text from the other articles. Extensive content already exists in other articles in Wikipedia. I have just linked to the more relevant articles of these from the Islam article, after verifying it is correct and all the different denominations in Islam and the historian agree with it. For the sentence " Muhammad advocated equality and justice as could be seen in the The Farewell Sermon and in the Quran" I was trying to explain significant events and the reasons why divisions only surfaced after Muhammad passed away. I put a link to the The Farewell Sermon as this is a significant article on WikiPedia about Islam and talks about Equality of Mankind and shows how Muhammad managed to unite the people. There are many independent books on this and I could put in references. The quotes from the Quran also talked about equality. In the places where I put the quotes from the Quran it was not to prove something but just as a reference if some one wants to see where it said that in the Quran. I could change this and add more references, that is OK. I could change all the areas you want me to change. Thats fine. Its good that you are policing the article. The changes I made are agreed to by all the denominations in Islam and the Historians. Many of the books I used were famous books around 1400 years old.
Just get back to me when you get a chance. I could make the changes required. I was just trying to make the article flow better and be informative.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for fixing my talk page. Have a nice day ;) btw: I will study those WP:BLP rules... Hamnavoe ( talk) 19:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, here's another one of those create-delete-reappear articles: Huon deletes January 2012 (previous edit is yours, as also your comments) the Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews back again June 2012 with a nearly identical title and content. Very time consuming. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to notice you have tagged the article here , with notability tag , arent the reference provided suffecient enough ? (yes they are in different language but still a valid print from the magazines ? . Shrikanthv ( talk) 07:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, I left a message for you here a week ago. I'm just letting you know that there's been a change to the details of the training event if that influences whether or not you want to go. The response from the community is that a different location would be easier for volunteers to get to. As such the training session will be held in Manchester on the same dates. If you're interested please take a look at the event page for further details. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 14:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
You reverted the whole version instead of editing the parts you are not comfortable with. If there is a controversy about a person usually it goes to a special page with an explanation. There is no real proof of M.A.'s controversy so please be objective and admit it. If you want to edit a Controversy part of an edit and you have links proving it, feel free. But you revert the whole edit you only show that you are not here for truth, but for promoting ambivalent and libelous edits offered by Moni Aizik's competitors. Romayan ( talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You're an admin, so surely you must have a lot of experience dealing with cases of interesting IP editors... should it pique my interest that this one rather passionate IP editor on our favorite page seems to be quite familiar with the concept of OR? (see here: [ [12]]). I know the term wasn't in my lexicon back in my newbie days, but I thought you might know better if that's a sign of something or if it's actually not that unusual. -- Yalens ( talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, Ret.Prof left an urgent message on my talk page, but I am tied up today with RL priorities (like playing with my grandson). Could you please patiently explain to him, on his talk page, whatever it is he did wrong and how to make it right. Thanks. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you Speedy D the article page of this wip page Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip? I should have pasted the merge content to the wip talk page, and I have fixed that now Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip. Thanks. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
If anyone would benefit from an RfC/U as an instructional tool, it is Ret.Prof. I don't think he is being disingenuous when he says he doesn't understand what he did wrong. I recommend that he voluntarily recuse himself from further editing until an RfC is concluded. I would not want to see him blocked, since blocks are used against people forever on this encyclopedia. I will initiate the RfC/U if you will be the second. It will give several editors with a history of encounters with him a chance to clear the air. I am proposing this RfC as someone who wants to see Ret.Prof do well and make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megalithomania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fringe ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug everyone of my edits are legitimately sourced, relevant to the article sections that they are being put in, and backed by others. Since you have a problem with my edits, why not address ANY of the issues that I've raised and points that I've revealed on the talk page? The childishness and biased judgements on your part needs to stop and I will talk to the appropriate officials if it persist. [13] Asante90 ( talk) 19:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added a note at at the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binayak_Sen. Please check.-- MohitSingh ( talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, can you help me with the revdel of latest edit by user 86.179.66.208 on my user page? I consider this RD2. Thanks, SchreyP ( messages) 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Every few months I type in the names of 2 or 3 articles I've created just to see how many views they get. Just typed in Mississippian culture pottery [14]. The article on 2 separate days this month(16th and the 20th) got over 450,000 hits per day. Did I miss something in archaeology news that went mainstream last week or is there something I'm missing here, lol? He iro 16:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Dear Dougweller,
Thank you so much for being such a great collaborator last year! I really enjoyed working with you on our editor engagement projects and I hope we'll get a chance to continue this relationship in coming years. Your guidance and insights mean a lot to me. :) If you would like to keep in touch more often, I invite you to join our editor engagement mailing list, where we discuss initiatives that support new users and experienced editors on Wikipedia. We recently opened this list to the public, so we could have more frequent conversations with valued community members like you. To join us, you are very welcome to sign up here. And if you haven't already, I also encourage you to contribute to the current discussion on whether or not to deploy Article Feedback v5 widely on the English Wikipedia ( see RfC). Because of your familiarity with this tool, you are in a unique position to present an informed perspective on its potential benefits. Note that we are adding a few final features recommended by the community, such as simpler moderation tools and better filters ( see project update). Thanks again for being such a wonderful advisor -- I look forward to more collaborations with you, to help make Wikipedia better for all of us! Regards as ever, Fabrice Florin (WMF) ( talk) 19:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hello. The disruptive IP/User [16] in Archaeogenetics of the Near East has been causing problems elsewhere and exceeding 3RR. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_in_multiple_pages_.2F_3RR_.2F_Sock-puppetry Cavann ( talk) 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Mr.Dougweller, I was not familiar with the fact that there was a matter of copyrights, in the article of Akhtar Hussain Malik, anyway I am grateful to you for this favour of reference to Wikipedia policy, and I appreciate your help in this perspective! As I am new to Wikipedia, this will help a lot to become a good editor at Wikipedia!
Best Regards, Faizan Sarfraz Al-Badri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanal-badri ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
... here. -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 14:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey all; another newsletter.
That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Johnleeds1 ( talk) 16:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Left a message regarding the Islam Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advise and I need helps as I never wanted to misuse wikipedia for my own benefits. NickAang ( talk) 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have reworked the whole article and was wondering if you could proof it for me. Networkperson Networkperson ( talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to get back to you on that. Yea, the author was Nyland herself. I remember it being added some year ago. As I recall, she did publish some of her researches in a legitimate publication. I must admit, I left it in because it was interesting. All the other commentary on the book seems to be about the Hittite and Mitanni languages. Paul B ( talk) 19:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please check this user contributions and behavior. All of his/her edits are just POV-pushing, blanking, and introducing nonconstructive edits/errors to the articles. You warned him/her before. his/her talk page and edits. Check and verify the articles he/she edited. All of them are reverted. Zheek ( talk) 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yaboyabo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ark ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
My understanding of External Links is that they are just that, and so create no COI. In a page on Ford automobiles, for example, one would expect an external link to FMC's own page extolling their cars, so long as this was not used as an authority for their superiority in the article itself. It could, however, be used as an authoritive source for the fact that they claim superiority in some dimension. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 19:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wikpedia format guide calls for explanatory and citation footnotes to be in a section called "==Notes==", with "==References==" reserved for a list of referenced sources. If I change "==References==" to "==Notes==" and add "==References==", will footnotes still find their way to "==Notes=="? Or should I just try it and see what happens? HuMcCulloch ( talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you removed DnaTribes analyses on this article saying "it is not a reliable source". But on the other side, you left IGENEA which cannot be considered as more reliable.
Indeed, IGENEA, same kind of company than DnaTribes, reconstructed DNA profile of Tutankhamun, based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel but the Y-chromosome of King Tut has never been published and DNA profile displayed in Discovery Channel documentary may not belong to the Pharaoh. Indeed, according to Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tübingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible"...
So if you want to "stick to peer-reviewed studies" you have to remove IGENEA as well... 90.36.167.101 ( talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC))
Sorry, that's my mistake. I didn't notice that vandalism was made by multiple IPs. -- Make cat 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the revert to earlier vandalism. As I recall that there were some intermediate edits and I was trying to revert one of those that was also vandalism. Obviously, there was even earlier vandalism that did not handle. It's good to get a reminder to check on whether there was even earlier vandalism to an article. I have seen it a few times before. I think I may occasionally assume a revert takes care of a problem with an article. While usually true, it is not always the case, especially if the earlier vandalism was done by a different user or if one needs to use undo rather than rollback because of intermediate edits. Donner60 ( talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thanks a lot - I give him an answer. It's just the Brazilian political sewage effluent discharging into Wikipedia... - Al Lemos ( talk) 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug, Sorry for thed confusion, I haven't submitted for a long time but I've worked on it and would like you to look at it before submitting the rest of it. I did edit today, I put in all the stations with market/format/station freq. The formatting didn't come out very well. How do I submit something for you to review before I actually edit on Wiki? Networkperson ( talk) 22:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Well, I (sadly) expect to see attempts at self-promotion. What I don't expect to see is the welcome extended to it here. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 01:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Doug. This article and User talk:SuzanneOlsson are on my watch list. Suzanne has just now restored a link to her own web site at www.rozabal.com. It should be evident from the discussion on her talk, at Talk:Roza Bal, and at WP:COIN#Roza Bal that she doesn't have consensus for this edit. She has received many warnings which she has chosen to interpret as people being mean to her. Your name has appeared on her talk page, so perhaps you've been following this. I assume you are too involved to take admin action yourself, since you've edited Roza Bal. Do you have any suggestions of how the matter should be followed up from here? It seems to me that a filing at AN3 or ANI would be possible. I had my finger on the block button, but I see that none of the regulars have asked for admin assistance. My previous statement to her at User talk:SuzanneOlsson#WP:3RR can be viewed as a final warning. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 05:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Please use more caution when summarizing your edits. See the history for Natural Bridges National Monument. You reverted four edits by User:Eyreland but the summary says you reverted my edit. I realize it must have been an oversight and no reply is necessary. – droll [chat] 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear who wrote the material from the Teeter book. Chapter 16 is by David O'Connor and heavily cites Bruce Williams. Chapter 9 is by Bruce Williams. There is no great mystery as to who wrote portions of the Teeter book. It is very clearly stated in the book (each chapter and many pages). Therefore, it would be exceedingly biased for you to remove the Teeter citations on these grounds and if you do I will add them back. There is hardly a better source on Earth to discuss these points than Bruce Williams and people that relied on his work for their subsequent findings. Rod ( talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I have expanded this lil' curiousity and I wonder if I could put it on a candidacy. What do you think? Regards;-- Nephiliskos ( talk) 18:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Wiki-decorum prohibits me from saying what I think is up with this, but I am staying the heck away unless the actual content of the article starts going haywire. You are the copyright vio man, so if this is lifted from somewhere, I'm assuming we are not entitled to reproduce it at such length. It is, however, fringe nonsense, and I've been unable to trace it through searching key phrases. It's also worth noting that the user account was created with this post. Cynwolfe ( talk) 21:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As per Natural Bridges National Monument : I do not remember getting any of the text from any source document that had a sovereign copyright. With Canadian, Australian and NZ geological research it is fairly easy to find this out but a lot of US sovereign copyright text leaks into other places. The US is in such a state of internal collapse these days, I am amazed sovereign copyright is even able to hang on at all.
I checked my own edit list, something you could have done and this text you wrote appears not to be true:
My security intelligence sources tell me a few near Tzar bomba like devices are already in US major cities and could be set off by .li for any reason. One hopes these rumors are not true, but in a failing nation state rumors are sometimes more reliable than outer sources. Eyreland ( talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller. Since you had warned this user to stop his disruptive editing like 3 months ago, I want you to know that I have now reported him to admins: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#EMr_KnG. He is a "man on a mission". Currently, he is busy copying the (Anatolian) Turkish name of various articles in the first line of each of them, even though the Turkish language has no relation to that article (for example Sher Shah Suri or Akbar). His user page already proves everything. Regards. -- Lysozym ( talk) 10:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I'd love to look at something else. But I need a third party to help me with some very bogged down discussions on E-M215. Can you help? I think some of it comes down to how to work on Wikipedia.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Just some notes:
@@===and a technical question=== Just a question for my info concerning edits of yesterday. I noted your remark that I was on 3R. I had no intention to edit at that time anyway, but I was surprised. I looked again and I still only count 2r?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You have been kind and helpful to me in the past, so I wonder if you could please help me (and others) again. A page that I often contribute to was vandalized recently by a user whose talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.46.182.126
I did some research and found out that this user has a very long history of vandalism on Wikipedia, and since he/she exposes an IP address, I wonder why it has not been blocked yet. I believe vandals should be discouraged from making senseless edits instead of being allowed to get away with it forever. Is there anything you can do, please? Thanks in advance... P.S. If you don't mind, please reply on my own talk page to ensure that I see your response. Dontreader ( talk) 23:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping an eye on this User talk:Heironymous Rowe#Need help with the Wikipedia process of verifying a resource and adding a citation, User talk:Japerez#Taino people edits and the "Jatibonicu", and 173.61.231.157 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not on Wikipedia a lot right now and don't really want to get drawn into another confrontation with that seems like WP:FRINGEY, possibly promotional editing by what appears to be a member of the organization they are seeking to add into the article Taíno people. Maybe your leveler head can help them before I step in it again, lol. Best wishes and thanks. He iro 02:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I would like to request the removal of 3 alterations in the revision deletion. My reason for requesting the removal is under the following criteria.
Criteria for redaction
2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs.
It effects 2 web pages
Ryedale School
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ryedale_School&oldid=534666187
Posted on 24th January 2013 by 83.100.176.226 at 15:42
Offensive material posted about Head teacher and staff.
2. Pocklington School
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pocklington_School&oldid=534665908
Post on 24th January 2013 by 83.100.176.226 at 15.40
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pocklington_School&oldid=534665714
Posted on 24th January by 83.100.176.226 at 15:38
Please could you remove these postings they are offensive and serve no positive purposes.
I hope this is clear enough I'm not very computer literate!!!!!!!
Thank you
Jill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.66.196 ( talk) 09:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I currently work at LATIMER FX, Inc. and handle all of our web content. I completely understand the point of conflict of interest which is why I made sure to have each fact and sentence is a quote from another article, website, book, or journal. We try have all online usernames similar to maintain consistency amongst sites, however in this circumstance it looks to be not the best approach. What is the next step to preserving the article of Jason Latimer? Create a new Username? And then resubmit the article? Please advise, possibly review the article and let me know what changes need to be made. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latimeronline ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I spotted that while you were writing the message and took it it off. I created a new username, DURBACH, under my name Daniel Urbach in order to separate myself from LFX. Although I am on the Latimer FX website I felt my name alone was the best option. I then went through and deleted any information that was leaning towards promotional in any shape or fashion just to make sure. The went to my sandbox cut and pasted the code to it and resubmitted it...but I can't tell if thats done yet. I probably have to go back in and redirect it from User:DURBACH/sandbox to Jason Latimer. (Or at least it looks like that now) Can you please review? And then the next step is how do I get everything to look clean again without any notices at the top? Thank you so much for your time. Truly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DURBACH ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to review? I want to make sure everything is the way it needs to be. You mentioned there was some minor stuff that needed to be done with Latimeronline, I just wanted to follow up on that. What is the next step? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.41.225 ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Thank you for deleting the two postings for me Can you do the third - on 24th January at 15:38 user name 83.100.176.226 - Pocklington School thank you Jill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.193.183 ( talk) 13:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
New Section Here Pink Slime Revert
Um I reverted Pink Slime to an earlier version because I didnt like what the user, directly before me listed on the edits, did with it, calling the ABC a liar seemed wrong for wikipedia, and when I said stuff on the talk page it disapeared. Kane Caston Kane Caston ( talk) 18:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug. What's the rule re BCE vs BC? I made a revert at Canaan because I thought the former value neutral for a global encyclopedia, and after checking round, which only (given my hopeless ability to search wiki) indicated no decision has been made? Cheers Nishidani ( talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Was an honest mistake, I found several sources in the news suggesting today was his birthday. Apparently not, thanks for the catch. Not vandalism however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesmurry ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 02:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Many practicioners of biblical minimalism deny that they are minimalists and claim to stand in the righteous middle. However if acts like duck, walks like duck and quacks like a duck it reasonable to assume its some type of duck. Devers repeatedly denies being a duck but he sure sounds like one. His own colleagues point this out and call him out on it. Philip Davies refers to Devers as a crypto minimalist. Professor Philip Davies “The End of Biblical Minimalism?” University of Sheffield, England Dec. 2011 Others in his profession refer to Devers as a closet minimalist. He does in fact practice minimalism and at the same denying it. Devers has a strong dislike for the label applied to him yet at the same time he labels and accuses others in the field. So before you go willy nilly undoing everything to suit your preconceived notions correct what needs correcting and do not do whole deletions. This is what gives Wiki such a bad reputation in academia. There are to many academically unvetted administators who have only a limited knowledge if hardly any of areas they pretend to. I do not know your background so this may or may not apply. There are many people with a great deal of free time to spend all day on wiki and thus rise in the wiki culture. This does not make them credible or knowledgeable. This is one of the inherent weaknesses of wiki. It is vitally important to police oneself if the goal is the spreading of accurate knowledge. So my suggestion is to go back and look at what you did and see if there is a better way of going abuot it. Thanks P.S. I do not have the time to spend debating and going back and forth. I am much to busy with my studies. I do however have influence that can positive or negative and I would much prefer positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheasantpete ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug,
Please review my addition to the Anubis Article - section - ==Dissenting Theories and Popular Misconceptions== Please comment on the format I used. Also, it there a standard title I should use for sections the discuss the misconceptions present in popular media? Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I'll drop by every so often for more advice. Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 05:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes we should probably both warn him and give ourselves a large helping of trout, or in my case Arctic char, for not doing it before. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I have recently published a book called Thera and the Exodus, from which I attempted to list some topics on Wikipedia. You removed these for the following reasons: "Reverted to revision 535705872 by Dougweller: not a significant view, author is an electronic engineer, publisher publishes "publish titles on general spirituality".
Just a few remarks. Although this publisher specializes in spirituality and related topics, he also publishes books scientifically oriented books like mine. Books in this field are usually considered to have a limited sell range in terms of numbers and mainstream publishers are in general not interested. I was delighted to eventually find a publisher of my book, but the fact that this particular publisher now counts against me (in terms of Wikipedia articles and listings) is a huge disappointment for me. In fact, I will probably not consider O Books for my upcoming books if it prevents me from participating on Wikipedia. By the same token, I can fully understand that everybody can nowadays publish a book and you cannot allow just anything on Wikipedia.
Is there a process which I can follow to get you approval for contributing to Wikipedia? I have a PhD in Engineering and I am therefore fully aware of the scientific method. My book is extremely well referenced and there is nothing 'spiritual' in it. When does a view become 'significant' enough to be allowed into Wikipedia? Do you need a recommendation by acknowledged authors or authorities, can I send you and/or other Wikipedia administrators a copy for evaluation? Anything I can do, or is this the end?
With kind regards, Riaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur ( talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I have recently published a book called Thera and the Exodus, from which I attempted to list some topics on Wikipedia. You removed these for the following reasons: "Reverted to revision 535705872 by Dougweller: not a significant view, author is an electronic engineer, publisher publishes "publish titles on general spirituality".
Just a few remarks. Although this publisher specializes in spirituality and related topics, he also publishes books scientifically oriented books like mine. Books in this field are usually considered to have a limited sell range in terms of numbers and mainstream publishers are in general not interested. I was delighted to eventually find a publisher of my book, but the fact that this particular publisher now counts against me (in terms of Wikipedia articles and listings) is a huge disappointment for me. In fact, I will probably not consider O Books for my upcoming books if it prevents me from participating on Wikipedia. By the same token, I can fully understand that everybody can nowadays publish a book and you cannot allow just anything on Wikipedia.
Is there a process which I can follow to get you approval for contributing to Wikipedia? I have a PhD in Engineering and I am therefore fully aware of the scientific method. My book is extremely well referenced and there is nothing 'spiritual' in it. When does a view become 'significant' enough to be allowed into Wikipedia? Do you need a recommendation by acknowledged authors or authorities, can I send you and/or other Wikipedia administrators a copy for evaluation? Anything I can do, or is this the end?
With kind regards, Riaan
Thanks Doug, understood! I should have read your links more carefully. Regards, Riaan
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pyramid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tura ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the message. I removed Ayyavazhi from the major world religions template simply because it is not a major world religion. Rather, it is a localized phenomenon in a small part of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. It has extensive coverage on Wikipedia due to the disproportionate efforts of one individual. There is a whole range of discussion on the relevance or lack of relevance of Ayyavazhi on the talk pages associated with it. -- Akhipill ( talk) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious. Does a quote this long qualify as a copyright violation? John Carter ( talk) 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
First I will make it Mandatory to put at least a Notice on the page to inform the Creators that put efforts in WIKIPEDIA of Creating articles before some inexperienced in Life and out of misplaced zeal, decides to disrespectfully delete big chunks of the text. They should have put their intentions like they should do and that it is usually done by experienced professionals.
Second, when they take the initiative to delete a paragraph they should consult with others on that mater. There has to be a Democratic vote on what to take out and what to leave in the page. And not one person who, with his good intentions ends up vandalizing it.
Third, do not take it lightly what you delete, be special careful on everything that you take out and double check your stuff to make sure your not mistaken in your judgments or interpretations of the Law. Be respectful and do not Discourage Creators that put an effort, treat others like you wish to be treated. It is not like I have put garbage in Wikipedia.
Forth, Tell your selves, is this material of interest to somebody. If it is not for you, it may be for somebody else. Is it garbage, is it vandalism, is it misinformation. etc. For copyright material, I understand, but for "Primary Source" that is outdated WHERE THE CIVIL and International LAW itself Permits on Reproducing it, Reediting it, reprinting it, etc. it is unacceptable (we are not in school, plus Wikipedia is free of charge)
Fifth. What I can see of Wikipedia is it lacks the "Balls" of taking the responsibility of promoting and accepting "Original Ideas". The Ideas has always to be referenced from somebody else work or already published by another "ENCYCLOPEDIA" with "Balls" to backup it up. LEARN it.
Sixth, "This Primary Source" philosophy has to be Immediately PUT DOWN because of the bias it represents. Plus it is not Constitutional. It opposes Freedom of Speech. If I want to put the whole Bible in Wikipedia, or the Civil Law in it, or the Torah, or the Zohar, or the Scientific papers. etc, I cannot because of this Policy and yet there is tones of Wikipedia pages that are "Primary Sources" but it gets somehow subjectively accepted anyways. So you see that this in not Constitutional, because it is so bias, it opposes Freedom of the Press and at the same time there is an injustice that can flow easily form it. Do you understand what I am trying to do, I am working so that the world we are living in, be a more perfect and peaceful place. Do you oppose that? Are you with me or against me?
Seventh, The editors that edits other work of creators, have to be certified to do so. Plus they have to create at least some good articles of their own. They have to be accounted for especially it they lack the wisdom and respect. Unless this is what they want to do by purpose, to discourage, to misinform, to infiltrate by night, to Control the Media, what should be said and what should be not and how, for political agendas. We must not be naive to believe that all people are saints.
These are the first Seven Perfect Points to draw a Perfect Magic Circle, six on the circumference and one in the middle. Men can Achieve that Men can Conceive for a perfect World. -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 05:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 02:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and I will make sure to review what you've shown me - I remember using Global Vision as a source and I had no idea it was a problem. Anyway, I've made a lot of edits in the past few weeks and I don't quite remember where I put these. Can you point me to the page to which you're referring? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You apparently !voted both support and oppose in the same section. I assume your oppose was meant for the proposal above, but I'm not totally sure, so I decided against boldly moving it. Just letting you know. Thanks! :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you advise me on correct procedure? I created an article Amburbium before I realized there was an existing stub amburbia (plural; the singular is more common). I would like to turn amburbia into a redirect, and I don't see any content that needs to be merged into the newer article. Does there need to be a "merge history" performed for amburbia, or do I just turn it into a redirect, since no content was transferred? Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at Talk:Adnanites. Please see Talk:Adnan#Arabic_source_needs_a_translation which lists other articles where you may be able to repeat the same cleanup. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller--please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.D8.A8.DB.8C.DA.A9.D8.A7.D8.B1_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_Final_warning.29 (hope this link comes across properly). Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Just making sure you had noticed I replied to you emails several days ago. He iro 20:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Please check your inbox. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, due to copyright infringement you have speedily deleted the article I recently wrote about the film, Deadmeat. As far as I remember everything on the article was paraphrased and sourced with independent references, with the exception of the plot summary, which I wrote myself after viewing the film. Are you able to clarify excatly what copyrighted material I am culpable of adding to the article? Tanbircdq ( talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
Not sure what I did to deserve it, just doing what everyone else is doing. But thank you. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 03:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for interrupt, a user named User:Bobbi1988, who contribute unsourced music genres, just like Pink songs.
Block him with no expiry set (unlimited).
P.S. If someone needs unblock him, just don't unblock or just reblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofpyrus ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been following the progress of the article of Jason Latimer and the tags that have been place on it. I saw the the COI and the one about the wording and I totally understand and I am waiting the whatever process that needs to happen on that. What has caught my attention is something I figured I could ask you. There is a flag about the notability of the subject. Could you please take a look at it to see if its been inappropriately tagged? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DURBACH ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I took this matter to WP:ANI. I'm pretty sure this user is not here to improve the 'pedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LeaderforEarth1. Cheers, He iro 01:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
DougWeller - Many thanks for taking action. I could not help wondering whether "FastfromLight" and "StarMagicxxx" might in fact be the same person. -- DLMcN ( talk) 05:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller. As an occasional editor at G.H.E, can you please comment [23] in regard to my suggestions. Regards Slovenski Volk ( talk) 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, Circumstances in general events of Life have led me to take special notice of your Profiling-Being more specifically and the Intentions behind your work with the Wikipedia community. I would like to ask you questions in the order of thought patterns analysis if you do not mind.
Question #1 : Let's say we are 50 years in the future. If I tell you, what Wikipedia will it be like on that time? Will it be more then what it is now, will it be shut down by the Government in pretense of National Security or for economic reasons. Will it grow to be able, like in StarTrek, talk to the computer and it will give you all you need to know on the subject with cross references, analysis and comparative versions of events/subjects?
Question #2 : What is your point of view on the dual nature of the Universe, more specifically on the duality between Self-Conservation and Collective-Evolution? (in other words on the need to preserve traditions VS the need to go forward, or the need to live in luxury VS the need to do hard work-labor to achieve higher goals.) Is Wikipedia presents some kind of Duality?
Question #3 : What is for you, the fundamental differences between Knowledge and Believes? The difference between when I say "I KNOW this or that" VS when I say "I BELIEVE this or that". Who can we apply them and present them in Wikipedia?
Question # 4 : What kind of information People would like to have when they are searching a subject in Wikipedia. Basic information, extended information, out of this world information, extraordinary unedited new stuff information that they cannot find elsewhere, or just whatever information that somebody will present to them. (If you want to Know more on a subject, do you want complete info or just a summary because you lack time)?
Question # 5 : If let say, Wikipedia has competition with other (X)_pedias and some official or non official governing organizations forces, oblige Wikipedia in a certain censorship rule of conduct. Will it be better for Wikipedia to comply with this censorship or will it be better to fight for freedom and free knowledge. (In other words, if there is an infiltration of governing bodies that has power over censorship and they imposes their law on the Wikipedia Community, will it be better for the Community to follow the rules of this governing body or will it be better for it to fight it and try to impose her Will over this governing body?
Question # 6 : How about Justice in Wikipedia? Are there articles or subjects that gets merits will others gets less. If so, what is for you a good Wikipedia Subject and a not so good one? Do you think that another editor-administrator will be with the same exact taste.
Or If for you, they are all the same if they are well written and do not get out of hand.
For example, articles on esoteric or conspiracy theories, or inventions that got refused by the US Patent Office, etc.?
Question # 7 : Final Question : If I tell you, define yourself, what will be your question?
Do you thing that you can be more than you think you are, or you are just limited by the extend of your definition of yourself?
-- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 01:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug, your actions can be construed as being biased on the Ancient Egyptian and Black hypothesis pages. It appears that you are almost in collusion with a few other editors, which makes you a really bad candidate to be an impartial administrator for those pages, in particular. If you take action against me, I will seek redress with other administrators and through the proper Wiki channels. As you well know, I have added thousands of cited passages to articles, which have greatly improved the content. Your threats are unfounded and just another example of your bias. Rod ( talk) 17:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a current RfC at Juan Manuel de Rosas that could use more input than just the parties involved so far. I am having trouble finding much in the way of guidelines for political/nationalistic/religious-based historical revisionism that seeks to rationalize, sanitize or idealize the past in a way that promotes a particular political/nationalistic/religious PoV. As the History wikiproject seems to be minimally active, and since you have dealt with similar subjects in the past, your input (including any applicable guidelines for future reference) would be appreciated. Thanks. • Astynax talk 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, I've recently got involved in editing Armenia/Azerbaijan articles again. Unfortunately, it appears to be the same old same old.
E4024 ( talk · contribs) (a Turkish or Azerbaijani POV-pusher) was topic-banned from all Armenian, Turkish and Greek articles this morning [24] per AA2 and ARBMAC. Lo and behold, an IP editor 195.212.29.190 ( talk · contribs) has just appeared on an article I created which E4024 tried to disrupt, exhibiting the same behaviour. Compare [25] and contrast [26]. Also, compare these talk page "arguments": [27] and [28].
If this isn't E4024, then I've a good idea who an alternative might be. I have a strong suspicion there has been a hell of a lot of tag-teaming going on among Azerbaijani/Turkish editors recently. Details available on request. Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Would you agree that it requires a minimum of two people to edit war? If so, why did you add the edit war note to my page only and not to both parties (myself and Yalens)? Is that fair and impartial administration? Rod ( talk) 23:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Doug, I happened upon Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.rozabal.com and couldn't refrain from commenting. Best, Drmies ( talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
EnochBethany does not agree that his/her edits to Gun politics in Mexico are biased/non-neutral and has reverted your reverts to the article. EnochBethany does not seem to realize his/her style of writing does not fit encyclopedic etiquette. Here's my own example of what EnochBethany is doing (emphasized in bold): In order to carry a firearm in Mexico, an individual must received authorization from the government, except for criminals who ignore the law and do as they please.
EnochBethany feels the article must let readers know that not everyone in Mexico follows the law and therefore there are people who get guns illegally and use them illegally. I have no problem with that. It is evident that there are lawbreakers in Mexico, as they are in every other country of the world, and I don't oppose informing readers of the current gun violence/firearm-related crime that exists in Mexico but he/she must express so in an encyclopedic style, not as his/her direct opinion. It would be better if EnochBethany added a Gun violence section to the article, as it exist in the Gun politics in Honduras article, and use that section to describe gun-related crime in Mexico. Thanks. -- Usfirstgov ( talk) 02:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming you won't be watching a templated talk page, so please could I draw your attention to the response on mine. Thanks WikiJonathanpeter ( talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I can tell you've been busy, but if you can check back in over at the talk page so we can move forward, that'd be great. Thanks in advance! Thargor Orlando ( talk) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 03:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Suzanne is back, however I think it's worth giving her a chance to see if she can answer (on Talk not editing article herself) any of the 4 simple questions I put which are basic info for a structure stub. (Totally unrelated, do you have any remote interest in Far East or linguistics and would be willing to provide a third eye on an article?) In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You mean: other than the Pohl reference? If you're referring to the oil shales, that's in the WP article for Stellarton... TIA Jpaulm ( talk) 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The long road homw ( talk · contribs) Per their contribs:
I was thinking maybe WP:COMPETENCE might be an issue, but the user seems to know their way around creating an article, going so far as to add cite needed tags to their own unsourced additions [31]. Thoughts? He iro 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
S.a.mac2012 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Hi Doug. Given that
2 different journal articles cannot occupy the same pages at the same time, along with obvious misspellings in the doctored titles, and deliberately unconstructive changes like substituting centigrade for fahrenheit, etc., I think chances that this editor is a sincere contributor are less than 1%. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 15:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Brucewayneent is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
-- Wizardman 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Why did you place it on my webpage? -- Portolanero ( talk) 12:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug, I applied a redirect tag to Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) and pointed it to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Now all four of these so-called Authentic Matthew articles point to the same place. Since we had already reached a consensus to merge on the article talk page, I didn't see any point in dragging this out. Let me know if I overlooked anything important. Otherwise, I'm calling this merge/redirect done. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I took a look and the Roza Bal ANI is 13-0 with clear consensus. But if nothing is done to close and log it, will archive in 24 hours. That should be avoided after all the effort. By the way, In Ictu said that he found somethings and I looked and they were really impressive: misspelling with a dot, Max Muller, etc. Pretty eye opening research he did. History2007 ( talk) 01:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 04:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci ( talk) 11:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No, Doug, you stop. I know exactly who you are and why you are doing this. As far as I'm concerned you are a high-level vandal and ought to be removed from WP forthwith. What right have you got to sabotage a public encyclopedia? I WILL open a discussion on this and on you. Why don't you confine yourself to your own absurd site? Who do you think you are?Branigan 12:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
You are right. I'm sorry not to have noticed that Zertal was already cited before — Preceding unsigned comment added by אלימיט ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted
Text and/or other creative content from [[]] was copied or moved into [[]]. The former page's [ history] now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Answer
Hi Doug On the Islam page I put links to the other wikipedia pages about islam. To enbed the links, I added a few words so that it flows correctly and as people go through the article, they could click off and get more details. There were a few places where I added an explanation and felt that it also needed to be on the wikipedia page that it links to and therefore added it there in case people go to the other page without going to the Islam page. Doug I will add a copy tag in future. Thanks -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have a feeling that Anta An is none other than Shrikanthv whose article on KIMO Industrie-Elektronik GmbH went to AfD and was deleted. When I made my entry there, I did notice he was then an adoptee of Yunshui with whom he also took and passed a 'reviewer' test on 14 January, the day he made his last entries on Kimo as well. I notice he is all over the AfD pages since he created the new account on 13 February, mostly pages visited under the old name. Please have a look. Thanks.-- Zananiri ( talk) 14:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The addition of some material in the Melungeon article on DNA studies is ungrammatical and does not reflect the sources; also, the discussions on the Talk page by an unnamed IP is overwhelming to respond to. Most previous editors do not appear to be operating from the same baseline as the new IP. Reading an article by Yates, I was suspicious when he claimed to be finding DNA links from Melungeons to the Lumbees as Native Americans- I know for sure they cannot differentiate among tribes with DNA. (Yates has become convinced he is really Sephardic Jewish and that "most" of the Melungeons were Jewish, Turkish, Portuguese, etc. - the myths.) This is beyond me. On the one hand, the IP wanted to have only DNA studies from families listed in Dromgoole's article of the late 19th c.; in another place is happy to have the DNA results of the 40 "self-identified Melungeons," including Kennedy (Yates claimed that Kennedy was a Turkish name!; there is more and more wild stuff appearing) and Winkler. Parkwells ( talk) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I asked you a question here, and request that you please answer it. Another IP editor (111.161.30.218) has made an accusation about you, and whether or not this was a banned editor, his accusation is supported by evidence and appears credible. As an admin, your responsibility is to be honest about the reason for the discrepancy he has raised. 101.0.71.6 ( talk) 11:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, Game over on Roza Bal, but I am just amazed, amazed of how much effort it takes to bring normalcy into these situations. To the very end there were people arguing for continuation. Decision making is now nothing but a quagmire; and one just has to accept that the concept of the "wisdom of the crowds" is oversold. As I said, I will not be editing that page ever again, so will leave it to you guys - I just followed through because I don't like to leave things half-finished. As I said on ANI, I really don't know how you put up with it, or why you should have to at all. Before someone's driver license is taken away here, they need to run over 12 old people and 15 school children, else there will still be philosophers who will suggest that they should still be allowed to drive. That is not wisdom... Anyway, game over. History2007 ( talk) 13:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see how the ANI revision by LuckyLouie you pointed me to here is relevant? -- 92.4.162.209 ( talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I've got a question about some vandalism reversions using Twinkle
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey all.
As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).
A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You've got it. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller - I believe you have made a mistake here. You wrote: "I've reverted you. It was unsourced, but also it appears to have been copied from [12] or [13] which is prohibited by our copyright policy." I think you will find that the "unsourced" or possibly plagiarized material you are referring to, is STILL ON THE PAGE, whereas my additions are removed. This is a problem, because my contributions were authored by myself and original, but the existing material (which is there now, and is NOT authored by me) is what you ought to look out for. I will reinsert MY contributions, as they are not copied from anywhere, but collected and paraphrased from external sources entirely.
I think you will find is the case, once you look at it again. I appreciate your vigilance, but your really ought to go after whomever wrote the already existing paragraphs on the topic. Again - mine were original and does not correspond with anything you mentioned.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
DougWeller - I have just posted a note (and request) on GiantSnowman's Talk Page - and it is relevant and appropriate to let you know. I appreciate that you are busy with hundreds of other items, so there is probably no real need for you to take any action yourself, but you would almost certainly like to be kept in the picture. Regards, -- DLMcN ( talk) 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Doug,
I just read your feedback about what I tried to edit. Thank you.However, it is surly a historical error in your comment. Any victim from Formosa (now Taiwan) could not be victim of Holocaust defined as Enemy Nationals since what CKS controlled is Mainland China, not Taiwan. Taiwan was Japanese Empire Territory from 1895 ~ 1945AD, until it were later taken over by CKS. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure above history above with elders of my family (still alive) were educated under Japanese Empire at that time.
CKS (The leader of KMT political party, as government of Mainland China 1911~1949) had many diplomacy activity with Germany since 1930s(military consult / equipment from Germany to China)and when war between China & Japan(axis), in 1937, it is reasonable that many Chinese personnel were considered as captive in this political changes and become the victims.
I think what you're trying to tell is to distinguish KMT(as ROC - Republic of China, considered as Formosa[now Taiwan] since 1949) from PRC(People's Republic of China, considered as China since 1949), but at the moment of this event (1940 ~ 1945), bring up "Formosa" could be very misleading when KMT still represent China at that very moment(Even as a member of Allies who won WWII, though peace treaty with Japan were signed on 1952, instead of 1945 due to Mongolia independent issue).
Suggest to revise "Formosa [now Taiwan]" to "ROC" for better understanding.
Note: I'm sorry that I'm not good at Wiki interface, so I would no longer edit anything about this until getting familiar with this. Just reported the error in content and wish the administrator could fix it.
Ark89044300 ( talk) 01:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
184.21.53.242 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), at least I am 99% sure it is Marburg, they are editing warring to revert to one of his 166 range socks and it geolocates to near his physical address in the Mandeville/Covington La area. He iro 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Doug,
Why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated by Nielsen's falacies and why did you decide to post this on the eve of my new show? This has all the appearance of malice on your part. The papers you cited are based on a 3D study on the KRS he won't allow anyone else to see and including the Runestone Museum who he tricked into letting him do to the study in the first place. Why do you think it is appropriate for him to comment on my geological work in the first place, he's not a geologist? Have you asked yourself why he has reversed himself on the work he once endorsed? This is clearly a personal vendetta that you apparently have been sucked into.
Your post is inaccurate and inappropriate, please remove it.
Scott Hookedx ( talk) 17:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Scott, it isn't mine, it's Deb ( talk · contribs)'s. And Deb is definitely NOT Nielsen, look at her edits. The editing is not part of a personal vendetta. You need to read WP:VERIFY. You can complain about a source at WP:RSN or your article at WP:BLPN if you think it violates WP:BLP, but what you can't do is simply remove criticism because you think it's wrong, part of a vendetta, etc. As the subject of the article you need to be very careful what you do, and this sort of editing will end up with you being blocked. I'm glad you stopped removing the material. Hopefully one of the volunteers from the Foundation will reply to your complaint but as that's handled by volunteers and it's Christmas it's hard to say how fast they will respond. Dougweller ( talk) 17:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Doug,
I am tired of this; please remove the entire listing and any reference of my name on Wiki. I will not have my name or research questioned based on fraudulent research. It's not Deb's fault, but I don't care to waste anymore time on anything related to garbage. Please remove my name from Wiki completely.
Thank you.
Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookedx ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised to see in the editsummary of this edit that you called that vandalism? I almost did that myself, because I think the tag was placed unjustly. Just that I decided to first resolve the issue on the talkpage. But to call it vandalism? By the way, since you were there already, perhaps you'd care to comment on the talkpage? Debresser ( talk) 23:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see this diff it may change your mind in reards to User:Eshwar.om's not engaging in Vandalism ?
RTPking ( talk) 18:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
What is my necessity to be logged out to edit when I am editing the article myself ? Please make you required tests and be sure whether I have / heve not edited by logging out. I am willing to undergo the test.
RTPking ( talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I had my suspicions, but basically I was too busy to check, especially as it was prodded anyway. Thanks for deleting and letting me know, merry Christmas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
History2007 (
talk) 12:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Dougweller! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Mangoe ( talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
All the best for the season, from dave souza, talk 15:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the holiday wishes. Merry Christmas and happy new year! — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
And thank you for the message. Hope all is well with you, four family and friends. Be safe!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Seasons greetings to you, Doug, and yours, thanks to timely technical assistance from Nableezy!
Nishidani (
talk) 07:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Admin,
If you look at the archives of the talk page of Richard Dawkins you will see how much effort has been put on trying to achieve an agreement for inclusion of criticism. Many experienced and unbiased users have posted their comments there. Many notability criterions for inclusion has been proposed. However, I doubt the consensus is ever achieved regardless of how reliable the source of criticism and how notable the content is. For instance, you can look at the last piece of criticism that was added from a book published by the Yale University Press and was cited by an academic secondary source. The edit was reverted on the sole basis of lack of consensus by an editor who -until a few days ago- thought the ciriticism of Richard Dawkins is mostly driven by conservative christian dogma and who is unaware of the necessity of having criticism in the article per WP:AUTO and WP:CRIT. I am writing this to ask you to reconsider your decision of redirectng Criticism of Richard Dawkins to avoid all this waste of effort and study for finding reliable sources and notable material in the last few years. The way I understand Wikipedia, opposing an ideology is never a good excuse for banning the inclusion of independently published academic texts.
Yours Truly -- User 99 119 ( talk) 08:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Dawkins attack to mainstream was followed by responses from different authors. For example, Terry Eagleton wrote: {{blockquote| Indeed, Dawkins seems to nurture a positively Mao-Like faith in faith itself - in the hopelessly idealist conception, for example, that religious ideology (as opposed, say, to material conditions or political injustice) is what fundamentally drives radical Islam. By contrast, Robert Pape's well-researched study of the subject, based on every suicide bombing since 1980, casts consierable doubt on this assumption. [1]
User 99 119 ( talk) 15:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it is more appropiate to indicate at what point in the text one should refer also to some other article... -- Againme ( talk) 14:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that someone with experience has managed to get round to looking at Madurai. As I said on the talk page, if it had been me reviewing the thing at GAN then it would not have passed in its then state. I fear the same may apply to the recently-nominated Tirunelveli. - Sitush ( talk) 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have Ucucha's tool installed - see the link at Talk:Madurai#Sfn_citations - and it seems to show a sea of red on many occasions due to misuse of {{ sfn}}. It was one of the several point I made in the immediate aftermath of the GAN. That article is still a mess: mutton dressed as lamb. - Sitush ( talk) 15:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the card. Belated best wishes to you and yours too! In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Leveratto needs to be added to a deletion sort notices. I am not sure which are the best, but that may generate more input. History2007 ( talk) 16:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry. I misunderstood the copy right en re a conflict of Interest rule in a "close relationship" with the subject. " I do not have a close relationship with Hank Harrison. I Just took a snap and assumed I would be able to post it. I would like, at this time, to withdraw my request to post a photo of Hank Harrison. zendogg@gmail.com ( talk) 17:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete the polygraph results as long as Mr. Harrison is under attack by Courtney's minions. He told me he does not need a wikipedia page and wants the entire page removed. zendogg@gmail.com ( talk) 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to archaeologist Sarah Parcak. See View History of wp:Tea. (",) 72.185.16.86 ( talk) 23:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
He's back. See the diff [1] on my talk page, his only edit so far. -- Drmargi ( talk) 07:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You blocked ערבי טוב זה ערבי מת ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious JarlaxcleArtemis sock. The user name is Hebrew for "A good Arab is a dead Arab" , and I think this should be hidden. My request to UAA was rejected as the account is already blocked. Could you please handle this? RolandR ( talk) 12:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The best of greetings to you and your family too Doug! ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
( 84.100.243.163 ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)) Dear Dougweller, the text in the article devoted to the De interpretatione you reverted on the 22 d of December was no paste/copy. Save perhaps in the last four lines that are blackened, no original research manifests itself . This I propose to you as a compromise: the removal of the blackened passage. I draw your attention to the fact that the logical hexagon is something known now in the literature. Gregbard created the corresponding article some months ago in wikipedia.
The logical square, also called square of opposition or square of Apuleius has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning, as follows: 1. "Every man is white" - the universal affirmative 2. "Not every man is white" (or "Some men are not white") - the particular negative, negation of "Every man is white" 3. "Some men are white" - the particular affirmative 4. "No man is white" - the universal negative, negation of "Some men are white". Robert Blanché published with Vrin his Structures intellectuelles in 1966, and since then, many scholars think that the logical square representing four values should be replaced by the logical hexagon which by representing six values is a more potent figure because it has the power to explain more things about logic and natural language. The study of the four propositions constituting the square is found in Chapter 7 and its appendix, Chapter 8. Most important also is the immediately following Chapter 9, dealing with the problem of future contingents. This chapter and the subsequent ones are at the origin of modal logic. [ Perhaps Blanché's hexagon is particularly useful in the domain of modal logic, in so far as it explains clearly the nature and importance of the bilateral possible. The notion of "bilateral possible" is crucially important to understand both logic and natural language when applied to modal values.]
Please don't distract discussions by introducing strawmen, as in this edit: [2]. Nobody had suggested that I or anybody be given special consideration as an experienced editor---certainly not the license to block indefinitely editors without needing to provide evidence enjoyed by administrators. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller:
You are right that I have a connection with Riane Eisler, and this is why i updated and corrected the page (I had not seen it before). There is a definite need for updating and correcting this page, and I did this precisely because i am familiar with her work.
I do not understand where there is a conflict of interests in this, and would greatly appreciate it if instead of just deleting what i spent a great deal of time and effort on to make the entry more informative and accurate, you would let me know what you object to in the edits. I will then proceed accordingly. I look forward to hearing and wish you all the best, David Loye — Preceding unsigned comment added by David loye ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
PS. I am a novice re editing on this site, and would appreciate your response re what i need to do. Here is my email;
[Hidden by Odysseus1479 ( talk) 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)]
I have just spent another half hour bopping around this site trying to figure out: 1. how do i sign this message (it says unsigned) 2. where do i enter my email 3. how can i retrieve the edits I made 9I did not keep a copy and they took a long time and lots of effort0 4. most important, what is needed to legitimize my edits thank you, David Loye — Preceding unsigned comment added by David loye ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
You're always a good guy. That's saying a lot. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Orangemike took care of Cherokee calendar, so problem solved. Happy New Years! - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
You said you'd come back to do some editing of this article based on a source you found. Do you still plan to? -- Elvey ( talk) 21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing
warning or blocking templates, as you did to
User_talk:Elvey apropos Earthquake prediction. Doing so is a violation of
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the
user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. In particular, I have looked at your warning on my talk page, and appreciate the input, but it looks to me to be misuse - quite out of line. Such warnings should be used with due care. Sentence one of EDITWAR:"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."
I'm going above and beyond to do the latter - "resolve the disagreement by discussion." I've actively engaged in discussion, whereas, in contrast, all other recent reverts were not accompanied by talk page comments, but did you warn those edits' editors? What warning would be appropriate? And I've put forward various solutions to try and reach agreement. It's not much of a discussion when I'm the only one talking on the talk page, but I've done my part and then some. Only to the extent that I need to be aware of 3RR when reverting even when it's clear there's an unwillingness of the other editor to engage in debate, I do see the warning as potentially apropos, but I don't think I've even violated 2RR, even in that situation. If you disagree, please let me know where my reasoning fails, OK?
I and other editors have not only provided a ton of evidence of notability (~5-6 RS citations) for the Coren research I added. Furthermore, I've painstakingly explained how the ton of evidence provides the notability required by policy, despite confusion of other editors regarding something else, "scientific notability" being the appropriate metric, and where I see they've gone wrong.
Lastly, but importantly, take a look at the content of the edit that I'm defending, and the additional sources I added to the talk page. The implication that I'm pushing pseudoscience as The Truth is just baseless when one looks at the content I've actually contributed. So I'm doing better at following policy both with respect to how I'm editing and interacting with other users and with respect to the content of the edits than the other editors I indicated. Couple more things: J. Johnson is alienating many editors of this article, and several have laid well-founds accusations of OWN violations; maybe I should take a break, but if anyone needs warning or more, it's JJ. Final point: my last edit to the article was not a revert - in whole or in part - BUT for some reason the edit summary indicates it was.
Elvey (
talk) 07:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 09:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Reverse immigration in the United States has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Just FYI.
Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)
(talk)
(contribs) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in this article. I originally, years ago (2007, I think), introduced the Lilith material, without the caveat about the controversiality of the timing of the allegations. An edit war ensued. An admin User:MPerel helped work out a consensus. Over the years, although I personally think the allegations need no caveat, I've tried to maintain the balance established by my initial edits and the caveat.
You're right, the refs backing the caveat, as you found them, were inadequate. I've reintroduced the caveat per a quote from one of the existing refs (which I've referred to in my edit summary), and one new ref, which I've similarly summarized in my edit summary, and one new ref where I've "hidden" the quote I'm relying on in the code.
If you start a new thread on the talk page and can help achieve a new consensus for removing the caveat, I'll agree. Happily. But short of that, please consider leaving things as they are, with the new refs you've prompted me to find and add. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello dear Dougweller,
as a user i have a problem, and i hope you can help me. I have uploaded a map, which is made by Professor M. Izady, Columbia University, USA. This map is describing the linguistic composition of middle east. And I have added that to wikipedia (Article: kurd ) or ( kurdish language ), in all languages in wikipedia. But a turkish fascist user, who hates kurds, delated my map. I did “undo” but now my commons picture ( the map ) is removed “becoz of licenzing”. I think, it is done by the same fascist user ( takabeg ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Takabeg
And now I don’t know what I can do against this vandalism. Here you see my scientifical source and the link to Professor Dr. Izady’s work in Columbia University.
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.jpg
example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language
I thank you for your help and info. Best regards, Sagapane Sagapane ( talk) 19:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thank you for your explain, i just have sent a message again to dr. Izady, it will work :-) new happy year Sagapane ( talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I decided to create the page so that other editors and anonymous can find the page more easily(?) and edit/expand it. If I did something against Wiki policies, I'm sorry. BTW, the text from that page is copied from his facebook page, I guess.-- Hydao ( talk) 14:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, would you help with a developing edit war on the article Ecclesiastes? There's an editor who insists on reverting to his own version and makes very little attempt to discuss on Talk. Havensdad is the problem - two other editors have posted on Talk, but they haven't been edit-warring. PiCo ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: this comment by you, Denzil Ibbetson is one of "my" rescue jobs, improved from some mostly unsourced stuff. For the full monty of Raj social engineering, H. H. Risley is more complete example. What a bunch of twits; and no wonder I tend to reject Raj sources in Indic articles! - Sitush ( talk) 12:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Please, come on. Stephen Latchford is my great-grandfather. What I'm trying to do is shed some light on his history, on his life. The reason I took out some personal information is because some of his relatives weren't too pleased about that stuff being online and wanted the article to be about Ste3phen Latchford himself only and not his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abmaoja ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Please review the recent edit history of this article. I'm trying to explain myself in edit summaries, but I have no wish to see this devolve into an edit war and the other editor seems to be ediing his relative's article with a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP David in DC ( talk) 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, is there any way to get this diagram of the ancient Israelite cosmos for wiki-commons? I'd like to use it for articles like Biblical cosmology and Genesis creation narrative. (You'd be surprised how little I know about the mechanics of Wikipedia).
And yes, I'll stick with the Talk page on Ecclesiastes. PiCo ( talk) 08:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm reasonably close to this incident, so let me lay it out a bit better. Jerry Weast was very controversial in his day; it's not surprising that people take potshots at him. That said, I would tend to read what went on as a bit of percussive sublimation: I wouldn't take the findings seriously and would understand that he was kicked upstairs and made to get rid of his business in order to snuff out the scandal. I therefore am inclined to reduce the material a lot, but not necessarily excise it entirely. Mangoe ( talk) 16:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As suggested, I read through his userpage; also his talk page.He certainly seems to possess very firm ideas, which are perhaps some way away from the norm of thought, even for those of us who subscribe to a mainstream religion. I feel that so long as he restricts himself to his own pages we should take no action - you could make a case for deleting his userpage as being outside the policy guidelines for a wiki userpage, but as it is essentially incomprehensible dogma I do not see it doing any harm; and his talk-page is, of course, his own. But I do agree that we should be very rigid in preventing any OR or POV content from slipping into mainspace, and should be fair but firm in warning or blocking as appropriate should his editing overstep the mark.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
No, those IPs are not mine. One is from Brazil, the other I have no idea. -- Hydao ( talk) 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course close paraphrase is out and using the actual copy-paste as a starting point is a total no-no. I din't mean to suggest that in my edit summary, although, as you point out, it could easily be interpreted that way. In any case WP:SPS already disallows almost all of the content in whatever form it was presented. Mathsci ( talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Ashrf1979 ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Ibrahim888 Deletes a photo of the currency because it proves that the Uyunid dynasty was a Muslim Shiite This behavior is very bad And damages the credibility of the article and its neutrality words written on the currency is (Ali Wali Allah) It is a proven Shiite faith of the Uyunid dynasty It's like a cross for Christians All other Shiite dynasties wrote the same words(Ali Wali Allah) on their Coins (Fatimids, Safavids and Buyids) I'm sorry because the source is in Arabic & My English is weak But you can verify the validity of these sources from neutral sources
http://up.arab-x.com/Jan12/vaM04902.jpgfmt
http://arabic.rt.com/forum/imagehosting/27443_01301471123.jpg
http://www.jasblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bahrain2_thumb.jpg
This is the problem You do not speak Arabic In fact they allied themselves with the Seljuk for a short Time But they turned against them And killed Bakosh Seljuk Sultan's brother (Malikshah)Was mentioned on Ali bin al Mugrab Al Uyuni in one of his poems. Abdullah bin Ali Al Uyuni Arresting and killing Bakosh Then the extermination of the Seljuk garrison ,After that Sultan Malikshah sent two thousand troops to punish Abdullah bin Ali These forces surrounded Al-ahsa one year But in the end, Abdullah bin Ali defeated those forces and expelled from Bahrain, Ibrahim888 The only display one page of history To say that this page is all history This is a wrong thing.
I'm sorry, my sources in Arabic and I will try to find the source of the English language But I think it's good that someone neutral Check my sources and other Side sources
(بعد الانتصار الكبير الذي حققه عبد الله بن علي العيوني على خصومه، أحس بأن القائد السلجوقي (البقوش) ينافسه على السلطة، حيث بدت مطامعه السياسية تتمثل في رغبته بإزاحة عبد الله بن علي، وانتزاع الأحساء من يده، فوقع الخلاف بينهما، وتطور إلى الحد الذي دفع بالأمير عبد الله بن علي العيوني إلى أن يقبض على القائد السلجوقي (البقوش) ويسجنه، ثم يأمر بقتله بعد ذلك.
أثار نبأ مقتل البقوش حفيظة الخلافة العباسية المتمثلة بالسلطة السلجوقية التي اعتبرت أن قتله تهديد لسيادتها ونفوذها على بلاد البحرين، التي تعتقد أنها أصبحت جزءاً من ممتلكاتها. فما كان من الخلافة والدولة السلجوقية إلا أن سارعت بتجهيز جيش قوامه ألفا فارس بقيادة القائد السلجوقي ركن الدين[11] ، الذي وصل إلى الأحساء وحاصر عبد الله بن علي لمدة عام كامل استمرت خلاله المناوشات بين الطرفين، وبعد أن مل جنود السلاجقة من طول الحصار، خرج لهم عبد الله بن علي ومؤيدوه الذين تمكنوا من إيقاع الهزيمة بهم، وإبعادهم عن الأحساء[12] .
يقول ابن المقرب ذاكرا هذه الواقعة:
والشركسية إذ جاءت تطالبنا
دم البقوش وفينا تَقْسِمُ القسما
كما قال أيضاً:
ضربنا وجوه الشركسية دونه
وأقفاءها بالسيف حتى تثلما)
Sources:
نايف بن عبدالله الشرعان ,نقود الدولة العيونية في بلاد البحرين ,صفحة49,مركز الملك فيصل للبحوث والدراسات الاسلامية 2002/1423 Nayef bin Abdullah Craan, coins of Uyunid state Bahrain, page. 41, King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, 1423 - 2002.
د. فضل بن عمار العماري، ابن المقرب وتاريخ الإمارة العيونية في بلاد البحرين، ص 23. D.fadal Ben Ammar Amari, bin al Mugrab Al Uyuni and the history of the Uyunid emirate Bahrain, p 25.
Hello, I am an Arabian historian who has been studying the Uyunid dynasty for more then 15 years. Al though my English is not the best, I try very hard to make sure that, wrong or fake information does not go out there which then gives people the wrong idea of what the Uyunid dynasty was really all about. Which was what this person Ashrf1979 was doing.Most of the information I have put in the article are translated from arabic.
I have valid documents and many reliable sources that indicates and shows that the Uyunid Family was Not Shia. When they defeated the quainins they negotiated with the Shia minority that lived in Bahrain that they must obey the rules of the Uyunid dynasty, who lived in al ahsa were it was a Sunni population.
The Uyunid family was a Sunni family from the start of Islam to this day. It's like the Bahrain royal family and the Bahraini Shia population. It was exactly the same, just because they ruled over Shias did not make the family it self Shia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim888 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Ibrahim888 ( talk) 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Burdi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Alliance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, saw that you had removed some non-links from this list. I notice that there are quite a few unlinked people still listed. Presumably those should be removed too? Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this article needs to be locked down. My reference stating they were Sunni was removed without explanation. Such edits usually initiate edit wars. I see no reason why User:Ashrf1979 can not use the talk page to explain his/her edits. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Ashrf1979 ( talk) 04:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)I provided two sources confirm my opinion And I can provide more And you remove a photo coin And you remove the image coin because they reveal the falsity of the claim. Ashrf1979 ( talk) 13:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)I also have sources confirm they are Shi'ite Muslims These sources are authors Saudis and Sunni Muslims Because we did not agree I suggested to ignore there religious beliefs I proposed to delete the reference to religious sect I suggested that writes in the article that they are Muslims and Arabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Armenianism#Cemetery_vandalism_in_Jerusalem -- Երևանցի talk 21:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Judging from this edit [8], it would appear that Bahrani people needs to be protected and the talk page utilized. I have yet to see user:Ashrf1979 post anything on either talk page. It appears user:Ashrf1979 and user:Ibrahim888 are edit warring over the Uyunid dynasty, Bahrani people and List of Sunni Muslim dynasties articles. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree! But, that is because Ashrf1979 would not prove any if his points nor will he/She talk on the talk pages. When Ashrf1979 edits he does not say why he changed this thing that I have a very clear and verified sources of, he would delete and change it without explaing why he did so. He has a wrong understanding of the subject and he is very keen in his idea. Ibrahim888 ( talk) 05:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller I fail to see how you draw the conclusion that I am involved in an edit war on the Theresa Spence page, when I have performed only one revert on that page, hardly a war!. Please explain how one revert is classed as an edit war? You have also chosen to deleate my reverted text without providing a reason other than the "edit war" excuse,please explain why you deleated the reverted text?-- Syncmaster941bw ( talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg | Have an enjoyable New Year! | |
Hello Dougweller: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
New Year! Cheers,
Northamerica1000
(talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
There are plenty of scholarly reviews that not included in the article positive and negative it would be nice if someone improve the article with scholarly material [9].I can provide you the full text sources if your intersted.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 15:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I
Since you were initially part of the discussion on the Uyunid dynasty article, could you give your opinion to my latest idea? I have proposed using the source I found and removing the "coin sources" and some obsure book by Al-Amari(which has no quote or page number), if no evidence is provided within a week. Thanks! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a video of Yates being interviewed discussing the Melungeon results he conducted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyW0Y85lho The above interview was for the TV Station KCSG and here is a link to their website: http://www.kcsg.com/
Here is another link on it: http://melungeons.com/articles/jan2008.html
The above site was one of the first websites specifically for the Melungeon research back in 2002.
This is a link that goes to the DNA report in it's entirety: "Toward a Genetic Profile of Melungeons in Eastern Tennessee," the study was co-authored by Donald N. Yates" https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yMvCaOMHRigJ:dnaconsultants.com/images/Article_Toward_a_Genetic_Profile_of_Melungeons_in_Tennessee.doc+Middle+Eastern,+Native+American,+Sub-Saharan+African+and+Iberian+ancestry+within+our+Melungeon+descendant+sample.&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMq5_hu9yMQthoTRus7W4pPIlei34voS_XuvQpny3_TkafDjxVbARBz9razXGe9qaby2a33AL2wdvrbIT41acurq0i64a3RQFy05AOx0FKtiFetEYWFYa7mfFQxBTBMZ06kHsQ&sig=AHIEtbTZxf2Puj66uR3gSiI3C5TjHzpqYg
This was also in The Appalachain Journal Vol.38 num.1
Appalachian Journal - A Regional Studies Review
Appalachian Journal, founded in 1972, is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed quarterly featuring field research, interviews, and other scholarly studies of history, politics, economics, culture, folklore, literature, music, ecology, and a variety of other topics, as well as poetry and reviews of books, films, and recordings dealing with the region of the Appalachian mountains.
http://appjournal.appstate.edu/issues/volume-38-no-1
Here is another link to it: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/55796144/toward-genetic-profile-melungeons-southern-appalachia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 07:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not sure which of the links to use, the google docs one lets people see the article in it's entirety, the other link was article wrote by Yates talking about the report, and then we have the peer reviewed pubished link but it does not let us read it fully. The other link is right the news station but it is a youtube link so it can not be used. So which of these links meet's wikipedia's standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 07:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can I clean up/revert such things from the talk pages? Do users/editors have right to clean/revert edits on the talk pages? Where should I report such behaviors? For example please see this talk page, this one, and this edit. Specially comments by these three users: 1, 2, and 3. Full of racist, insulting, hate speech, and anti-ethnic comments plus personal attack directed at editors (specially a specific ethnicity). How can/should I deal with them? Thanks. Zheek ( talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I want this diagram of the ancient Israelite cosmos for Wikicommons - it can illustrate Biblical cosmology and Genesis creation narrative and other articles.
The blog where I found it is kept by James McGrath, who is an academic in the field of biblical studies. That vouches for the drawing's accuracy, but only just.
The drawing was done by a graphic artist named Michael Paukner. Paukner has messaged me that he's happy to have it used provided he's identified as the artist/copyright owner.
Problems: being on McGrath's blog isn't really much good as proof of its authenticity, and I gather Paukner actually deisgned it for something called Logos 5 bible software], who might therefore be the real copy-holders now - I'm not sure how copyright works (I'll try and contact Logos 5).
Do you have any suggestions? PiCo ( talk) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the recent Theresa Spence-related disputes. Thank you. RedSoxFan2434 ( talk) 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 18:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Howdy. "Marine" and "marines' is never a proper noun unless it is modified by some sort of modifier thingee. Further, I am not sure if ol' AJ said the quote or if he wrote it. I suppose it would make a difference. In any case, I will adopt my middle road default as I do on minor disagreements; I will not change it, but I will not object if others do.
In any case, my valiant fight against overuse of capital letters goes on. Thank you so much for noting my work. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 07:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Americas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norse ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if you knew how Asa Goins' picture became used as the picture for Melungeons on the wikipedia page? I wrote more about who the man in the picture is on the Melungeon talk page. The man was never traced to the Melungeons. Asa Goins came to Hamilton county, Tenn in "1843". His parents was Jackson and Jennie Goins of Georgia. The Goins of Georgia was never traced to any of the Melungeon families, there is no records of any melungeons in Georgia. There is no records of who the parents of Jackson and Jennie Goins either. All that is known is they was born in Georgia in the 1700's. Which would make them no relation to any Melungeon families. There is no mention of anyone in this family called Melungeon or traced to any Melungeon families. The first and only time the word Melungeon was attached to Asa was in a book wrote in 2001 which was based on assumption due to the Goins name. The picture itself was taken in Graysville,Tenn not Hancock or Hawkins county, Tenn. When people see this picture on a page about a family from Newman's ridge, it gives a false image. Directly under the picture of Asa Goins it says "Originally in the vicinity of Cumberland Gap (East Tennessee and Eastern Kentucky. Later migrations to throughout the United States)". You can check google or anything else on "arch goins" and "asa Goins" and confirm that this guy and his family was never a part of these Melungeon families or near the Melungeon area. I figured I would bring this to your attention since you watch the Melungeon page alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I tried to trace the origins of that picture some more, the original submitter is still a unknown person who apprently passed it off to a barbara goins. It is not Asa Goins as originally thought. Barbara list it as Arch goins 1920, but other descendants of Arch says it is not Arch goins. I tried to trace these Graysville families to the melungeon families in hanockc county or hawkins county and closest i could get was grainger county without marriages to the known melungeon families. I added all i could find to the melungeon talk page. Personally I think the 1890 published and confirmed melungeon photo of Calloway collins would be a better photo since there is no confusion from any melungeon researchers as to where he was from and no question that Caloway was defiently melungeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Page 36 of North from the Mountains a Folk History of the Carmel Melungeon Settlement, By John S. Kessler, Donald B. Ball, http://books.google.com/books?id=7JIiaLRS4VMC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=%22a+typical+malungeon%22&source=bl&ots=Yxl3f3bh_Y&sig=GdpWlrtc2ZluhcsF82VZwHCrnys&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXjwUMu7HYb62gXv7oCgCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22a%20typical%20malungeon%22&f=false
This image of the newman's ridge melungeons should be used for the image of the melungeons since it is verified and was published in 1890, thus making it published before 1923. Will Allen Dromgoole (October 26, 1860-September 1, 1934) This means the life plus 70 years of author standard is met as well. What is your views on using the original image for the melungeon page? I have a copy of the original sketch.
It is also in "The Arena, Volume 3 By Benjamin Orange Flower, Harry Houdini Collection (Library of Congress)" on page 470-471 http://books.google.com/books?id=5m7XAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA470-IA1&lpg=PA470-IA1&dq=%22a+typical+malungeon%22&source=bl&ots=iRFB7aeBpP&sig=1MsDiXpjv5-f6v5MUm9RxU-9IrE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXjwUMu7HYb62gXv7oCgCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22a%20typical%20malungeon%22&f=false
You can also find it here: http://www.archive.org/stream/arena26conggoog/arena26conggoog_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 ( talk) 20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller, you indicate on your user page that you're a member of Wikimedia UK and I was wondering if you'd be interested in an event that's been arranged for February. Wikimedia UK is committed to supporting our volunteers and to encourage them to teach others how to edit Wikipedia, we are running a weekend training workshop that will take place on the weekend of 23–24 February in Newcastle. Also, if you know anyone based in Scotland or northern England who might be interested going to the training please feel free to tell them about it. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 22:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Replied, ck ur email. He iro 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick thank you Doug and to your fellow wiki admin editors that you have got to help out on the Dwygyfylchi page. Much appreciated, keep up the good work. Ta :) Only Stone tools? ( talk) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you please help to protect this page from persistent sock puppetry. It has been targeted 5 times now by sockpuppets. Thanks and best regards.-- Tritomex ( talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
First off, thank you for handling the situation with the legal threat. Quite honestly, I wouldn't have known what to do about it if I had seen it before you banned the IP address. I do have a question, though. What should we in regards to Innocence and Nicholas Jarecki working on it, or not working on it. IMBd credits him as the co-executive producer, but after looking for another source I came up empty handed. What do you propose? AndThenTheySaid ( talk) 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug. FYI the Ebionite duplicate/Fork page has been recreated again. John Carter is most experienced with this area so have left message on his Talk page, hope he'll pick it up. In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you think this qualifies as a misleading edit summary, possibly sufficient for the starting of an RfCU? John Carter ( talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussions are progressing . Please go through the logic and supports for dating Vedic Period, Rigved, Ayurved etc. as 10,000 years old. I would like you to comment. Sudhirkbhargava ( talk) 02:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You put the discussions on dating of Ayurveda on Reliable Sources/ Notice Board. Discussions are progressing there, please comment Sudhirkbhargava ( talk) 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion about a possible rename for article Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) which we are discussing on the Talk page. Editor2020 ( talk) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure that I understood the problem with this source. What do you mean by "copyvio" and the original one? This article is from Fairlady, July 2011's edition. It has been written by Leandi Cameron, with the collaboration of Dr. Jeeva. These informations are available on it. According to WP:NEWSORG, it seems pretty reliable to me, since both Fairlady ans Leandi Cameron are pretty well known and considered as professionnals. Would citing Fairlady's article "Can we have your attention please?" by Leandi Cameron, July 2011, p.60 instead of the website work? I don't see anything in WP:RS that goes against that. What would I need to provide for it to be accepted?
Pol9 ( talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I just saw that copyvio means copyright violation. Yeah, that's right, it's not the original source. The original source, though, can be downloaded from the official Fairlady website and the index is available without download. If I cite the Fairlady article itself, it should be ok then? Am I wrong? What would I need to put in the ref tags? Pol9 ( talk) 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As Jimbo's page has now archived that thread I'll post what was going to be my reply to you here:)
Tito Dutta ( talk) 06:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, could you please take a look at this and take whatever action you think is appropriate? I'm involved. (In case Doug isn't around and there are any talk page stalking admins who feel like looking at it ...) Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I must admit that I'd forgotten all about that. I was still aware the article existed of course but as there's been no activity there for a while, so it faded away from my consciousness. Thanks for remembering and restoring the content. Paul B ( talk) 19:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I just reverted your revert on the IBC article and forgot to explain why. Sorry. I think it's great to have a picture of an IBC certificate and it seems to me that the poster's intentions were good. Having read the article the certificate refers to I don't think it looks at all promotional! Cheers Gillyweed ( talk) 03:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you a Pagan or Heathen? 1. It was National News that Mark Stinson shamed Asatru by stealing from his own mother. 2. Bear Rollins practices Druidry and holds the Rank of Master Druid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzerker1982 ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
None of Ping Pongs statements are of value because he is not smart enough to mind is own business.
Bear Rollins did have a page, but some little Christian Nazi like Doug over here, deleted it. Then they said that someone who works with the Military is not important, that someone who helps Vets deal with PTSD is not important, that someone that the leader of a International Druid Order is not important, and that someone who works with the disabled is not important. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Berzerker1982 (
talk •
contribs) 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
KIMO Industrie-Elektronik GmbH The creator of this article is apparently the contact person at the company viz. http://www.alibaba.com/member/de112028362/contactinfo.html The article looks like an advertisement for the company. I was unable to find anything about the company on the German Wikipedia. Do we need this here?-- Zananiri ( talk) 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Over time a lot of articles on Islamic History have appeared on wikipedia that are very relevant to Islamic history and are important events in Islamic history and could do with having links from the main Islam page so that the main article flows and people could also click on the link and find out more. I have provided a lot of citations and most of the citations are from the Quran and authentic Hadith books from the early days of Islam and all denominations of Islam agree on these events. All I have done is weave everything that already exists on wikipedia together so that people could get a complete view. I have spent a lot of time and effort on research and linking things on Wikipedia together. I spent months researching these changes so that I could tie everything together and went through a lot of books. I would appreciate it if you could un do your delete of my changes. John
Thanks for getting back to me. I did not copy text from the other articles. Extensive content already exists in other articles in Wikipedia. I have just linked to the more relevant articles of these from the Islam article, after verifying it is correct and all the different denominations in Islam and the historian agree with it. For the sentence " Muhammad advocated equality and justice as could be seen in the The Farewell Sermon and in the Quran" I was trying to explain significant events and the reasons why divisions only surfaced after Muhammad passed away. I put a link to the The Farewell Sermon as this is a significant article on WikiPedia about Islam and talks about Equality of Mankind and shows how Muhammad managed to unite the people. There are many independent books on this and I could put in references. The quotes from the Quran also talked about equality. In the places where I put the quotes from the Quran it was not to prove something but just as a reference if some one wants to see where it said that in the Quran. I could change this and add more references, that is OK. I could change all the areas you want me to change. Thats fine. Its good that you are policing the article. The changes I made are agreed to by all the denominations in Islam and the Historians. Many of the books I used were famous books around 1400 years old.
Just get back to me when you get a chance. I could make the changes required. I was just trying to make the article flow better and be informative.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for fixing my talk page. Have a nice day ;) btw: I will study those WP:BLP rules... Hamnavoe ( talk) 19:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, here's another one of those create-delete-reappear articles: Huon deletes January 2012 (previous edit is yours, as also your comments) the Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews back again June 2012 with a nearly identical title and content. Very time consuming. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to notice you have tagged the article here , with notability tag , arent the reference provided suffecient enough ? (yes they are in different language but still a valid print from the magazines ? . Shrikanthv ( talk) 07:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, I left a message for you here a week ago. I'm just letting you know that there's been a change to the details of the training event if that influences whether or not you want to go. The response from the community is that a different location would be easier for volunteers to get to. As such the training session will be held in Manchester on the same dates. If you're interested please take a look at the event page for further details. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 14:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
You reverted the whole version instead of editing the parts you are not comfortable with. If there is a controversy about a person usually it goes to a special page with an explanation. There is no real proof of M.A.'s controversy so please be objective and admit it. If you want to edit a Controversy part of an edit and you have links proving it, feel free. But you revert the whole edit you only show that you are not here for truth, but for promoting ambivalent and libelous edits offered by Moni Aizik's competitors. Romayan ( talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You're an admin, so surely you must have a lot of experience dealing with cases of interesting IP editors... should it pique my interest that this one rather passionate IP editor on our favorite page seems to be quite familiar with the concept of OR? (see here: [ [12]]). I know the term wasn't in my lexicon back in my newbie days, but I thought you might know better if that's a sign of something or if it's actually not that unusual. -- Yalens ( talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, Ret.Prof left an urgent message on my talk page, but I am tied up today with RL priorities (like playing with my grandson). Could you please patiently explain to him, on his talk page, whatever it is he did wrong and how to make it right. Thanks. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you Speedy D the article page of this wip page Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip? I should have pasted the merge content to the wip talk page, and I have fixed that now Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip. Thanks. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
If anyone would benefit from an RfC/U as an instructional tool, it is Ret.Prof. I don't think he is being disingenuous when he says he doesn't understand what he did wrong. I recommend that he voluntarily recuse himself from further editing until an RfC is concluded. I would not want to see him blocked, since blocks are used against people forever on this encyclopedia. I will initiate the RfC/U if you will be the second. It will give several editors with a history of encounters with him a chance to clear the air. I am proposing this RfC as someone who wants to see Ret.Prof do well and make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megalithomania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fringe ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug everyone of my edits are legitimately sourced, relevant to the article sections that they are being put in, and backed by others. Since you have a problem with my edits, why not address ANY of the issues that I've raised and points that I've revealed on the talk page? The childishness and biased judgements on your part needs to stop and I will talk to the appropriate officials if it persist. [13] Asante90 ( talk) 19:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added a note at at the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binayak_Sen. Please check.-- MohitSingh ( talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, can you help me with the revdel of latest edit by user 86.179.66.208 on my user page? I consider this RD2. Thanks, SchreyP ( messages) 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Every few months I type in the names of 2 or 3 articles I've created just to see how many views they get. Just typed in Mississippian culture pottery [14]. The article on 2 separate days this month(16th and the 20th) got over 450,000 hits per day. Did I miss something in archaeology news that went mainstream last week or is there something I'm missing here, lol? He iro 16:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Dear Dougweller,
Thank you so much for being such a great collaborator last year! I really enjoyed working with you on our editor engagement projects and I hope we'll get a chance to continue this relationship in coming years. Your guidance and insights mean a lot to me. :) If you would like to keep in touch more often, I invite you to join our editor engagement mailing list, where we discuss initiatives that support new users and experienced editors on Wikipedia. We recently opened this list to the public, so we could have more frequent conversations with valued community members like you. To join us, you are very welcome to sign up here. And if you haven't already, I also encourage you to contribute to the current discussion on whether or not to deploy Article Feedback v5 widely on the English Wikipedia ( see RfC). Because of your familiarity with this tool, you are in a unique position to present an informed perspective on its potential benefits. Note that we are adding a few final features recommended by the community, such as simpler moderation tools and better filters ( see project update). Thanks again for being such a wonderful advisor -- I look forward to more collaborations with you, to help make Wikipedia better for all of us! Regards as ever, Fabrice Florin (WMF) ( talk) 19:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hello. The disruptive IP/User [16] in Archaeogenetics of the Near East has been causing problems elsewhere and exceeding 3RR. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_in_multiple_pages_.2F_3RR_.2F_Sock-puppetry Cavann ( talk) 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Mr.Dougweller, I was not familiar with the fact that there was a matter of copyrights, in the article of Akhtar Hussain Malik, anyway I am grateful to you for this favour of reference to Wikipedia policy, and I appreciate your help in this perspective! As I am new to Wikipedia, this will help a lot to become a good editor at Wikipedia!
Best Regards, Faizan Sarfraz Al-Badri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanal-badri ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
... here. -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 14:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey all; another newsletter.
That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Johnleeds1 ( talk) 16:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Left a message regarding the Islam Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advise and I need helps as I never wanted to misuse wikipedia for my own benefits. NickAang ( talk) 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have reworked the whole article and was wondering if you could proof it for me. Networkperson Networkperson ( talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to get back to you on that. Yea, the author was Nyland herself. I remember it being added some year ago. As I recall, she did publish some of her researches in a legitimate publication. I must admit, I left it in because it was interesting. All the other commentary on the book seems to be about the Hittite and Mitanni languages. Paul B ( talk) 19:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please check this user contributions and behavior. All of his/her edits are just POV-pushing, blanking, and introducing nonconstructive edits/errors to the articles. You warned him/her before. his/her talk page and edits. Check and verify the articles he/she edited. All of them are reverted. Zheek ( talk) 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yaboyabo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ark ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
My understanding of External Links is that they are just that, and so create no COI. In a page on Ford automobiles, for example, one would expect an external link to FMC's own page extolling their cars, so long as this was not used as an authority for their superiority in the article itself. It could, however, be used as an authoritive source for the fact that they claim superiority in some dimension. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 19:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wikpedia format guide calls for explanatory and citation footnotes to be in a section called "==Notes==", with "==References==" reserved for a list of referenced sources. If I change "==References==" to "==Notes==" and add "==References==", will footnotes still find their way to "==Notes=="? Or should I just try it and see what happens? HuMcCulloch ( talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you removed DnaTribes analyses on this article saying "it is not a reliable source". But on the other side, you left IGENEA which cannot be considered as more reliable.
Indeed, IGENEA, same kind of company than DnaTribes, reconstructed DNA profile of Tutankhamun, based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel but the Y-chromosome of King Tut has never been published and DNA profile displayed in Discovery Channel documentary may not belong to the Pharaoh. Indeed, according to Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tübingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible"...
So if you want to "stick to peer-reviewed studies" you have to remove IGENEA as well... 90.36.167.101 ( talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC))
Sorry, that's my mistake. I didn't notice that vandalism was made by multiple IPs. -- Make cat 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the revert to earlier vandalism. As I recall that there were some intermediate edits and I was trying to revert one of those that was also vandalism. Obviously, there was even earlier vandalism that did not handle. It's good to get a reminder to check on whether there was even earlier vandalism to an article. I have seen it a few times before. I think I may occasionally assume a revert takes care of a problem with an article. While usually true, it is not always the case, especially if the earlier vandalism was done by a different user or if one needs to use undo rather than rollback because of intermediate edits. Donner60 ( talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thanks a lot - I give him an answer. It's just the Brazilian political sewage effluent discharging into Wikipedia... - Al Lemos ( talk) 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug, Sorry for thed confusion, I haven't submitted for a long time but I've worked on it and would like you to look at it before submitting the rest of it. I did edit today, I put in all the stations with market/format/station freq. The formatting didn't come out very well. How do I submit something for you to review before I actually edit on Wiki? Networkperson ( talk) 22:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Well, I (sadly) expect to see attempts at self-promotion. What I don't expect to see is the welcome extended to it here. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 01:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Doug. This article and User talk:SuzanneOlsson are on my watch list. Suzanne has just now restored a link to her own web site at www.rozabal.com. It should be evident from the discussion on her talk, at Talk:Roza Bal, and at WP:COIN#Roza Bal that she doesn't have consensus for this edit. She has received many warnings which she has chosen to interpret as people being mean to her. Your name has appeared on her talk page, so perhaps you've been following this. I assume you are too involved to take admin action yourself, since you've edited Roza Bal. Do you have any suggestions of how the matter should be followed up from here? It seems to me that a filing at AN3 or ANI would be possible. I had my finger on the block button, but I see that none of the regulars have asked for admin assistance. My previous statement to her at User talk:SuzanneOlsson#WP:3RR can be viewed as a final warning. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 05:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Please use more caution when summarizing your edits. See the history for Natural Bridges National Monument. You reverted four edits by User:Eyreland but the summary says you reverted my edit. I realize it must have been an oversight and no reply is necessary. – droll [chat] 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear who wrote the material from the Teeter book. Chapter 16 is by David O'Connor and heavily cites Bruce Williams. Chapter 9 is by Bruce Williams. There is no great mystery as to who wrote portions of the Teeter book. It is very clearly stated in the book (each chapter and many pages). Therefore, it would be exceedingly biased for you to remove the Teeter citations on these grounds and if you do I will add them back. There is hardly a better source on Earth to discuss these points than Bruce Williams and people that relied on his work for their subsequent findings. Rod ( talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I have expanded this lil' curiousity and I wonder if I could put it on a candidacy. What do you think? Regards;-- Nephiliskos ( talk) 18:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Wiki-decorum prohibits me from saying what I think is up with this, but I am staying the heck away unless the actual content of the article starts going haywire. You are the copyright vio man, so if this is lifted from somewhere, I'm assuming we are not entitled to reproduce it at such length. It is, however, fringe nonsense, and I've been unable to trace it through searching key phrases. It's also worth noting that the user account was created with this post. Cynwolfe ( talk) 21:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As per Natural Bridges National Monument : I do not remember getting any of the text from any source document that had a sovereign copyright. With Canadian, Australian and NZ geological research it is fairly easy to find this out but a lot of US sovereign copyright text leaks into other places. The US is in such a state of internal collapse these days, I am amazed sovereign copyright is even able to hang on at all.
I checked my own edit list, something you could have done and this text you wrote appears not to be true:
My security intelligence sources tell me a few near Tzar bomba like devices are already in US major cities and could be set off by .li for any reason. One hopes these rumors are not true, but in a failing nation state rumors are sometimes more reliable than outer sources. Eyreland ( talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller. Since you had warned this user to stop his disruptive editing like 3 months ago, I want you to know that I have now reported him to admins: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#EMr_KnG. He is a "man on a mission". Currently, he is busy copying the (Anatolian) Turkish name of various articles in the first line of each of them, even though the Turkish language has no relation to that article (for example Sher Shah Suri or Akbar). His user page already proves everything. Regards. -- Lysozym ( talk) 10:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I'd love to look at something else. But I need a third party to help me with some very bogged down discussions on E-M215. Can you help? I think some of it comes down to how to work on Wikipedia.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Just some notes:
@@===and a technical question=== Just a question for my info concerning edits of yesterday. I noted your remark that I was on 3R. I had no intention to edit at that time anyway, but I was surprised. I looked again and I still only count 2r?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You have been kind and helpful to me in the past, so I wonder if you could please help me (and others) again. A page that I often contribute to was vandalized recently by a user whose talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.46.182.126
I did some research and found out that this user has a very long history of vandalism on Wikipedia, and since he/she exposes an IP address, I wonder why it has not been blocked yet. I believe vandals should be discouraged from making senseless edits instead of being allowed to get away with it forever. Is there anything you can do, please? Thanks in advance... P.S. If you don't mind, please reply on my own talk page to ensure that I see your response. Dontreader ( talk) 23:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping an eye on this User talk:Heironymous Rowe#Need help with the Wikipedia process of verifying a resource and adding a citation, User talk:Japerez#Taino people edits and the "Jatibonicu", and 173.61.231.157 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not on Wikipedia a lot right now and don't really want to get drawn into another confrontation with that seems like WP:FRINGEY, possibly promotional editing by what appears to be a member of the organization they are seeking to add into the article Taíno people. Maybe your leveler head can help them before I step in it again, lol. Best wishes and thanks. He iro 02:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I would like to request the removal of 3 alterations in the revision deletion. My reason for requesting the removal is under the following criteria.
Criteria for redaction
2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs.
It effects 2 web pages
Ryedale School
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ryedale_School&oldid=534666187
Posted on 24th January 2013 by 83.100.176.226 at 15:42
Offensive material posted about Head teacher and staff.
2. Pocklington School
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pocklington_School&oldid=534665908
Post on 24th January 2013 by 83.100.176.226 at 15.40
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pocklington_School&oldid=534665714
Posted on 24th January by 83.100.176.226 at 15:38
Please could you remove these postings they are offensive and serve no positive purposes.
I hope this is clear enough I'm not very computer literate!!!!!!!
Thank you
Jill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.66.196 ( talk) 09:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I currently work at LATIMER FX, Inc. and handle all of our web content. I completely understand the point of conflict of interest which is why I made sure to have each fact and sentence is a quote from another article, website, book, or journal. We try have all online usernames similar to maintain consistency amongst sites, however in this circumstance it looks to be not the best approach. What is the next step to preserving the article of Jason Latimer? Create a new Username? And then resubmit the article? Please advise, possibly review the article and let me know what changes need to be made. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latimeronline ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I spotted that while you were writing the message and took it it off. I created a new username, DURBACH, under my name Daniel Urbach in order to separate myself from LFX. Although I am on the Latimer FX website I felt my name alone was the best option. I then went through and deleted any information that was leaning towards promotional in any shape or fashion just to make sure. The went to my sandbox cut and pasted the code to it and resubmitted it...but I can't tell if thats done yet. I probably have to go back in and redirect it from User:DURBACH/sandbox to Jason Latimer. (Or at least it looks like that now) Can you please review? And then the next step is how do I get everything to look clean again without any notices at the top? Thank you so much for your time. Truly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DURBACH ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to review? I want to make sure everything is the way it needs to be. You mentioned there was some minor stuff that needed to be done with Latimeronline, I just wanted to follow up on that. What is the next step? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.41.225 ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Thank you for deleting the two postings for me Can you do the third - on 24th January at 15:38 user name 83.100.176.226 - Pocklington School thank you Jill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.193.183 ( talk) 13:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
New Section Here Pink Slime Revert
Um I reverted Pink Slime to an earlier version because I didnt like what the user, directly before me listed on the edits, did with it, calling the ABC a liar seemed wrong for wikipedia, and when I said stuff on the talk page it disapeared. Kane Caston Kane Caston ( talk) 18:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug. What's the rule re BCE vs BC? I made a revert at Canaan because I thought the former value neutral for a global encyclopedia, and after checking round, which only (given my hopeless ability to search wiki) indicated no decision has been made? Cheers Nishidani ( talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Was an honest mistake, I found several sources in the news suggesting today was his birthday. Apparently not, thanks for the catch. Not vandalism however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesmurry ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 02:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Many practicioners of biblical minimalism deny that they are minimalists and claim to stand in the righteous middle. However if acts like duck, walks like duck and quacks like a duck it reasonable to assume its some type of duck. Devers repeatedly denies being a duck but he sure sounds like one. His own colleagues point this out and call him out on it. Philip Davies refers to Devers as a crypto minimalist. Professor Philip Davies “The End of Biblical Minimalism?” University of Sheffield, England Dec. 2011 Others in his profession refer to Devers as a closet minimalist. He does in fact practice minimalism and at the same denying it. Devers has a strong dislike for the label applied to him yet at the same time he labels and accuses others in the field. So before you go willy nilly undoing everything to suit your preconceived notions correct what needs correcting and do not do whole deletions. This is what gives Wiki such a bad reputation in academia. There are to many academically unvetted administators who have only a limited knowledge if hardly any of areas they pretend to. I do not know your background so this may or may not apply. There are many people with a great deal of free time to spend all day on wiki and thus rise in the wiki culture. This does not make them credible or knowledgeable. This is one of the inherent weaknesses of wiki. It is vitally important to police oneself if the goal is the spreading of accurate knowledge. So my suggestion is to go back and look at what you did and see if there is a better way of going abuot it. Thanks P.S. I do not have the time to spend debating and going back and forth. I am much to busy with my studies. I do however have influence that can positive or negative and I would much prefer positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheasantpete ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug,
Please review my addition to the Anubis Article - section - ==Dissenting Theories and Popular Misconceptions== Please comment on the format I used. Also, it there a standard title I should use for sections the discuss the misconceptions present in popular media? Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I'll drop by every so often for more advice. Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 05:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes we should probably both warn him and give ourselves a large helping of trout, or in my case Arctic char, for not doing it before. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I have recently published a book called Thera and the Exodus, from which I attempted to list some topics on Wikipedia. You removed these for the following reasons: "Reverted to revision 535705872 by Dougweller: not a significant view, author is an electronic engineer, publisher publishes "publish titles on general spirituality".
Just a few remarks. Although this publisher specializes in spirituality and related topics, he also publishes books scientifically oriented books like mine. Books in this field are usually considered to have a limited sell range in terms of numbers and mainstream publishers are in general not interested. I was delighted to eventually find a publisher of my book, but the fact that this particular publisher now counts against me (in terms of Wikipedia articles and listings) is a huge disappointment for me. In fact, I will probably not consider O Books for my upcoming books if it prevents me from participating on Wikipedia. By the same token, I can fully understand that everybody can nowadays publish a book and you cannot allow just anything on Wikipedia.
Is there a process which I can follow to get you approval for contributing to Wikipedia? I have a PhD in Engineering and I am therefore fully aware of the scientific method. My book is extremely well referenced and there is nothing 'spiritual' in it. When does a view become 'significant' enough to be allowed into Wikipedia? Do you need a recommendation by acknowledged authors or authorities, can I send you and/or other Wikipedia administrators a copy for evaluation? Anything I can do, or is this the end?
With kind regards, Riaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur ( talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I have recently published a book called Thera and the Exodus, from which I attempted to list some topics on Wikipedia. You removed these for the following reasons: "Reverted to revision 535705872 by Dougweller: not a significant view, author is an electronic engineer, publisher publishes "publish titles on general spirituality".
Just a few remarks. Although this publisher specializes in spirituality and related topics, he also publishes books scientifically oriented books like mine. Books in this field are usually considered to have a limited sell range in terms of numbers and mainstream publishers are in general not interested. I was delighted to eventually find a publisher of my book, but the fact that this particular publisher now counts against me (in terms of Wikipedia articles and listings) is a huge disappointment for me. In fact, I will probably not consider O Books for my upcoming books if it prevents me from participating on Wikipedia. By the same token, I can fully understand that everybody can nowadays publish a book and you cannot allow just anything on Wikipedia.
Is there a process which I can follow to get you approval for contributing to Wikipedia? I have a PhD in Engineering and I am therefore fully aware of the scientific method. My book is extremely well referenced and there is nothing 'spiritual' in it. When does a view become 'significant' enough to be allowed into Wikipedia? Do you need a recommendation by acknowledged authors or authorities, can I send you and/or other Wikipedia administrators a copy for evaluation? Anything I can do, or is this the end?
With kind regards, Riaan
Thanks Doug, understood! I should have read your links more carefully. Regards, Riaan
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pyramid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tura ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the message. I removed Ayyavazhi from the major world religions template simply because it is not a major world religion. Rather, it is a localized phenomenon in a small part of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. It has extensive coverage on Wikipedia due to the disproportionate efforts of one individual. There is a whole range of discussion on the relevance or lack of relevance of Ayyavazhi on the talk pages associated with it. -- Akhipill ( talk) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious. Does a quote this long qualify as a copyright violation? John Carter ( talk) 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
First I will make it Mandatory to put at least a Notice on the page to inform the Creators that put efforts in WIKIPEDIA of Creating articles before some inexperienced in Life and out of misplaced zeal, decides to disrespectfully delete big chunks of the text. They should have put their intentions like they should do and that it is usually done by experienced professionals.
Second, when they take the initiative to delete a paragraph they should consult with others on that mater. There has to be a Democratic vote on what to take out and what to leave in the page. And not one person who, with his good intentions ends up vandalizing it.
Third, do not take it lightly what you delete, be special careful on everything that you take out and double check your stuff to make sure your not mistaken in your judgments or interpretations of the Law. Be respectful and do not Discourage Creators that put an effort, treat others like you wish to be treated. It is not like I have put garbage in Wikipedia.
Forth, Tell your selves, is this material of interest to somebody. If it is not for you, it may be for somebody else. Is it garbage, is it vandalism, is it misinformation. etc. For copyright material, I understand, but for "Primary Source" that is outdated WHERE THE CIVIL and International LAW itself Permits on Reproducing it, Reediting it, reprinting it, etc. it is unacceptable (we are not in school, plus Wikipedia is free of charge)
Fifth. What I can see of Wikipedia is it lacks the "Balls" of taking the responsibility of promoting and accepting "Original Ideas". The Ideas has always to be referenced from somebody else work or already published by another "ENCYCLOPEDIA" with "Balls" to backup it up. LEARN it.
Sixth, "This Primary Source" philosophy has to be Immediately PUT DOWN because of the bias it represents. Plus it is not Constitutional. It opposes Freedom of Speech. If I want to put the whole Bible in Wikipedia, or the Civil Law in it, or the Torah, or the Zohar, or the Scientific papers. etc, I cannot because of this Policy and yet there is tones of Wikipedia pages that are "Primary Sources" but it gets somehow subjectively accepted anyways. So you see that this in not Constitutional, because it is so bias, it opposes Freedom of the Press and at the same time there is an injustice that can flow easily form it. Do you understand what I am trying to do, I am working so that the world we are living in, be a more perfect and peaceful place. Do you oppose that? Are you with me or against me?
Seventh, The editors that edits other work of creators, have to be certified to do so. Plus they have to create at least some good articles of their own. They have to be accounted for especially it they lack the wisdom and respect. Unless this is what they want to do by purpose, to discourage, to misinform, to infiltrate by night, to Control the Media, what should be said and what should be not and how, for political agendas. We must not be naive to believe that all people are saints.
These are the first Seven Perfect Points to draw a Perfect Magic Circle, six on the circumference and one in the middle. Men can Achieve that Men can Conceive for a perfect World. -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 05:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 02:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and I will make sure to review what you've shown me - I remember using Global Vision as a source and I had no idea it was a problem. Anyway, I've made a lot of edits in the past few weeks and I don't quite remember where I put these. Can you point me to the page to which you're referring? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You apparently !voted both support and oppose in the same section. I assume your oppose was meant for the proposal above, but I'm not totally sure, so I decided against boldly moving it. Just letting you know. Thanks! :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you advise me on correct procedure? I created an article Amburbium before I realized there was an existing stub amburbia (plural; the singular is more common). I would like to turn amburbia into a redirect, and I don't see any content that needs to be merged into the newer article. Does there need to be a "merge history" performed for amburbia, or do I just turn it into a redirect, since no content was transferred? Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at Talk:Adnanites. Please see Talk:Adnan#Arabic_source_needs_a_translation which lists other articles where you may be able to repeat the same cleanup. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller--please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.D8.A8.DB.8C.DA.A9.D8.A7.D8.B1_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_Final_warning.29 (hope this link comes across properly). Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Just making sure you had noticed I replied to you emails several days ago. He iro 20:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Please check your inbox. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, due to copyright infringement you have speedily deleted the article I recently wrote about the film, Deadmeat. As far as I remember everything on the article was paraphrased and sourced with independent references, with the exception of the plot summary, which I wrote myself after viewing the film. Are you able to clarify excatly what copyrighted material I am culpable of adding to the article? Tanbircdq ( talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
Not sure what I did to deserve it, just doing what everyone else is doing. But thank you. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 03:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for interrupt, a user named User:Bobbi1988, who contribute unsourced music genres, just like Pink songs.
Block him with no expiry set (unlimited).
P.S. If someone needs unblock him, just don't unblock or just reblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofpyrus ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been following the progress of the article of Jason Latimer and the tags that have been place on it. I saw the the COI and the one about the wording and I totally understand and I am waiting the whatever process that needs to happen on that. What has caught my attention is something I figured I could ask you. There is a flag about the notability of the subject. Could you please take a look at it to see if its been inappropriately tagged? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DURBACH ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I took this matter to WP:ANI. I'm pretty sure this user is not here to improve the 'pedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LeaderforEarth1. Cheers, He iro 01:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
DougWeller - Many thanks for taking action. I could not help wondering whether "FastfromLight" and "StarMagicxxx" might in fact be the same person. -- DLMcN ( talk) 05:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller. As an occasional editor at G.H.E, can you please comment [23] in regard to my suggestions. Regards Slovenski Volk ( talk) 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, Circumstances in general events of Life have led me to take special notice of your Profiling-Being more specifically and the Intentions behind your work with the Wikipedia community. I would like to ask you questions in the order of thought patterns analysis if you do not mind.
Question #1 : Let's say we are 50 years in the future. If I tell you, what Wikipedia will it be like on that time? Will it be more then what it is now, will it be shut down by the Government in pretense of National Security or for economic reasons. Will it grow to be able, like in StarTrek, talk to the computer and it will give you all you need to know on the subject with cross references, analysis and comparative versions of events/subjects?
Question #2 : What is your point of view on the dual nature of the Universe, more specifically on the duality between Self-Conservation and Collective-Evolution? (in other words on the need to preserve traditions VS the need to go forward, or the need to live in luxury VS the need to do hard work-labor to achieve higher goals.) Is Wikipedia presents some kind of Duality?
Question #3 : What is for you, the fundamental differences between Knowledge and Believes? The difference between when I say "I KNOW this or that" VS when I say "I BELIEVE this or that". Who can we apply them and present them in Wikipedia?
Question # 4 : What kind of information People would like to have when they are searching a subject in Wikipedia. Basic information, extended information, out of this world information, extraordinary unedited new stuff information that they cannot find elsewhere, or just whatever information that somebody will present to them. (If you want to Know more on a subject, do you want complete info or just a summary because you lack time)?
Question # 5 : If let say, Wikipedia has competition with other (X)_pedias and some official or non official governing organizations forces, oblige Wikipedia in a certain censorship rule of conduct. Will it be better for Wikipedia to comply with this censorship or will it be better to fight for freedom and free knowledge. (In other words, if there is an infiltration of governing bodies that has power over censorship and they imposes their law on the Wikipedia Community, will it be better for the Community to follow the rules of this governing body or will it be better for it to fight it and try to impose her Will over this governing body?
Question # 6 : How about Justice in Wikipedia? Are there articles or subjects that gets merits will others gets less. If so, what is for you a good Wikipedia Subject and a not so good one? Do you think that another editor-administrator will be with the same exact taste.
Or If for you, they are all the same if they are well written and do not get out of hand.
For example, articles on esoteric or conspiracy theories, or inventions that got refused by the US Patent Office, etc.?
Question # 7 : Final Question : If I tell you, define yourself, what will be your question?
Do you thing that you can be more than you think you are, or you are just limited by the extend of your definition of yourself?
-- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 01:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug, your actions can be construed as being biased on the Ancient Egyptian and Black hypothesis pages. It appears that you are almost in collusion with a few other editors, which makes you a really bad candidate to be an impartial administrator for those pages, in particular. If you take action against me, I will seek redress with other administrators and through the proper Wiki channels. As you well know, I have added thousands of cited passages to articles, which have greatly improved the content. Your threats are unfounded and just another example of your bias. Rod ( talk) 17:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a current RfC at Juan Manuel de Rosas that could use more input than just the parties involved so far. I am having trouble finding much in the way of guidelines for political/nationalistic/religious-based historical revisionism that seeks to rationalize, sanitize or idealize the past in a way that promotes a particular political/nationalistic/religious PoV. As the History wikiproject seems to be minimally active, and since you have dealt with similar subjects in the past, your input (including any applicable guidelines for future reference) would be appreciated. Thanks. • Astynax talk 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, I've recently got involved in editing Armenia/Azerbaijan articles again. Unfortunately, it appears to be the same old same old.
E4024 ( talk · contribs) (a Turkish or Azerbaijani POV-pusher) was topic-banned from all Armenian, Turkish and Greek articles this morning [24] per AA2 and ARBMAC. Lo and behold, an IP editor 195.212.29.190 ( talk · contribs) has just appeared on an article I created which E4024 tried to disrupt, exhibiting the same behaviour. Compare [25] and contrast [26]. Also, compare these talk page "arguments": [27] and [28].
If this isn't E4024, then I've a good idea who an alternative might be. I have a strong suspicion there has been a hell of a lot of tag-teaming going on among Azerbaijani/Turkish editors recently. Details available on request. Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Would you agree that it requires a minimum of two people to edit war? If so, why did you add the edit war note to my page only and not to both parties (myself and Yalens)? Is that fair and impartial administration? Rod ( talk) 23:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Doug, I happened upon Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.rozabal.com and couldn't refrain from commenting. Best, Drmies ( talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
EnochBethany does not agree that his/her edits to Gun politics in Mexico are biased/non-neutral and has reverted your reverts to the article. EnochBethany does not seem to realize his/her style of writing does not fit encyclopedic etiquette. Here's my own example of what EnochBethany is doing (emphasized in bold): In order to carry a firearm in Mexico, an individual must received authorization from the government, except for criminals who ignore the law and do as they please.
EnochBethany feels the article must let readers know that not everyone in Mexico follows the law and therefore there are people who get guns illegally and use them illegally. I have no problem with that. It is evident that there are lawbreakers in Mexico, as they are in every other country of the world, and I don't oppose informing readers of the current gun violence/firearm-related crime that exists in Mexico but he/she must express so in an encyclopedic style, not as his/her direct opinion. It would be better if EnochBethany added a Gun violence section to the article, as it exist in the Gun politics in Honduras article, and use that section to describe gun-related crime in Mexico. Thanks. -- Usfirstgov ( talk) 02:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming you won't be watching a templated talk page, so please could I draw your attention to the response on mine. Thanks WikiJonathanpeter ( talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I can tell you've been busy, but if you can check back in over at the talk page so we can move forward, that'd be great. Thanks in advance! Thargor Orlando ( talk) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 03:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Suzanne is back, however I think it's worth giving her a chance to see if she can answer (on Talk not editing article herself) any of the 4 simple questions I put which are basic info for a structure stub. (Totally unrelated, do you have any remote interest in Far East or linguistics and would be willing to provide a third eye on an article?) In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You mean: other than the Pohl reference? If you're referring to the oil shales, that's in the WP article for Stellarton... TIA Jpaulm ( talk) 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The long road homw ( talk · contribs) Per their contribs:
I was thinking maybe WP:COMPETENCE might be an issue, but the user seems to know their way around creating an article, going so far as to add cite needed tags to their own unsourced additions [31]. Thoughts? He iro 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
S.a.mac2012 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Hi Doug. Given that
2 different journal articles cannot occupy the same pages at the same time, along with obvious misspellings in the doctored titles, and deliberately unconstructive changes like substituting centigrade for fahrenheit, etc., I think chances that this editor is a sincere contributor are less than 1%. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 15:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Brucewayneent is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
-- Wizardman 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Why did you place it on my webpage? -- Portolanero ( talk) 12:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug, I applied a redirect tag to Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) and pointed it to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Now all four of these so-called Authentic Matthew articles point to the same place. Since we had already reached a consensus to merge on the article talk page, I didn't see any point in dragging this out. Let me know if I overlooked anything important. Otherwise, I'm calling this merge/redirect done. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I took a look and the Roza Bal ANI is 13-0 with clear consensus. But if nothing is done to close and log it, will archive in 24 hours. That should be avoided after all the effort. By the way, In Ictu said that he found somethings and I looked and they were really impressive: misspelling with a dot, Max Muller, etc. Pretty eye opening research he did. History2007 ( talk) 01:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 04:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci ( talk) 11:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No, Doug, you stop. I know exactly who you are and why you are doing this. As far as I'm concerned you are a high-level vandal and ought to be removed from WP forthwith. What right have you got to sabotage a public encyclopedia? I WILL open a discussion on this and on you. Why don't you confine yourself to your own absurd site? Who do you think you are?Branigan 12:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
You are right. I'm sorry not to have noticed that Zertal was already cited before — Preceding unsigned comment added by אלימיט ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted
Text and/or other creative content from [[]] was copied or moved into [[]]. The former page's [ history] now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Answer
Hi Doug On the Islam page I put links to the other wikipedia pages about islam. To enbed the links, I added a few words so that it flows correctly and as people go through the article, they could click off and get more details. There were a few places where I added an explanation and felt that it also needed to be on the wikipedia page that it links to and therefore added it there in case people go to the other page without going to the Islam page. Doug I will add a copy tag in future. Thanks -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have a feeling that Anta An is none other than Shrikanthv whose article on KIMO Industrie-Elektronik GmbH went to AfD and was deleted. When I made my entry there, I did notice he was then an adoptee of Yunshui with whom he also took and passed a 'reviewer' test on 14 January, the day he made his last entries on Kimo as well. I notice he is all over the AfD pages since he created the new account on 13 February, mostly pages visited under the old name. Please have a look. Thanks.-- Zananiri ( talk) 14:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The addition of some material in the Melungeon article on DNA studies is ungrammatical and does not reflect the sources; also, the discussions on the Talk page by an unnamed IP is overwhelming to respond to. Most previous editors do not appear to be operating from the same baseline as the new IP. Reading an article by Yates, I was suspicious when he claimed to be finding DNA links from Melungeons to the Lumbees as Native Americans- I know for sure they cannot differentiate among tribes with DNA. (Yates has become convinced he is really Sephardic Jewish and that "most" of the Melungeons were Jewish, Turkish, Portuguese, etc. - the myths.) This is beyond me. On the one hand, the IP wanted to have only DNA studies from families listed in Dromgoole's article of the late 19th c.; in another place is happy to have the DNA results of the 40 "self-identified Melungeons," including Kennedy (Yates claimed that Kennedy was a Turkish name!; there is more and more wild stuff appearing) and Winkler. Parkwells ( talk) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I asked you a question here, and request that you please answer it. Another IP editor (111.161.30.218) has made an accusation about you, and whether or not this was a banned editor, his accusation is supported by evidence and appears credible. As an admin, your responsibility is to be honest about the reason for the discrepancy he has raised. 101.0.71.6 ( talk) 11:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, Game over on Roza Bal, but I am just amazed, amazed of how much effort it takes to bring normalcy into these situations. To the very end there were people arguing for continuation. Decision making is now nothing but a quagmire; and one just has to accept that the concept of the "wisdom of the crowds" is oversold. As I said, I will not be editing that page ever again, so will leave it to you guys - I just followed through because I don't like to leave things half-finished. As I said on ANI, I really don't know how you put up with it, or why you should have to at all. Before someone's driver license is taken away here, they need to run over 12 old people and 15 school children, else there will still be philosophers who will suggest that they should still be allowed to drive. That is not wisdom... Anyway, game over. History2007 ( talk) 13:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see how the ANI revision by LuckyLouie you pointed me to here is relevant? -- 92.4.162.209 ( talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I've got a question about some vandalism reversions using Twinkle
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey all.
As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).
A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You've got it. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller - I believe you have made a mistake here. You wrote: "I've reverted you. It was unsourced, but also it appears to have been copied from [12] or [13] which is prohibited by our copyright policy." I think you will find that the "unsourced" or possibly plagiarized material you are referring to, is STILL ON THE PAGE, whereas my additions are removed. This is a problem, because my contributions were authored by myself and original, but the existing material (which is there now, and is NOT authored by me) is what you ought to look out for. I will reinsert MY contributions, as they are not copied from anywhere, but collected and paraphrased from external sources entirely.
I think you will find is the case, once you look at it again. I appreciate your vigilance, but your really ought to go after whomever wrote the already existing paragraphs on the topic. Again - mine were original and does not correspond with anything you mentioned.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
DougWeller - I have just posted a note (and request) on GiantSnowman's Talk Page - and it is relevant and appropriate to let you know. I appreciate that you are busy with hundreds of other items, so there is probably no real need for you to take any action yourself, but you would almost certainly like to be kept in the picture. Regards, -- DLMcN ( talk) 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Doug,
I just read your feedback about what I tried to edit. Thank you.However, it is surly a historical error in your comment. Any victim from Formosa (now Taiwan) could not be victim of Holocaust defined as Enemy Nationals since what CKS controlled is Mainland China, not Taiwan. Taiwan was Japanese Empire Territory from 1895 ~ 1945AD, until it were later taken over by CKS. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure above history above with elders of my family (still alive) were educated under Japanese Empire at that time.
CKS (The leader of KMT political party, as government of Mainland China 1911~1949) had many diplomacy activity with Germany since 1930s(military consult / equipment from Germany to China)and when war between China & Japan(axis), in 1937, it is reasonable that many Chinese personnel were considered as captive in this political changes and become the victims.
I think what you're trying to tell is to distinguish KMT(as ROC - Republic of China, considered as Formosa[now Taiwan] since 1949) from PRC(People's Republic of China, considered as China since 1949), but at the moment of this event (1940 ~ 1945), bring up "Formosa" could be very misleading when KMT still represent China at that very moment(Even as a member of Allies who won WWII, though peace treaty with Japan were signed on 1952, instead of 1945 due to Mongolia independent issue).
Suggest to revise "Formosa [now Taiwan]" to "ROC" for better understanding.
Note: I'm sorry that I'm not good at Wiki interface, so I would no longer edit anything about this until getting familiar with this. Just reported the error in content and wish the administrator could fix it.
Ark89044300 ( talk) 01:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)