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.

Doug: With regard to Articles for Deletion/Van Tuyl you commented: "The publisher of the book in question is "R.L. Van Tuyl, distributor". This clearly fails WP:SPS and should not be used as a source."

The book was published in 1996 and sold out completely that year. It is no longer available for distribution. this was not a commercial plug, but rather a reference to the best - and most authoritatively researched - book on the topic. I cannot see how using this is in any way commercial.

Rory Van Tuyl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory Van Tuyl ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kayaking#Kayak roll article - your comments would be greatly appreciated. Alansplodge ( talk) 16:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Although I know that a definitive "close" has become somewhat rare at WP:RSN, would you be willing to make a call on the consensus at Wikipedia:RSN#caic.org.au? I am asking because the source is somewhat widely used, and the various related talk pages are generally inhabited by the same editors (making the same arguments) as have been at the RSN. Thank you for considering it. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 01:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, and especially thank you for the link regarding closes on RSN. Cheers! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 03:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gia Bình District. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug - there is a new editor (anon from Spain) whose interests, syntax etc appears to be very similar to a previous blocked user on this topic. Or perhaps its my imagination. Would appreciate your thoughts or input before I find myself in a tiresome edit war on this page, as I previously have, and I only have a few windows of time for WP at the moment. Cheers Nickm57 ( talk) 02:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See this discussion: [1] - you are mentioned. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |Haran]] is generally accepted to be have been located near the modern Turkish city [[Harran]])along the northern Mesopotamia, near the [[Euphrates River]], and was connected by a trade route to

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• that "von Brandenstein's evidence is quite unconvincing: his historical data is speculative (the colonisation being clandestine, there are no written records of it and his claims are not

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What evidence is that Edomites were enemies of Israel during the 10th century BCE. they may have been subjects. BernardZ ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The bible states that the Edomites were conquered by King David and were under King Solomon's domination and only broke free after King Solomon's death. So in the 10th century they were under Israeli domination BernardZ ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not what the source being used says. We go by what the sources say. If a reliable source comes along and says that they were wrong, we can use that. Dougweller ( talk) 05:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The source says possible Edomites, some are saying they are Israeli colonist but there is no proof for either theory. I also added some other sources

BernardZ ( talk)

The reason I removed the stuff on the copper mine was because it had nothing to do with the copper mine. What these sources refer to is an Egyptian building found there that we have recently discovered had nothing to do with the copper mine BernardZ ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A user has recently begun to remove the Lur categories from different articles, i understand that it needs a source, but what about the people with surnames like Bakhtiar (which means Bakhtiarian), i guess that the surname confirms that the person is an Lur/Bakhtiari? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

in Wikipedia your guesses are not reliable reference. the surname is not enough and you can not add any category without a reference.   ARASH PT  talk  16:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but i asked Dougweller (an admin), not some editor who removed it. A surname means much plus many of these people were born in places populated by Lurs/Bakhtiaris. But i guess Dougweller can explain. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Admins can't rule on this sort of thing. But I'm afraid I agree that surname is not enough. For one thing, you can change your surname. Dougweller ( talk) 17:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that this [2] is reliable enough? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 19:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really, but you can ask at WP:RSN. I see some pages on that website,or at least one, come from us. I can't find any evidence for Professor Manuocheher Vahidnia that would make him a reliable source by our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller ( talk) 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller,

I've seen your revert and think that your revert is partly right but still think that you shouldn't have to remove everything there was. Georgian airways, rugby union members and currency indeed uses the Borjgali and it is a reality. However I would welcome your suggestions. GJ. GEORGIANJORJADZE 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Replace those. I'm sorry, but copyright violations take up too much of my time and I can't also spend that time going through everything. You do seem to have a source, use it but make sure that your wording, the order of the text, etc don't look like the source. If you aren't sure how to cite, see WP:CITE or you may have dropdown boxes at the top of your edit screen. Dougweller ( talk) 18:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a new user here on Wiki though I welcome all suggestions. Also I've added the source in Chakhokhbili and you may be assured that the word is indeed correct and exact. I understand you're an admin and you spend much of time on other users who mess everything around but be sure that I am not that kind of user as I am only contribution-oriented only. GJ. GEORGIANJORJADZE 18:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No problems, thanks for adding the source. Dougweller ( talk) 18:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you revised an edit I made. I can understand the bit about OR I suppose, but what is meant by language we can't use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.149.41 ( talk) 00:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive comments on the Mima Mounds attempt. I have given up writing articles. It was time to quit at 75 while things were still reasonable. This is one reason I wanted this particular matter to end on a positive note. I had only hoped someone else would pick up on a good idea and not let it die. I will not be trying to write to Wikepedia again.

I have not yet given up trying to interest someone else to write an article or do some research, but am getting close to doing so.

Charles M. Hansen 85.80.205.84 ( talk) 09:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller again,

Can you please take on your watch these two articles and put the protection on them for some time? Colchis and Caucasian Iberia are vandalised by one user who removes all the sources all the time without even discussing it. Thanks. GEORGIANJORJADZE 10:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller "HistoryofIran" user vandalism in Lurs and Luristan page. He remove All Historical images and "Lur people of iran" map no valid reason. I ask you to stop doing this "HistoryofIran" user.

/info/en/?search=User:HistoryofIran

/info/en/?search=Lorestan_Province

/info/en/?search=Lurs

Thank you Setenlyacc ( talk) 05:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Capricorn (astrology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian ( 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) 11:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller,

I've added the references and images back in the article and hope you don't mind. Thanks. GEORGIANJORJADZE 21:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, it seems that user who edited that article dont want to discuss this problem and only reverting edits. I have already write him about it, but he ignoring my messages and still reverts edits. Please warm him about it.-- Δαβίδ ( talk) 10:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you kindly take a look at User Talk:Premknutsford25, a user you've already warned and I've also issued a final warning, and then note that post-final warning the user has again reverted to their preferred version. I could probably argue that all of my reverts so far have been to enforce policy and thus I'm not WP:INVOLVED, but there's no real reason to stretch the matter. If you prefer, I can take the matter to WP:EWNB for a wholly independent review. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Millions of articles or searches like angelina, abhishek, gomez also have same person listed in the (names) article, as well as the search itself, So are we going to correct them all just like we did on avril? aish.ego ( talk) 10:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I could say WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but let's see your examples. What we have is Gomez (disambiguation) with no names, with a link to Gomez with names. There was one name in Abhishek which was already in the list article, so I removed it. Angelina just has one page unlike the others. Dougweller ( talk) 12:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your inflammatory and deliberately bad faith accusations aside, I strongly disagree with your edits as WP:UNDUE. Neil MacGregor of the British Museum himself has stated his view of the cylinder as a declaration of human rights, as have numerous others as the sources indicate, proving your accusations against me to be wrong and defamatory. Criticism of this view should certainly be included, but your version is totally written in the most POV and revisionist manner possible. Laval ( talk) 11:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so anyone reading my page knows what I said: "At Cyrus Cylinder you removed the sourced text "claimed to be an early "human rights charter", though the British Museum and a number of scholars of the ancient Near Eastern history reject this view as anachronistic ^[1] and a misunderstanding ^[2]" and replaced it with "identified by scholars and archaeologists as the oldest known charter of universal human rights." This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV in that it removed sourced text showing a difference of opinion and added material, less well sourced, just showing one point of view.

Your edit summary suggested to other editors that you'd simply added sources, not that you'd removed some and made a major change in the text.

And you've misused your sources. The Guardian article [3] says "The Cyrus cylinder is often called the world's oldest human rights document, but it was common in Mesopotamia for kings to begin their rule with such reform declarations, according to the British Museum." You can't use that to call it the first human rights charter, only to say that it is often called that, and you certainly can't use a statement that denies it's the first human rights charter to say that it is.

The other article uses the word 'reputedly' and says "Museum curator Adamjee says when people call the cylinder a declaration of human rights, they may be reading what they want to see into an artifact with a more prosaic purpose. The cylinder was a foundation deposit, like a time capsule in a cornerstone in a prominent modern building. Adamjee calls it "a very traditional kingship document. The inscriptions mention a particular ruler and his lineage and invite the blessings of the divinities to protect the structure they were building." So, Adamjee says, "it's anachronistic to use 20th century terms to describe events that happened two thousand five hundred years ago." - if you are going to use this as a source, what was your reason for leaving all of this out?

This is hotly disputed issue and your changes removed the dispute and mispresented the sources. Please don't do this again. Dougweller ( talk) 10:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)"

Asd for Neil McGregor, he wrote "It has even been described as the first declaration of human rights, and while this was never the intention of the document -- the modern concept of human rights scarcely existed in the ancient world -- it has come to embody the hopes and aspirations of many." Dougweller ( talk) 12:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

And at Cyrus Cylinder we already quote him as saying "Comparison by scholars in the British Museum with other similar texts, however, showed that rulers in ancient Iraq had been making comparable declarations upon succeeding to the [Babylonian] throne for two millennia before Cyrus [...] it is one of the museum's tasks to resist the narrowing of the object's meaning and its appropriation to one political agenda.". Dougweller ( talk) 12:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the editor had been reverted at Cyrus Cylinder with the edit summary "let's try to keep this neutral". I'm wondering if Laval picked up the epithet 'revisionist' from my friend Kaveh Farrokh, who I guess would call me a revisionist. But that's one of the things about history and archaeology, opinions get revised as new evidence is unearthed. That's a good thing, not a bad one. Dougweller ( talk) 12:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Doug, an array of single edit socks seem keen on inserting the same first person account here. Appears to be copyvio, but I can't seem to find a source, could you possibly take some action here? As I've reverted something that's not an obvious copyvio, I'm not going to do it. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 13:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) I've semi-protected the page for a week, and put the page on my watchlist. Let's see if being unable to edit gets the user (1 person under multiple accounts, I assume, or a group working together) to actually discuss and realize the problems with the edit. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Q, it could be a college project too, just the other day I found one on Gaya College of Engineering that no one had heard of at the Ed board. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 14:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Q - I was taking a break, playing with the dogs. I am a bit concerned about " is one of the greatest emperors of the Tamil Chola Empire of India who ruled between 985 and 1014 CE." - how many emperors were there between those two years? Sorry, couldn't resist. Dougweller ( talk) 14:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That should be the least of your worries here! — Spaceman Spiff 18:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saw your block of RealTimeLords1. Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callump90 for further background on this user. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 17:55, 21 September 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

As an editor with a long involvement in the Stonehenge article I would value your input on the latest content disagreement. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 06:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Traveling Man's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Traveling Man's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " List of species rumored/believed to still be alive". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not assume that by opening this case I am making any assumptions about any administrative actions. This might end up being a simple case of educating a new user. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug, sorry to drag all this up again. I've just reverted this edit to Patricia Cloherty removing a reliably sourced claim that the subject received an award from Putin. Apparently a source confirming she received the award "does not relate" to a claim in the article that she received the award. But I've also just noted this edit to a related article making a claim about the same person, sourced to the same unreliable source as last time ("COPI"). Even if it were determined to have been a reliable source, surely it's a WP:PRIMARY source and shouldn't be used for statements like that. From what I can see, one opposing lawyer has suggested that her testimony was contradictory. That allegation is now being used in our article as a source to support an apparent statement of fact. I've taken this to ANI and you were the only one who bothered to look at it. I don't want to get into an edit war on yet another article. Any chance you could take a look? Cheers, Stalwart 111 22:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, Im edited the article in my User:Vahram Mekhitarian/Armenian Eternity sign page and think that correct. Can I move the content of my userpage in to the main article Armenian Eternity sign? Vahram Mekhitarian ( talk) 23:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say - seams you do a good job. Always stay this fair and neutral regards Ginosti ( talk) 03:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Doug, there's a new wikiproject created WP:WikiProject Mirza and all bios that have the name Mirza in them are being added to it. The scope of the WP and the Mirza article seem to indicate that this is some weird synthesis, apparently like having a WikiProject Smith and tagging articles to it. Not really sure what to do in this case, I came across it after a repeatedly deleted article on my watchlist sprouted up again and was tagged with this. Can you or one of your able watchlisters take a look at this? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 05:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:MfD. And the talk page discussion isn't in English - that's not acceptable. Dougweller ( talk) 06:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Moazzam Mirza is the article that got me to this mess, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the garden, I've PRODded a couple of articles so far, but it appears that I need to dig deeper into figuring out what this really is. It seems all hunky dory from the outside, but a look at individual articles indicates something else. The main article isn't really easy to understand either, with all the his imperial highness etc etc — Spaceman Spiff 06:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Should the long list of relatives in the infobox be there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Flanders - Zananiri ( talk) 15:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This user just does'nt talk. Inspite of numerous SPI's, warnings still he is silent. He reverted your helpful messages. What can we do with him? Sohambanerjee1998 11:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I told him I'd block him, so I have. I'll be interested to see if he can reply. Some people who copy and paste have a poor command of English. Some who get blocked create sock puppets, hopefully he won't. Thanks for the reminder. Dougweller ( talk) 14:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern but just does not even tries to communicate. We are all there to help him, he just needs to look up. From our part we did our best the rest is in his hands. Sohambanerjee1998 17:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I've blocked him. Dougweller ( talk) 17:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

One question, how long will this block will take place? It is said indefinite but what does that mean? Sohambanerjee1998 17:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Until he convinces another administrator it's save to unblock him. Dougweller ( talk) 08:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. Sohambanerjee1998 10:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you revdel something if I email you the diff? - Sitush ( talk) 10:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sent. - Sitush ( talk) 11:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And another. - Sitush ( talk) 11:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Doug.

Apologies for breaking the rules. As someone who is new to wikipedia the references you posted are very useful. I'll have a thorough read before adding to any more articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorinjikempo ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on his travels he built mosques while also spreading the worship of [Mazu (goddess)|Mazu/Tianfei]. He apparently never found time for a pilgrimage to Mecca but did send sailors there on his last

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Diego ( talk) 16:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You have a weird definition of "edit war" if you think I'm doing it. Edit war means "reverting", but I'm not reverting - I'm trying new content with each edit, each time trying to address the points raised by the people who reverted (who are different each time, BTW). You'll notice that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is policy, and that both WP:BRD and WP:REVERT recommend using reverts as a last resort. Diego ( talk) 16:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

True, I shouldn't have used the template, but you were undoing other people's edits each time. That's reverting. The fact that your content varied didn't change that. You could have and should should have been working it out on the talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 16:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, that user added the same text agein. I dont want to revert his edits, please warm him.-- Δαβίδ ( talk) 17:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The page that you are referring to is from a website of Indian government which are in public domain. And they are essentially provisions in constitution/law and therefore re-rendering might not be good. Aravind V R ( talk) 14:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied on editor's talk page. Site says "Material on this site is subject to copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The material may be downloaded without requiring specific prior permission.Any other proposed use of the material is subject to the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs.Application for obtaining permission should be made to the concerned Divisional Head / Joint Secretary." And an article that's just a copy of a webpage isn't what we are looking for. Dougweller ( talk) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article is not just a copy paste. If you notice I have tried a little bit to structure it :). And by the way, the article relates to a very important topic (too important that an article in our constitution is about this). May be due to the general educational backwardness of my country or something, much of the articles relating to my country remain stubs.

The general policy of Indian govt. is pro-public domain. Please read the section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of this doc. Since a mere definition of a govt. body is not of the "nature of information/document calls for a restriction", I think its fine. Else I would mail the department office. If everything fails I would re-write this. But since my academics will keep me busy for 2 more month, I prefer to write it after that. What do you think? Aravind V R ( talk) 15:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll post your comments, or you can post them which would be better, to the talk page, but as I said, there is a clear copyright statement. Actually there are a huge number of Indian articles that aren't stubs, but some of them are not particularly great. I really can't remove the copyvio template as I believe it is copyvio. And I don't think the article did the subject justice in any case. It does look important, although sometimes institutions like this don't do a lot. Dougweller ( talk) 16:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit, (underestimate), short for time for the next few weeks due to life pressures, Doug, but I certainly would like to revise this article. I thought I'd try to start a CE and revision tonight, but it has all sorts of problems (sourcing, insufficient clarity over the Sheba/Sabaean people nexus, failure to distinguish early from late traditions, etc.etc.) and it began to look like a headache requiring a few days at least, which I don't have at the moment. Could you be so kind as to keep my promise on the backboiler and give me a nudge if I don't get to do some overhauling there within the next month or so? I tend to forget a lot of things like this. Cheers. Nishidani ( talk) 20:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks very much. Dougweller ( talk) 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, please take some action about that article or deletion discussion. I removed that content but administrator said that such issues should be addressed to you.-- Δαβίδ ( talk) 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Would it be possible for you to check for an OTRS ticket for this image obtained from this photo at http://www.pooppeepuke.com/. It has been marked as pending since February. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Searching for Shannon Sutherland came up with nothing, but maybe someone else can find it, try Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard - I see the editor who uploaded it is around off and on and has email enabled, maybe email him? Sorry I can't be of more help. Dougweller ( talk) 08:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll check with the uploader. Thanks for trying. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an ongoing edit war with (I presume) an ISP with a dynamic address here, who wants to give what I & another editor feel is undue prominence to a fringe view here, although one promoted by an otherwise respectable scholar. In his first incarnation he added to the main article Camuliana which is fair enough. But here it is too prominent for a view with no other academic support. I'd be grateful if you could take a look. Cheers, Johnbod ( talk) 21:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you read my message correctly, you'll notice I didn't call him a vandal, just his actions, and his actions are vandalism. I included four reliable secondary sources to an undisputed fact that was previously (and still is) unattributed, and he went on to revert my entire edit and removed said sources, which is also information suppression. If he had acted in the correct manner, he would have simply reformulated the sentence and left the sources. He did not. The assertion that I attributed with four reliable secondary sources is not in dispute, only the way I have formulated the sentence is in dispute. Thus, he should have changed the sentence, but not delete the sources.-- Kobayashi245 ( talk) 10:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing that calling edits WP:VANDALISM, which we define as "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.", is not calling the person who makes these edits a vandal. Sorry, but that is no excuse and is calling him a vandal. In any case, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Dougweller ( talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Semantics, I know. There's a thin line between "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and "misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". But very well, I won't accuse him of vandalism any more, but it is still information suppression in a way. Regardless, I have said all I had to say, and now what is left is coming to a mutual agreement on how to articulate the way the undisputed fact is presented in the article, not whether to attribute the fact with my sources or not.-- Kobayashi245 ( talk) 10:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Nina Rosenwald ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anti-Muslim

The Social Contract Press ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FAIR

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Dougweller. Thank you for your note. Yep, but you beat me to the revert that really mattered... At least it saved me a journey to ARV. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 15:11, 3 October 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani nationalist(s) using various IPs are warring to have modern Azerbaijani name included on Nader Shah, Shah of Iran. Nader was Turkic, but he came from North-East Iran and there's no evidence he spoke Azerbaijani. He certainly didn't use the modern Azeri script. Semi-protect? -- Folantin ( talk) 13:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe the simple fact of contacting you served its purpose and the guy was warned off. He seems to have a familiarity with the 3RR rule, so it's possibly someone logged out. Whatever the case, it's stopped for the time being. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: the Buddhakahika SPI, it's no good blaming the bot. Some might say that a good workman never blames his tools but I'll just point you to the first sentence of this section. - Sitush ( talk) 15:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC) (make sure I sign this one!)

Ah, thanks, I wonder if that's a change, as sinebot always used to sign for me. Dougweller ( talk) 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It has not done so for me in a very long time. I think some bots are struggling at the moment, though - probably something to do with the move from Toolserver. The bot used by the folks at DRN seems to be all over the place but no-one is responding to my comments about it and happen I think that one is rather critical, ie: not being notified of a DRN discussion being opened when you are a named party. - Sitush ( talk) 16:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller - regarding reverting the recent Phoenicia edit with quotes from Rawlinson and Urquhart, I agree perhaps quotes are long, and perhaps you can help edit for brevity. But the fact they are old is relevant and expected given the long view of Phoenician History. Most Phoenician full histories were written in the nineteenth century.. kenrick, Rawlinson,Movers, etc.. Most recent contributions (Baumgarten, Moscati) have been focused on specific subjects (Sanconiathon, cultural heritage) and less comprehensive. I am interested in your view, but would like to keep some portion of the quotes of historians well versed in the subject. - Thx again for your interest and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabujawdeh ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I certainly am not looking to get blocked from editing, but I am genuinely confused as to how this became such an issue. I added Major League Baseball Hall of Famer Buck Ewing to the 1906 Death section as he died on the 6th of October that year. He is being removed, first by DerbyCountyinNZ, and now you. There is no anger on my part, so there will be no cursing from me or reason to block me. There are literally hundreds of other hall of famers listed in the death sections of pages. Why is this ONE individual not being allowed to remain? You talk about adding everyone with an article would overload the page. There are more entries in the death entries of one month in 2013 than there are for the entire year of 1906, so I fail to see how overloading can be an issue. This individual is a Hall of Famer, not some cashier at a local market. I've seen dozens of entries for baseball players with very little credentials listed in the death pages. If he is to be removed for insignificance or overloading, then he should be the first of many removed. He IS significant and his continued removal seems overly nitpicky for such a small entry. I ask that the man's entry be allowed to remain as it shows respect for his accomplishments in baseball and, quite frankly, the reasons given for its removal seem trivial. Twinsdude ( talk) 06:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop a request for some sort of rough draft of rough guidelines for religion. I believe you have participated in previous attempts regarding this matter, and I believe that your input on why you thought such guidelines were needed, and possibly why you believe they still are, would be very welcome and useful, as well as, of course, any input you might have on any of the other proposals. John Carter ( talk) 15:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this page, the lead is under siege again, first by a IP and the from a first time editor. -- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I work with John. The term may be 60 years old. If it is, we can get rid of the reference to Simcha Jacobovici coining it but recently there’s been a specific controversy relating to its use in Israel. I don’t see why you should censor the reference to Professor Goren and Dr. Deutsch, nor do I see why there shouldn’t be any links to the various articles – pro and con – relating to this issue. Are you trying to make the entry more accurate? Or are you trying to censor the debate? Also, I note your aggressive tone and don’t understand it. ( Naustin1980 ( talk) 18:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC))

Well, you reverted without any explanation at all. It looked very much as though you might be the same editor but you've explained that. As for the controversy, it dominated the article and isn't the only controversy about bulldozer archaeology nor is it necessarily the most significant. See WP:UNDUE. And honestly, it isn't clear what the debate is about. One says it is done in controlled situations to make sure context is kept. That's ok. Ah, I think I see. You've got a bigger problem than I realised - read WP:BLP. You can't use the blog as it fails WP:RS. We have to be very, very careful how we portray something like this involving living people, and frankly I think it's too early. I'm too tired now to figure out about this but it shouldn't go back in - it isn't clear enough as I said, and it's fraught with potential BLP issues. Dougweller ( talk) 20:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I just reposted taking your comments into consideration. I changed Simcha Jacobovici "coining" the term to "reintroducing" the term. I also made reference to the controversy breaking out in Israel. As far as I can see, there are no living persons issues. We quote Professor Goren and make absolutely no comments about him. Similarly, we quote Dr. Deutsch. That's all. You've taken out all references to Simcha Jacobovici's blog. By doing so, all you've done is tell one side of the story. It seems that you may be determined to censor this debate and I don't understand why the "free encyclopedia" would want to stop people from knowing that a debate is going on. In recent times, Jacobovici has blogged in the Times of Israel and on his own site. Several members of Tel Aviv University have written a response. Biblical Archaeology Review has published an ad and written an editorial. This issue has involved literally thousands of people and hundreds of academics. The post is fair and balanced and simply refers people to the various opinions. I hope you let people make up their own minds.

( Naustin1980 ( talk) 21:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC))

He did not 'reintroduce' a term that is common parlance among archaeologists. No one is trying to censor anything, just make sure our policies and guidelines are followed. And who are 'we'? Dougweller ( talk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

References to the blog were removed specifically because it was a blog. Blogs are not appropriate sources. -- TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 02:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, I've picked you at random for your expertise and I was hoping to get your advice (but not your direct intervention, as that might be forum shopping). In mid-August I removed some text at The Big Bang Theory because it struck me as WP:SYNTHESIS, as the text attempted to conclude something that was not explicitly stated in its sources, and the only sources were cherrypicked positive reviews that supported the summary. It was weirdly circular. Basically, "Critics started liking the series as time went on. 'I liked this season' said a critic."

A semi-retired user reverted my edit, but didn't explain how it was not synthesis. I've attempted to discuss on the talk page, but the user didn't give me a clear explanation. I attempted to discuss on his talk page, but I still didn't get a clear explanation. I've twice attempted to invite people from WikiProject Television [4] [5] to tepid response, and I've opened an RfC [6], but I've gotten poor response and non-committal answers. What's a next reasonable step? I really want to get this off my plate. Seems silly that something that seems like such a no-brainer to me could be stone-walled like this. I only have two people who sort-of agree with me, can I make my change yet or do I have to wait for more input? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, off to bed soon and out am, so I won't be able to look at this much until tomorrow pm at the earliest. I took a quick peek at the talk page but not the article. Dougweller ( talk) 20:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No probs, I can wait.  :) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd, I thought I'd replied. The RfC got one response, favorable. You've also got support elsewhere on the talk page. 2 days until the 30 day length for an RfC, I'd wait. And no one has to be notified about an RfC discussion, that's what watchlists are for. Let me know if there is a problem. Dougweller ( talk) 15:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So if I wait until the RfC expires, you think I'm good to make the edit? That's what it sounds like you're sayin'. Out of curiosity, do you think my argument holds water? I promise not to cite your opinion or mention you or drag you into this mess, I'm just curious if I'm way off. Thanks, I appreciate your help! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and yes. People seem to think they don't need sources for something like this, and also that they can say 'it increased' based on sources that give awards, etc, but then when later series don't get these... Others will of course disagree with me. I think what you can do probably is show ratings from reliable sources for each series and then note (without using the word 'note' of course) increases, decreases etc. Dougweller ( talk) 14:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, I waited for the RfC to expire, then I made my changes, removing the unsubstantiated synthesis. Hopefully that'll be the end of it, because this dude has sucked up far too much of my time and I certainly don't want to play any AN/I games with him. Thank you for your input; I appreciate your guidance! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your're very welcome. Dougweller ( talk) 20:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am looking for something very much like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_human_prehistory . I'd like to add Things from E.O. Wilson's Social Conquest of Earth and notes about various genes, like fox2p that many believe strongly correlates with language development, etc, etc*0.5. The user Das Baz, aka Erudil seems to have disappeared.

I'm more interested in the timeline that the "main articles", so, is it legit to just add stuff to the timeline? You can send me to the Teahouse or other, but, you have so many entries on the talk page, I thought I would ask you first. Bodysurfinyon ( talk) 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's legit, but you really need to source each entry. What worries me is using Wilson's book after seeing [7] and ]. Dougweller ( talk) 14:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. The problem people have with the book is group selection. The basic issue is whether all of our groupishness is attributable to our propensity for kin selection. [8] is a great read. I'm pretty much agnostic about it. I'd be using it as a source for the more basic facts like controlling fire. Bodysurfinyon ( talk) 00:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if the world is mean, this kitten still doesn't care cause that's what cats are like. Anyway, you're a fine editor and admin and usually a voice of reason, and I appreciate it.

Drmies ( talk) 17:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The feelings mutual. Sohambanerjee1998 18:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I got no idea what prompted this discussion, but I have to agree wholeheartedly. Granted, I think you are probably, most of the time anyway ;), maybe a bit brighter than the average kitten, but the little bastards do have a habit of keeping going in difficult situations, and drat it apparently having several more lives than the rest of us, so they can afford to overlook the little difficulties. I hate to think how messed up this place would be without you, and on that basis I really hope you don't give us any cause to actually deal with that nightmarish idea. John Carter ( talk) 15:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you ever run out of those 9 lives of yours I will be more than happy to donate mine to yours. What'd you say? Sohambanerjee1998 13:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit by you, [9] i would like to say that one of the line in the same page reads "English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1885), writing under...", another one is "At least one early Christian writer, Basil of Caesarea (329–379)".. so it's not like writers are not accepted for the page. I would like to add some more suggestion, that supports the similar theory, this one by Science historian [10], Helaine Selin. Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 13:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In those cases we are talking about the author's own views on the shape of the earth, we are not using them as experts on ancient history or ancient India. However, the encyclopedia can be used, but the entry is not by Selin but by K. V. Sarma and should be added "K. V. Sarma wrote "quotation" I think. Dougweller ( talk) 14:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

K. V. Sarma seems legit. Richard L. Thompson is legit too? Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 14:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

^^ Anyways, i am soon gonna make a summary about the edit, which would include KV Sarma, and Thompson as a source. Right now, there's bigger issue, this guy "Lindberg G Williams Jr" is trying to insert "better sources needed", even though the given sources are already enough. I think you should revert his edit [11], and tell him to bring it to talk pages, i don't wanna do 2nd revert as i already had 1 revert there. Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 19:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Thompson isn't a reliable source for this. He's in fact extremely dubious. Vedic creationists are good sources for Vedic creationism but not for Indian history. Dougweller ( talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

K. V. Sarma writes that Vedas(written approx 1500 BCE) provides a good study about earth;-

"One finds in Veda intelligent speculations about the genesis of the universe from non-existence, the configuration of the universe, the spherical self supporting earth, and the year of 360 days divided into 12 equal parts of 30 days each with a periodical intercalary month. In the Aitareya Brahmana, we read of the moon's monthly elongation and the cause of day and night."(ref)

---Medieval India---

Scientists such as Aryabhatta, Bhaskara, Makkibhatta, Brahmagupta, Varahmihira and others had also wrote about Earth's spherical form, and it's revolving, besides measuring it's diameter in a greatly precise way for their time. [12]

^^ This would be fine? Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 03:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to name your sources in your edit, as you did for Sarma, but it's Rgveda and as he doesn't say when those bits were written you shouldn't either. And the second bit would need to name the source, maybe do a direct quote - and of course say 'medieval'. Watch for the difference between its and it's, and never use contractions in an encyclopedia (do as I say, not as I do...), so use "it is", not "it's". And this isn't an official statement, it's comment by an experienced editor. Dougweller ( talk) 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This one is done, now another topic, similar though, the page Spherical Earth, i just checked it's full history, and it's obvious that you have been active big time. The page included the book by Helaine Selin as source, mentioned above, as well as other sources. Although the source of Selin became unavailable, it couldn't be verified, thus it was removed. So what you think now, about this version [13] or [14]. I think the similar version regarding "India" as well as lead paragraph can be brought back. Because "Early Astronomy and Cosmology" doesn't seem to be available, nor there's any 2nd source other than this wikipedia page which would confirm that it's talking about Rigveda. "Early+Astronomy+and+Cosmology"+page+68&rlz=1C1GGGE_enIN421&es_sm=93&ei=wPFSUqf7KsqUrAflnID4Aw&start=20&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=679&dpr=1. Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 17:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly deleted the Torman page of your own accord without any consultation with administration, the page is completely referenced, i will continually reinstate the page until you take it to Admin and propose it for deletion,,if after consensus it is agreed that the page should be deleted i will not reinstate the page-- Prograce ( talk) 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You are deleting pages without making any credible argument,, calling it a hoax of your own accord is not acceptable,,it is completely sourced,, if you have a problem take it to admin-- Prograce ( talk) 15:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

All articles created by this sock puppet have been deleted either by me or another Administrator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prestigiouzman/Archive. Dougweller ( talk) 10:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Doug, the Bulldozer archaeology page is the product of two of Simcha's paid employees, for the purposes of defaming Prof. Yuval Goren. They're obviously new to WP, and are just trying to legitimize the claims against Goren by self-citing. -- XKV8R ( talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sure there were serious WP:BLP issues here but didn't realise this was the situation, although it was obviously created to push Jacobovici in some way. Disappointing I guess that his employees believed he someone invented or re-introduced the term bulldozer archaeology. I see the speedy delete was declined but that was correct, there's every reason to have an article on the subject, but as I told N Austin, it needs to be built up as a real article (which it wasn't quite) substantially first. I don't want us used to bring off-wiki arguments here by participants (so if you want to edit it in any way that is generally about the subject, fine, but let's stay away from this argument at the moment). Dougweller ( talk) 20:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I apologize in advance if this is an inappropriate request and constitutes canvassing, however, I was hoping to engage you in informal dispute resolution on a WP:CIVIL issue in a two-editor thread that appears not to be self-resolving. For full disclosure, I'd previously made a request of User:OrangeMike, but I believe he's offline now. I chose you at random to request informal dispute resolution as a precursor to RfC/U (if necessary), if you have a few minutes available (I certainly understand if you do not). I've posted a brief summary below and I'm certain the other involved editor will shortly provide his perspective, as well.

Background: The entry Ronan Farrow has recently been heavily edited through insertion of promotional language by a large number of single-purpose sockpuppets. A seven-identity sock was recently uncovered and banned. The two remaining editors, myself and Tenebrae, had been engaged in a cooperative process of resolving much of the promotional language that had been inserted in the article, but came to a disagreement on one sentence. I believed the source of our disagreement to be grammatical in nature. Tenebrae believed the source of our disagreement was content-based and thought my suggested edit constituted POV insertion. Since there were only two active editors, and to resolve this impasse, I posted a RfC. Unfortunately, the RfC has become - I believe - derailed through aggressive name-calling by Tenebrae who - prior to the RfC - had been extremely gregarious and civil. Specifically, in the last 24 hours:

• accusing me of being a single-purpose account that exists for the sole purpose of inserting "derogatory" content in Ronan Farrow [x3]
• describing my contributions in the RfC as "child-like" [x1]
• describing my contributions in Ronan Farrow as "biased" [x3]
• summarizing my contributions in the RfC with "la la la" [x1]
• calling me an "extremist" [x1]
• calling me a "liar" [x1]
• describing my opinion in the RfC as a "smokescreen" and 3x declaring he will get an admin to block me if I do not publicly state my agreement with him that my suggested edit is POV
• several other name-calling episodes that can be read in the original RfC but I have not included here for sake of brevity

Attempted Resolutions to Date: I requested, seven times, not to be name-called, however, this has not helped resolve the situation and I believe the inundation of personal attacks is scaring away other editors from commenting on the RfC. After all of the above were posted, I told Tenebrae I would not engage with him further until he "calmed down a little." This has also not helped resolve the situation. At this point there are only 2 confirmed editors participating in the RfC - Tenebrae and myself - and a single IP editor has posted his first comment ever to WP in this thread as well, though dealing with the RfC and not the User Conduct question. (For full disclosure, I have expressed a sense of reserved skepticism about a first-time IP editor appearing in a lightly-trafficked, but sock-heavy, thread almost immediately after the RfC was opened.)

Other Factors: Separate from this issue, I posted two quotes from Tenebrae (about me) in my userspace as part of page decor/personalization. Tenebrae told me he was offended and requested I remove them. I apologized and stated I would remove them, though Tenebrae edited my userspace himself before I could (which I don't have a problem with as I had planned on editing it anyway). This occurred following the spate of name-calling and it was not my intent to offend Tenebrae, but I acknowledge it had that effect and take ownership for using his content in my userspace.

Tenebrae is a user with a long-history of achievements on WP; certainly a history that eclipses my own. I am convinced of his maturity and goodwill. At the present time, we're - however - unable to move forward with actual edits as we are the only two editors and the RfC has descended into one party name-calling the other and making accusations of poor faith, and the other editor simply repeating requests not to be subjected to name-calling and accusations of poor faith. No content dialog is occurring. Thank you for any counsel you can provide to us. BlueSalix ( talk) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am really sorry but at the moment I'm shortly off to bed (and hoping that the toothache that didn't keep me up last night isn't a problem). And I'm out all morning, so not really around for about 14 hours or so from now. If I can still be helpful then I'll see what I can do but as you can tell from the posts above I'm getting swamped. Dougweller ( talk) 20:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I certainly understand. Thank you for your consideration. BlueSalix ( talk) 20:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am weighing in on the dispute with Tenebrae as a fellow editor assisting in insert neutral tone after BlueSalix's repeated disruptive, single-purpose editing of the article Ronan Farrow. User Tenebrae appears to have been the only objective counterbalance over the course of several days of apparently biased editing from BlueSalix, who has in hundreds of edits inserted derogatory quotes and characterizations and stripped out neutral discussion of the article's subject. BlueSalix caused considerable damage to the article's neutrality, and to Tenebrae's reputation in the course of his canvassing for support in the wake of this dispute. Other editors such as myself have only been able to begin inserting neutral voice to the article due to Tenebrae's considerable help in chastening BlueSalix for his or her disruptive behavior. AsadR ( talk) 21:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And I should mention that BlueSalix is admin-shopping rather than using a noticeboard, and that he never notified me of this. I'd note that much of what BlueSalix says is spin and out of context, and suggest interested parties read the RfC thread at Talk:Ronan Farrow to see for themselves. That said, you're one of three admins BlueSalix has gone to, so it might get crowded there.... -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulldozer Archaeology". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 15 October 2013.

• Doug, reading through the mediation request, it took me some time to realise where your disagreement was, as it looked like an extra para on the long statement above. I have tweaked the layout of the page to make things clearer. This involved, I suppose, forging your signature to the "Disagree" statement just under Naustin's "Agree", so I hastily let you know and you can revert me if you like. JohnCD ( talk) 13:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller,

I'm delighted with the sanitation undertaken by you in the Haplogroup I-M438 article. A certain user (no names mentioned) had been formerly very stubborn in maintaining the unreliable sources in question. Part of them (namely Kenneth Nordvedt) have now also been introduced by other Slav nationalists in the genetics section of the Croats article. Could you consider kicking the hornet's nest and clean out the pseudo-science once and for all? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK) 04:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my reversion to prior vandalism. I usually try to keep that possibility in mind or at least glance at the finished product as a double check. I am afraid that even after having become aware of the problem some time ago, I have missed this a few times (out of many). I know we need to strive for no mistakes rather than a very few. I think biography articles may be somewhat more susceptible to multiple vandalisms within a short period of time if the person is living and has some "anti-fans" for lack of a better word. It seems I just missed it this time. A reminder is good to have on such occasions. Donner60 ( talk) 06:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a GOOD reason as to why Buck Ewing's death is not allowed in the 1906 death section. Every other MLB Hall of Fame player is listed in their respective years. It seems unbelievably unfair that I could be blocked because I strongly believe he should be listed as well and am therefore persistent. This issue defies logic and reason. I imagine you laughing and enjoying messing with me over this. It almost seems personal, because it absolutely makes no sense that ANYONE should have a problem with Ewing's inclusion. So, without threatening to block me again, can we have a discussion on the topic?

Take a deep breath, read WP:AGF, and take it to the article's talk page which is where it should be discussed. The statement about blocking was about edit-warring. Not so much a threat as an explanation of our edit-warring policy IIRC. Dougweller ( talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you bought up JohnEUnited, Naustin1980, and Michelle d74 to SPI? If you haven't already, I will. It seems pretty blatant to me, due to the edits at Bulldozer archaeology. Apologies if you have, I had an emergency come up and haven't been able to really keep up. -- TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Naustin works for Simcha Jacobovici and as the article was created by an editor who knows nothing about the subject other than what's been in the media in order to showcase a controversy where he's a major player I believe the first editor is also. Michelle is likely related in some way also. I don't think they are socks. Thanks though. Dougweller ( talk) 06:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright. The whole thing is pretty convoluted to me; you're the more experienced player here so I trust in your judgement! -- TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 06:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

See [15] and [16]. Note that Jacobovici is being at best disingenuous about his inventing the term, skirting around it by saying I didn't offer any proof he didn't. Dougweller ( talk) 06:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note that Jacobovici has since blogged about it in an effort to put pressure on Wikepedia editors, who he feels are treating him unfairly ( http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/wiki-wars/). Jacobovici stirs controversy and makes sensational claims for a living. This is what he does. Editors at Wikipedia should see that he's attempting (via proxy WP:meatpuppets) to rope Wikipedia into his latest row.-- XKV8R ( talk) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Trust that no one feels like they're under any pressure; it's upsetting that he feels the need to present Wikipedia in that light, but no one will make concessions to him just because he runs a blog. After all, I blog about Wikipedia too and my opinion carries no more clout than anyone else's. -- TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I also just read your exchange with Naustin1980. "Soviet" style, huh? Just wait until she starts making thing up and escalating it another three notches. That's who your dealing with. It's all a coordinated PR campaign. John McGinley (who also works for Simcha and who sent the email touting Nicole's mark-up of the article) does PR for Simcha. (here's a screen cap from one of Simcha's docs: http://robertcargill.com/?attachment_id=9917). They're all working with/for Simcha. :/ -- XKV8R ( talk) 20:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to ask you to strike the libellous comment you made about me on the talk page of Daniel Case. In the section IP at Nina Rosenwald, you said "This IP is pretty obviously and openly anti-Muslim." You make this remark in reference to me, the only IP actively editing that page. I am not anti-Muslim and you have no basis for making such a claim. Your remark is offensive and untrue. Please strike through it. As an admin, you should know better. -- 72.66.30.115 ( talk) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I did ask you to stay off my page, you could have asked me at Daniel Case's page. You certainly appear to be anti-Muslim and that is my opinion. I'll explain this at his talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have asked you at Daniel Case's page but his page cannot be edited by IPs. -- 72.66.30.115 ( talk) 16:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the term "libel" practically constitutes a legal threat under these circumstances. However, it cannot be libel, as an IP address cannot have a reputation to be defamed. It has to be a specifically identifiable person whose identity is public. In this case your identity remains unknown; being called anti-Muslim on the basis of online statements attached to only an IP address which for all we know may not even be uniquely yours, or even if it is may still be used by others, cannot possibly cause you any real-life harm that you could be compensated for. Doug doesn't even have to make the usual distinction between stating that it's his opinion and stating it as fact (if, indeed, it can be factually proven or disproven to the sastisfaction of a court that someone is prejudiced).

So, the short of it is that while I should at least warn you over the legal threat, I won't because it's a transparently empty one. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Already did, thanks. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Scroll down the talk page to the second Whois notice. Dougweller ( talk) 06:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems as though discussions about this BLP may have gone out of hand. I feel like I'm in the wrong for accepting this article in the first place. Was I really? Because I feel like I was. :/ -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 12:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so - but Reddogsix's addition of the "too few opinions" tag maybe should have alerted you to the lack of criticism, and a search of her name now brings up the Blumenthal article. But that pales into insignificance compared to the obvious copyvio I've found in AfC articles, or the recent one created to publicise something where a search on the title would have shown that the first line was completely wrong. That sadly ended up with stuff on the web about it when I removed the publicity attempt. We need AfC and you all generally do a good job I think, but I'm not clear how obvious copyvio or gets by, or information that a simple search on the title would reveal gets overlooked (this was a claim that someone had coined a phrase, a search on the phrase made it obvious that was wrong). But don't beat yourself up over this one, and in fact if it weren't for one editor we might not have had so many problems. Hm, now that's interesting, the IP's first edit was to an AfD where Roscelese had already posted. Something to think about. Dougweller ( talk) 13:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you help :). I think that ip used to be slightly different, seeing what they said on my talk page earlier. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Bulldozer Archaeology, to which you were listed as a party, has been 
declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 
mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 
Chairman of the Committee, or to the 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Per your offer at Talk:Islamophobic incidents, please do your magic with Twinkle! Thanks!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you think should be done about Loomspicker? I've already raised the issue at AN, but nothing was done since he oh-so-conveniently went inactive for a few days. He's clearly a single-purpose account with the agenda of scrubbing the encyclopedia of a word he dislikes, but what, in your opinion, is the best course of action? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no time today to even think about this. Dougweller ( talk) 20:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

An IP has just posted on WP:AN regarding this article - you seem to be involved. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. I know you're interested in the David article. Have you seen this new book by Joel Baden? It's interesting that a figure deemed unhistorical is treated as "the historical David" by a Yale professor. A quick skim indicates the historical record is the Bible. Wish I had time to read this book right now. Maybe you do? Regards, Yopienso ( talk) 17:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see he addresses the historicity question on p. 12, and very logically. Yopienso ( talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm beating myself with hysop to make amends. Enjoy... Haploidavey ( talk) 10:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This person is edit warring on Satire - predictably, the problem is the word Islamophobia - I have tried to engage in discussion but (surprise surprise) s/he has nothing constructive to say. getting tired, but I don't want to give up... -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 10:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If there's a pattern across a number of articles then ANI is the place to go. You of course aren't the only person to point this out. If it's bad enough, the usual remedy is a topic ban. Dougweller ( talk) 11:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Or an RfC/U of course. But both only after trying to work it out on talk pages. Of course, templating regulars is never a good idea, especially twice. Dougweller ( talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

By "C&P" I meant "copy and paste." Most of those Serer religion articles' additional reading sections list the same authors, or are just repetitions of things that already appear in the references, and frequently both. These articles are so jacked that there's no way they can be fixed without a total rewrite and access to all of the texts cited, but I don't think that an article that is only half about the Serer religion should have that bloat. Eladynnus ( talk) 14:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Doh! of course. Yes, they are really bad. I've tried to work on them but at some point gave up. I don't trust the editor who created them of representing the sources correctly (in fact I and others were able to show he didn't) or of using reliable sources. They all reflect his beliefs and treat them as fact. Thanks very much for your work today. Dougweller ( talk) 14:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was one of the guys who got a copy of that article that supposedly proved that the "raampa" were real. I visit these articles periodically just to marvel at them, although you can see that at Serer creation myth I've also done some pruning. That article is especially bad not just because of its quality but also because it implies that there is a single myth regarding creation a la the Genesis creation myth; it is in fact a collection of myths, some of which which have no obvious connection to one another except their common origin in Serer religion. It always tickled me how the author of these pages was so insistent that his culture and religion was totally separate from those of Eurasians, while the way these articles were written suggest that he was constantly comparing them. Eladynnus ( talk) 19:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There have been repeated attempts by this user to change the term "Maratha Empire" to "kingdom." I will assume this change is out of ignorance and not page-based sabotage. Therefore, I have provided you with an exhaustive list below of all primary sources that state Emperor Shivaji founded the "Maratha Empire" (not a "kingdom" as you so quaintly put it) in 1674 (note: these sources include both WASP "Westerners" and "Indians", so both perspectives deem the Maratha Empire an "empire" and not a "kingdom"):

Kincaid, D. (1937). The Grand Rebel: An Impression of Shivaji, Founder of the Maratha Empire. Collins. Talwalker, C. (1996). Shivaji's Army and Other “Natives” in Bombay. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 16(2), 114-122. Cooper, R. G. (2003). The anglo-maratha campaigns and the contest for india: the struggle for control of the south asian military economy. Cambridge University Press. Kincaid, C. A., & lavanta Pārasnīsa, D. B. (1986). Comprehensive History of the Maratha Empire. Anmol Publications. Nadkarnia, R. V. (1966). The Rise and Fall of the Maratha Empire. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. Takakhav, N. S. (1921). Life of Shivaji Maharaj: Founder of the maratha empire. Ranade, M. G. (1900). Rise of the Maratha power (Vol. 1). Punalekar & Company. Sardesai, H. S. (2002). Shivaji, the great Maratha (Vol. 1). Genesis Publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.181.166.191 ( talk) 05:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No repeated attempts here. This should be on the article talk page, and I found numerous sources saying Kingdom. This IP has been using various IP addresses for almost 2 years and several experienced editors reverted him yesterday. Dougweller ( talk) 06:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong SPI complaint. I did that because this page has been under constant attack by sock puppets. The case against him is more than 3 years old and has no progress because there is no substance. Enough evidence has been given in the court and some of the accusers themselves have been convicted of charges. Unfortunately the media doesn't report this. The way the section is written now looks like a charge sheet more than a wiki article and is an attempt to defame rather than report. In fact the courts and media bodies have warned media of abusive reporting in this case. So relying on media reports too much for negative information is not right.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnaren ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I just saw your edit, I think, that summary explains the point itself. It may just need a better explanation. Justicejayant ( talk) 10:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution in Indian related articles, I think you should intervene in this topic Hinduism and other religions, a user Saddhiyama, who has knowingly a history of reverting my edits on different pages before(march 2012) seems to be offensively editing a page, about which he/she hasn't edited ever before. This article, where this issue has taken place, Saddhiyama seems to be engaged in a edit war, despite this user hasn't ever made a contribution to this article, apart from reverting back to the Fringed version, like recognized here.

The page contains highly WP:Fringe, Once I made changes into this page, a user "Blackguard_SF"(he has to do nothing with this page nor he discussed anywhere) reverted them, claiming "written like essay", after that, I started re-wording the article so my edits were reverted by Saddhiyama. When I asked for the explanation from Saddhiyama, I actually agreed with a few edits, but this user wants complete removal of all sourced materials that I added, by claiming like "you copied this from old history of wikipedia pages", " [17] is a dead link", and a lot of more childish explanations which has to do nothing with the sourced content or confirm that i coypasted the article. After I took this issue to DRN, this user failed to provide even a single valid argument, and kept telling the same fairy tales like "I forgot which article it was", "Don't know where u copy pasted from, but you copy pasted"... [18]

It seems more like, that the user is assuming Bad faith only for causing trouble. Because if these 2 users assume good faith, they would be thinking of making the page better instead of removing all reliably sourced materials and bringing back to Fringed and unsourced version. I want to make this page a lot better, but these with these 2, i can't. You should contribute here. Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 10:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kuba_rugs_and_carpets&action=history -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 18:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please? and by the way this looks like copyvio and is also unsourced [19] -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if i am spamming you but could you please take a look here [20] and here [21], thanks. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Excavation (archaeology) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and was going to cause considerable damage to the archaeology. Rosemary Hill describes how [{Geoffrey Wainright] "oversaw large, high-speed excavations, taking bulldozers to the site in a manner that shocked
• Which way is up? Context formation and transformation: The life and deaths of a hot bath in Beirut

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Llanos de Moxos may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ==External links]]

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• for Blake by the name 'Lambeth' (house of the lamb - see 4:14-15 note). Compare Isaiah 52.7 ('How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that ..."</ref><
• 11 - Issue 1 |publisher=Maxwellinstitute.byu.edu |date=1993-07-08 |accessdate=2012-11-16}}</ref> }While Mormon scholars have interpreted it to mean Jesus, most historians and archaeologists agree

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 08:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2012}}</ref> In the early 20th century Soviet linguistic policy renamed the [Chagatai language] ''Old Uzebek'', which [[Edward A. Allworth]] argued "badly distorted the literary history of the
• qit`as, 133 ruba'is, 52 muammos, 10 chistons, 12 tuyuks, 26 fards, 3132 poems - 22450, 5 couplets (44901 misra's (poetry couplet ). The work was finished in 1498. In this collection 16 different

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 09:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Bless sins had changed the wording in the Seljuq dynasty article. [22] The original text read:

• "In 985, the Seljuq clan split off from the bulk of the Tokuz-Oghuz and set up camp on the west bank of the lower Syr Darya (Jaxartes), where they converted to Islam." (reference:Michael Adas, Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History, Temple University Press, 2001, 99).
  

The changed text reads:

• "When Seljuq, the leader of the Seljuq clan, had a falling out with Yabghu, the supreme chieftain of the Oghuz, he split his clan off from the bulk of the Tokuz-Oghuz and set up camp on the west bank of the lower Syr Darya (Jaxartes). Around 985, Seljuq converted to Islam." (reference:Michael Adas, Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History, Temple University Press, 2001, 99)
  

My concern is whether this change is plagiarism. This the what the Michael Adas source states;

• "Seljuk, an Oghuz warlord who had a falling out with the Yabghu, the Oghuz supreme chieftain, was among the early converts to Islam around 985."
  

What are your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretty close, it could be paraphrased more (eg disagreement instead of falling out), but there aren't a lot of ways it could be worded. I'm not concerned unless there's more from the same editor. Dougweller ( talk) 13:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on this, I think you may be interested in this: [23] Montanabw ^(talk) 00:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Akhenaten, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer ( talk) 17:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I created a new subpage in your userspace and revised the links so they pertain to you instead of Elockid. Hope you don't mind. [24] You might want to create a new stats page. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Just catching up. Thanks, I'll self-trout. Not sure I know what you mean about creating a new stats page. Dougweller ( talk) 13:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The "black cat" stats link goes to an uncreated page - [25] -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I love, love, love the Halloween theme! Very festive! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Urməvi and User:HistoryofIran have both been notified of AA2 editing restrictions and juding from the editwarring by the cooresponding IP, I would suspect that is User:Urməvi logged out. [26] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. The articles are technically OK, although some of the refs may be a bit iffy. I deleted the software article because I couldn't even see a claim for notability, another article has been sent to AFD by someone else. I can't see how Teenfav in its current form can be AFDed. It's got references, not overtly promo and I imagine the viewing figures make it notable. Interestingly, one of her edits was a comment about the promotional nature of a law firm article on its talk page, which led me to delete said article. One to watch, as you say Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As Wiki advises I began discussing this in the talk page. You have made no attempt to engage me in the talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.61.142 ( talk) 09:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, But I didn't threaten you with a ban, and your made an attack on the editor who added the study of the Chinese skeleton calling him a pro-Chinese racist. Dougweller ( talk) 09:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Check the recent history. I think the problem with the paragraph is now fully resolved, but this shows how important it is to laboriously dig through the history instead of just reverting the most recent suspicious-looking edit: you have bad edit after bad edit. Especially India-related articles are a mess.

This is why I wish we would implement a simple but radical solution, such as protecting vulnerable articles from IP editing altogether. It's just too much work to vet all these edits, and so nothing gets done, such as actually working on the articles. Instead, they degrade further and further. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 22:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some of them are a truly dreadful mess - from inappropriate content to flagrant NPOV violations to nationalist editing, copyvio and an understandable inability by some editors to write comprehensible English. There certainly are times when the only solution probably is semi-protection. I don't expect it will be long before I'm reverted at Jayadeva birth controversy (which needs more work but right now it is Jayadeva that's the focus. Have you seen the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and a couple of other editors' talk pages? Thanks for your help and sorry to be so long in replying. Dougweller ( talk) 20:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• sigh* ... same problem again ... and again ... and again ... Now, he is even deleting the Encyclopaedia Iranica in the intro, replacing it with whatever unacademic source he needs ... -- Lysozym ( talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, would you mind my asking your opinion? Is there anything I should be apologising or making amends for in relation to the exchanges here User_talk:Astynax#Inappropriate_remarks, here User_talk:Dkriegls#Inappropriate_remarks, and here Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements#Definiton_of_NRM.2C_or_lack_of_it? Thanks. DaveApter ( talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Although "cherry picking" was used earlier, Astynax was over the top in his accusation at the article talk page. I'm surprised you didn't pick that up. It escalated from there. So I wouldn't worry a lot about it, just rein back perhaps because my experience shows that it's best to ignore anything personal (not that I'm perfect about doing that) and concentrate on the issues. Dougweller ( talk) 16:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't really active in Wikipedia for quite some time. So I am not really up to date. The current "conflict", however, should be over quite soon. The academic sources are quite clear. Babur was not an Uzbek (no matter what modern Uzbeks claim) but of Mongol Barlas origin, and Ali Shir Navai was no Uzbek (no matter what modern Uzbeks claim) but of Uyghur bakhshi origin. -- Lysozym ( talk) 20:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I want to notify you that Turgeis keeps editing government types as User:Izraías and as User:-Ilhador- ( block log). I've just cleaned up his mess. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 14:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Majority part of most of the copied text was written by me, so I don't think the article should be deleted on the grounds of Copyvio. Even then, if I give credit to those articles, can it be restored? The parts which exists elsewhere are the sections of Decline and Rama. Rahul Jain ( talk) 06:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It would take me forever to sort it out and Risker agrees that it had to be deleted. You need to recreate it from scratch - you've got a copy in your sandbox, right? Which is again copyvio but I've left it there to be worked on. My guess, given what Risker says at [User talk:Risker]] is that you may need to revise it anyway. Dougweller ( talk) 06:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I have removed the copied part and created the article again. Would that be ok? I think I can copy texts along with clear message in edit summary. Rahul Jain ( talk) 06:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Because you obviously don't have enough to do as is ;), I would be interested in any comments you might have on the talk page of the above article regarding the revisions of an editor who has admitted being an adherent of the school (which is why he has proposed them) and my own input regarding what seems to me to be the problem of deciding what content best goes where, and how to deal with that concern. John Carter ( talk) 15:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

... my post at RP's talk page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You stated: "I'm afraid it's still WP:Plagiarism - and there is a serious problem of how you are going to meet WP:VERIFY. "I note that you've confused Sadashiv Ambadas Dange, the academic, with Shripad Amrit Dange one of the founders of the CPI", and even if you straighten that out you don't have a source for the statement. You'd do better by trying to get the blog out of your mind entirely and starting a new article finding your own "

Hi I have not confused Sadashiv Ambadas Dange with Shripad Amrit Dange the founder of CPI. It was Comrade Dange (Shripad Amrit Dange) as he was known who availed his press to publish several of Vasudeo Sitaram Bendrey's books. This fact is corroborated in the videos I had posted from eminent Marathi historians such as Ninad Gangadhar Bedekar and Shri Babasaheb Purandare. But these are in Marathi. I plan to rewrite the article because, I did have the blog site holder release all the articles to the public domain but I guess it is not enough. All the articles and video references about Vasudeo Sitaram Bendrey are in Marathi which makes it equally tough to verify for one who does not know Marathi. Is there a way for me to get a reviewer that knows Marathi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaitanya.Errande ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at WP:AN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend ( talk) 22:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, the user Δαβίδ deliberately removes my contributions without reason, contributions non structural, changed a meaning of article. He does not understand what is the Armenian Eternity sign, confused with other symbols, such as Borjgali, and removes the unique photographs of examples of Armenian Eternity sign from Gallery. He also removes entries on the talk page, which is unacceptable. By its non constructive actions, he interferes with the work of other editors. Please warn this user did not remove my editions, and not doing what he do not understand. Vahram Mekhitarian ( talk) 22:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

BJP has leaders and politicians from all religions. Stop labeling and calling names it blindly like a paid journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniash007 ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not my fault that the party is described that way in its article on Wikipedia. As for calling names - isn't the 'paid journalist' bit name-calling (and pathetic as I'm clearly not one). I see you've been reverted again. Dougweller ( talk) 05:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doug, I appreciate your offer to step in if I wanted to let you know about that anon IP adding questionable edits to music pages. It's still going on, just not on the same scale as before. Two articles on 22 October, one on 23 October, all on music pages. The first two were just more of the uncited personnel listings; the one on 23 October was the vandalism that the IP in question had added about 10 times before to that same page ( Sad Eyes). Still no response from that IP - 107.215.236.170

Rockypedia ( talk) 05:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Dougweller ( talk) 13:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

As you have commented in the past on List of new religious movements, I'm asking you to take a look at the recent activity on the article and the talk page. It seems that some are unhappy with the RfC and are rather attached to a particular outcome. I'm backing off (again) from trying to clean this up (as I don't need to get into an EW over it :/ ), but I do think that an extra set of eyes (and possibly a stern comment) would make a world of difference.Thanks for considering it, cheers! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 20:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You advised me to go to a talk page to discuss problems with an edit I was making rather than getting into a reverting war. I tried, but was ignored. Not only was my edit undone, but now I see that many of my edits have been undone. I can only assume by you or the other individual who had a problem with me in the first place.

It is this kind of pettiness that is the ONLY reason I do not make financial contributions to Wikipedia when asked to do so. My edits were harmless. But others with power complexes seem to enjoy ruling the Wiki universe with Nazi-like authority. You all win. I give up. I have neither the time nor conviction to press my issues. I wish you all the best. See you on the other side. Twinsdude ( talk) 03:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saw your edit at Saraswati. I don't really know where and when did it came, even though I have this page as watchlist. I would like to ask, how it's a copyvio? Did the guy copied from some website, or book? Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 00:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

From a government magazine. [27]. Dougweller ( talk) 05:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I see, BTW, you must visit this page Spherical Earth, and check the edit history, as well as the talk page. It can be written that greek astronomy had influence on Indian astronomy in medieval india, but indian belief was always spherical earth.. And some say that it's Indian astronomy who influenced greek? Like i mentioned in talk page. I think you can summarize the whole thing properly. Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that the article located at Kaijudo was deleted in error. The article was about a collectible card game which ties into Kaijudo (TV series). That article links to Kaijudo at the top as a disambiguation link and near the bottom as a Main Article link, so Kaijudo definitely wasn't orphaned. If the collectible card game isn't notable enough to have an article, then the disambiguation isn't needed and the TV series article should be moved to Kaijudo. Digifiend ( talk) 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted 3 times, once by PROD, once by request of the editor who recreated it, the 3rd time by me as a sock creation. I've removed the link, go ahead and move the article if you think that's the thing to do. Dougweller ( talk) 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the article. I will add sources to the contents.

From time to time I seach Wikipedia for violations of WP:CIRCULAR (genuine citogenesis). Usually I search for three phrases: Hephaestus Books (a publisher making books from Wikipedia articles), ...for Smartphones and Mobile Devices, and MobileReference. I recently deleted all the circular citations that include Hephaestus Books and Encyclopedia for Smartphones and Mobile Devices. I guess I will have to do the same for MobileReference when I get the time. But I have some questions. Why isn't this kind of external links blacklisted. Does anyone pay attention to such policy violations? Are there any other publishers making books from Wikipedia articles besides the ones I know? -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 13:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Republishers. I don't know why Mobile reference isn't on the list, and we really should have a list in WP space, not just article space. You could post to User talk:Moonriddengirl and see if she agrees about blacklisting the links, I've asked for links to be blacklisted before and we can request more. Do you expect to do the SPI soon? Dougweller ( talk) 13:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I will do it soon. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 14:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

[28] -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Omnipaedista, have you considered Global Vision Publishing, for a little variety? They publish a lot of books; the last time I checked, all copied from elsewhere, most including content from en.wikipedia. List here. bobrayner ( talk) 01:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lots of use of that. [29]And there's Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, see [30]. I thought I'd purged the Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh but it keeps coming back [31] which is no surprise. Most of the talk page mentions are statements saying not to uses it. Dougweller ( talk) 06:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Babur_and_Ali-Shir_Nava.27i. Now User:Nataev is accusing me of vandalism and is claiming that his version is a "modified intro based on other editors' suggestions". -- Lysozym ( talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I have responded on the Babur talk page. Dilip Hiro is a journalist, [32] not a historian, therefore he is not a reliable source. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, User:Nataev along with his "disagreement" over Dilip, has now resorted to wiki-lawyering and trying to depict the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy as my opinion("It's clear that you don't think Hiro is a reliable source."), insisting that Dilip is a journalist and a writer, as if that makes a difference! [33] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 07:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see that this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atif_Ali_Khan has been created by employing services of worker.

See for this contractor goo.gl/oqG6EA (Please add http:// in front of URL)

See for job posting on goo.gl/MpLkgJ (Please add http:// in front of URL)

All references are not notable and clearly seems to be from blogs that are used to highlight person. Image used on page is sought to be own work however this picture could not be accepted as per wiki terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.178.100.18 ( talk) 03:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller,

With due respect to Wikipedia Culture, I would like to maintain is as follows:

1) Refer to your reversion of Line 41 Edit by me in the article on Shivaji:

Shahaji, father of Shivaji was a Warrior and had sizeable army under his command, is quite general and the citation supporting as Shahaji being "Leader of a band of Mercenary" seems prejudicial.

The meaning of Mercenary is a person who participates in any conflict for monetary or pecuniary gains. I beg to differ that, this was never a case in respect of Shahaji.

Although, he was warred under various Islami Sultans of his era, I demand explanation as to why the case is made in the main article devoted to Shahaji Bhosale, which is similar to my edit.

Please visit his wiki at /info/en/?search=Shahaji_Bhosale. .

In this article, it is mentioned that, Shahaji was a Maratha General and not a single word calling him a Mercenary Leader.

My objection is related to calling Shahaji a Mercenary, which in good faith policy of Wiki is quite misleading and not serving the purpose for which the Wikipedia is being built to impart non-prejudicial knowledge. However, I shall come up with strong citation to support my objection.

2) In case of reversion of Line 162 Edit: no issues as Senapat and Senapati are one and the same.

3) In case of reversion of Line 190 Edit: no issues as Guerilla Warfare is bracketed under sub-Article Military on bullet 8.

4) In case of reversion of Line 211 Edit: no issues as Kanhoji Angre is being written as Kanauji.

Although new, please inform me about any mistakes I may have made, however note that, I intend no vandalism here. (PS: I read the article Wikilawyering (Humour).

Kindly take note of above, and it is urged in good faith, to consider my explanation in true Wikipedian Sense.

Regards, Ricky141 ( talk) 06:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 29102013, Pune MH India.

No problem, I meant to get back to this as I was also not sure about mercenaries - and I should have look at Shahaji. I've revised the text, left the source which I believes backs the rewording and I still think is a better source. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a tonne Dougweller, I really appreciate your timely efforts..

Ricky141 ( talk) 12:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks a lot.. Dougweller.. Happy Diwali from Pune MH India.. Ricky141 ( talk) 13:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

...to your email. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Sir. I'm writing in connection with the List of Christian films, in which you reverted my last edit of an up-coming movie. I want to know why please:

• Why did you do it?
• Where is your "criteria" stated?
• And what do you mean by "our" criteria?

Thanks in advance. Peace.-- Goose friend ( talk) 20:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So why don't you allow Carry Me Home on the list?

• It is written by Tim Chey ( The Genius Club); the cinematography is directed by Dean Cundey (' Jurassic Park,' Back to the Future), and it's the debut of TV-Series actor Peter Cousens as as a movie Director.
• The cast is made up by well-known actors and starred by highly acclaimed ones such as Cuba Gooding Jr., William Sadler, and Sharon Leal
• It is culturally relevant: The plot is inspired by the story of Amazing Grace's writer John Newton and his lifestory. It covers an historical period of the United States the African-American community, and includes negro spirituals.
• It is a big-budget film and highly expected to be released by several companies such as ChristianCinema.com., being presented as a"highly-anticipated" "Epic Movie". You can also check it out at IMDB.

Do you really consider this up-coming film does not meet Wikipedia's "notability" criteria?

Thanks in advance-- Goose friend ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not the problem. Create the article first, looks like it should be easy to do although IMDB doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. Then add it. There shouldn't be any red links on the list. Do you need links for proper layouts, etc? Dougweller ( talk) 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again dear wikifellow

According to the former reasoning: if a movie doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, then it is not "notable"?

If so, I must say let you know that that is a fallacy.

In addition, I have never seen a Wikipedia rule with the statement "there shouldn't be any red links on the list". I don't know, probably I ignore it, but, yes, I want a link, I want to see whether there's a link from Wikipedia where that statement is.

Seeking forward for your reply, -- Goose friend ( talk) 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, dear fellow. I'm still looking forward for your response.

However, I must say that whether you answer or not, I still see no reason why I shouldn't add the movie to the list again. I want to let you know and I would like you not to act as a controlling body of the article. Thanks in advance. -- Goose friend ( talk) 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

After reporting user:Urməvi, Seraphimblade blocked him indefinitely. Therefore, I have started looking for sources to verify and, hopefully, expand the Afshar article. You might take what viable information there is in the Avshar article and merge it with the Afshar article, unless you believe that would be an issue later. What information I can not find sources for will be removed from the article page and placed on the talk page. Let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I lost 15 minutes of my life posting to WP:AE on him, only to revert myself as Seraphimblade blocked him while I was doing that. Sorry, I've got too many other things on the go, I don't want to get involved with that. If you see HistoryofIran reverting without talk page discussion explain what happens, as he has the same sanctions. Dougweller ( talk) 18:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Will do. Is there any way that I could merge the Avshar article with the Afshar article, since the Avshar article is unsourced? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is the title, you can merge either way. But let me know first which is the best title and maybe I can help you make sure the merge goes properly - or rather just read the guidelines and ask me if you aren't sure. Dougweller ( talk) 19:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

According to google books, Avshar tribe get 344 hits [34] and Afshar tribe gets 5830 [35]. So Afshar seems to be the more commonly used name. As for the information, since it is all unsourced, I will just copy it to the talk page and if/when I or someone else finds a source then it can be re-added to the article. Would that work? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Doug, I have copied the information from the Avshar article and placed it in the Afshar talk page. You can delete the Avshar article whenever you want. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Should be a redirect. Dougweller ( talk) 20:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OMG I love your halloween navbar. Can I copy it? (and adjust slightly) Is this yours or something one can get generally somewhere?-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 14:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I stole it from User:Elockid, doubt that he'd mind. It's great, isn't it? I've dealt with your speedy delete nomination. Dougweller ( talk) 15:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. :) Elockid^{( Boo!)} 15:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It really is great.. Thanks (to you both). And I think I might be able to do variations on a theme for future events too thanks to seeing it..(I can copy code - just not code from scratch) And thank you for the speedy deletion question- I wasn't sure what to do.. Ah - that one - yes...Thank you!-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 15:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I can only see part of it; it seems to be too wide for my window, and lacks scroll-bars. I suspect it’s because I don’t happen to have the specified font installed, and my browser’s (monospaced) substitute is ‘stretching’ the columns or cells.— Odysseus 147 9 02:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's disappointing -- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 10:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Antiqueight's talk page.
Message added 16:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 16:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Alfietucker's talk page.
Message added 00:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Turns out Elockid already has a Christmas themed navbar ready and waiting - when the time comes I shall be asking him if that's ok to steal too.. Faster than digging out the icons and creating from scratch. I'm not American so there won't be a thanksgiving version. Maybe if I start now I can get a jump on February and March! Though I suspect Elockid is the one to go to for cool themes! I may have to come up with non holiday versions instead...-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 10:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

et·y·mol·o·gy ˌetəˈmäləjē/ noun noun: etymology

   1.
   the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
       the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning.
       plural noun: etymologies
       synonyms:	derivation, word history, development, origin, source More
       "the etymology of a word may be unknown"

That what I was attempting to do show the evolution of the usage of the word within the Jewish culture. What was there was untrue unreferenced legitimately, and sub-par to put it charitably. The evidence shows the 1936 Tarbiz article to be outdated and unimportant and barely read in 1936 to begin with. What Josephus called Ashkenaz, on a page about a Jewish historical word, is part of the scholarly method for dissecting a Jewish concept.

Theological bestsellers such as the 2 Christian Evangelical books, deserve a mention in their context, noting how they use the Jewish word, just as an antisemitic racial theory is mentioned, so to an Evangelical usage in proven non-Fiction bestseller form deserves a mention, as I did.

I completely disagree with your statements about my edit. But would like to inquire if I tighten it up, provide clearer sources, and remove the word for word quote from the JE, is how much I care about getting the true history put in the article? Providing precise referenced quotes, would you delete it then? Such as.. Josephus about Ashkenaz, Rashi said this here, Saint Jerome stated such here, and so on with ref brackets for each one with a link to a book and page number where these giants of Jewish history used the term and how they used it, and when, and a scant scholarly interpretation, to glue it together. How can that not be construed as an enhancement to the article? When all you have now is very selective quotation and lack of inclusiveness to the point of dictatorship level censorship.

I did not invent out of thin air the connection to Galatia, for example, Christian authors from as early as fourth Century had, the same can not be said for what was there. Kirk loganewski ( talk) 05:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was, I'm sorry to say, also a mess. Badly done citations, use of sources such as "The Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey, and the Creationist Bodie Hodge, etc. If you really think this stuff belongs in the article, see what other editors think by posting to the talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 22:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Second major information for you. Information is now about senior wikipedian, This guy is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BiH. He is one of spammer who spam wikipedia by creating spam pages. One of his example is Carter Hargrave which is paid. All of created pages are paid. He is smart and knows wikipedia very well, he add references and external links from clients there to wiki. He do some usual wikipedia stuff as well in between so that you can catch him. Please check his completed jobs on freelancing website (Link provided). Another spammy caught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.178.100.18 ( talk) 12:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Update Update, Update (Save wiki from senior wiki spammers) This user has multiple user accounts, he is involved in deletion of controversies content from Hydroxycut and that was paid too. He changes in such a way that no one can realize it. Check his strange activities on following pages (All paid)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxycut (30 March 2013‎) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Hotline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HireJungle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veeam

He challenges that no one is Better than him on wiki, no one has ever caught and no one will. Check that these are non-notable website with poor references. Your Senior Patroller is patrolling his pocket from wikipedia. A successful spammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.35.13 ( talk) 04:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Busy today, more time tomorrow. Dougweller ( talk) 22:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, can you help me improve this article, thank you: Heide (sect).-- CanaryIslands ( talk) 20:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Template:Indo-European topics has been reverted again following the expiration of the protection you implemented o 12 August 2013. Krakkos ( talk) 23:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I have effectively reverted a revert of yours, not because I don't trust your judgement but I think you restored the original vandalism by mistake? Helen Online 07:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought I'd done a restore early version, perhaps I planned to when I discovered what had happened. Anyway, glad you caught it. Dougweller ( talk) 14:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Pursuant to the Land of Punt affair, would you mind taking a look at this paragraph to make sure that it's well presented? Best, Middayexpress ( talk) 17:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dougweller! I must inform you that Erim Turukku, blocked yesterday for 24h by you, continued doing precisely the same things as before his blocking, almost immediately after his block expired. How he's reverting at the article Attila, which is as you know a subject to the 1RR limitation. You'll see that he reverted more than once. His overall behavior here is very problematic, he doesn't have a good command of English, and it seems he can't edit here per WP:COMPETENCE... Also, it may be possible that Turukku and User:EMr KnG are the same person. If that's the case, I guess it would be a WP:SOCK case. As you know, in most cases its illegal to have two accounts on WP. And, edits of both Turukku ( [36]) and EMr KnG ( [37]) look really similar. I guess a WP:SPI may be needed, but I myself don't have much experience with such investigations so I'll let you and other admins and editors to decide on it. Cheers! -- Sundostund 19:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

After some looking into how to do it, I just opened an SPI on EMr KnG / Erim Turukku, you can see it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG. If you have something to add, etc feel free to do it. -- Sundostund 19:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete History of Lower Saxony under G6
• Restore all of its edits that deal with the topic of Theodor Gottfried Liesching (from 04:24, 30 August 2012 through 15:25, 9 March 2013), and move-without-redirect onto that title to perform a histmerge. Since you had to delete Theodor Gottfried Liesching to perform the histmerge, restore the edits you just deleted; the two sequences of edits don't overlap, so a histmerge won't produce the convoluted situation described in WP:PV.
• Go back to History of Lower Saxony, restore all of its edits that deal with the topic of Württemberg (that's everything from 2002 until 17:13, 6 March 2012), and move-without-redirect onto that title to perform a histmerge. Since you had to delete Württemberg to perform the histmerge, restore the edits you just deleted; the two sequences of edits don't overlap, so a histmerge won't produce the convoluted situation described in WP:PV.
• Restore the remaining edits from History of Lower Saxony and promptly delete them all again under G12

My comments about "cut out..." were basically my thought process, showing why I thought that none of the "remaining edits" should be kept. I'm advising you to restore-and-delete them because (1) a G12 deletion for histmerge purposes isn't appropriate, (2) if your last deletion is a G6, anyone would be justified in requesting their restoration, and (3) the contents are copyvios of other Wikipedia articles, so they need to stay deleted, so (4) the deletion log should show that the last deletion was on copyright-related grounds. Is this clear enough? If not, leave me another note please. Nyttend ( talk) 20:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you look at Iranian people. An edit-warrior constantly reverts my edits. I've explained that the person that he try to delete is an ethnic Pashtun(Iranic) who lives in India but he doesn't care. BBBAAACCC ( talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please look at the article of Iranian people? The Indian edit warrior constantly harrasing/annoying me and vandalising Iranian people. BBBAAACCC ( talk) 15:11, 4 November 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi you have deleted the entry for Christiane Wyler an artist living in Phuket/Thailand. Looks like due to copyright issues? Please ex[lain me what was wrong with the site as Christiane Wyler is the proper owner of all photos published on that website and as we are just in the process of getting the copyrights registered with wiki commons.

May I asking you to get that created wiki page for Christiane Wyler back?

Many thanks and best regards Christiane Wyler christiane@christiane-wyler.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.139.233 ( talk) 02:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Wiki commons has approved the copyrights of all the pictures used in the article about Christiane Wyler you have deleted because of copyright infringements. Got an email from Johan Boss at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that all pictures are marked. May I ask you to put the article back online? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.139.80 ( talk) 02:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Wiki commons has approved the copyrights of all the pictures used in the article about Christiane Wyler you have deleted because of copyright infringements. Got an email from Johan Boss at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that all pictures are marked. May I ask you to put the article back online? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.139.80 ( talk) 02:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Given several posts above, I've started a discussion at WP:ANI#3 more paid editors?. Dougweller ( talk) 06:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

nice catch. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for contacting me. I have seen all the messages you have got by an ANONYMOUS users here. I have one retorical question for you: If they know that I receive money for my work, then they also do that because we would meet on hiring website, right? I have tracked his/her IP to India. Do I have to say more? I have never written any article that does not pass at least marginal notability about the things/people I find interesting. If something is wrong, it can be fixed either way. In the end, I advice you that you track those who are hiding behind IPs, not me who contributes to Wikipedia. I am at your service for any questions. Thank you for your time. -- BiH ( talk) 07:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of policy we do not try to identify IPs with editors. The deletions of your articles suggests differently. I see you haven't yet responded at WP:ANI and you have not denied being paid for editing. Dougweller ( talk) 07:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I will respond at ANI, but wanted to talk to you first. -- BiH ( talk) 08:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to make a single entry to the Oak Island Theories page but I keep on getting my one line entry deleted either by the automated system of editors, Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SukhwantSinghLongShip ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your redirect of this to the book. It was fine as it was, but I am unable to revert it. There is no other musical titled "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and you redirected it to the novel, not the 1902 musical (which is called "the Wizard of Oz" NOT "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz"), as you believed. You really should have left it alone. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, but I hope you are going to improve it. See [38] for instance. Dougweller ( talk) 19:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, any opinion on a DUCK block here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG? Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller, I am prepared to extend this block to indefinite. I haven't done so yet because your block treads on the area of WP:AE and I would rather not touch an AE block without first checking with you to make sure you're OK with it. I am convinced these are the same user. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 03:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comments regarding the nude photo on the Strippers article. I would think that because the photo shows identifying information from what might be seen as an intimate environment, there is an expectation of privacy. Not, of course, from paying customers but it is different for patrons of a club to see a sex worker nude and something different to have their nude photo be posted on one of the most trafficked websites of the Internet. It is not apparent that the women were even aware that their photo was being taken but even if they were, I'm sure they never expected to see themselves on a page that gets 30K views/month. For all we know, their families and friends are unaware of how they make a living. It seems like this is basic BLP, Wikipedia doesn't allow for paparazzi photos to be used for celebrities and this seems no different.

Plus, I am 100% certain there are photos that exist on the Commons of strippers who are clothed or who we see the back of, instead of a full frontal view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the nudity. I've replaced it with a photo that looks very much like a publicity photo and whose Wikipedia page doesn't express the same concerns. Dougweller ( talk) 11:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The older image was clearly a candid photo. A publicity photograph from a photo session is completely different. My concerns were of expectations of privacy of LP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Last night I happened upon real fringe stuff being added to this article, and despite warnings, it's still going on. I already reverted twice, and I'd rather not do so again. A. Parrot ( talk) 17:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Truth tell, I also put something up on that article's talk page on the subject. I think everything having to do with this so-called "Torah calendar" can be removed. I might leave one paragraph only of description in, or might not. Do you mind providing an opinion as to whether I can take all that stuff out based on WP:V and WP:N grounds? Thanks. StevenJ81 ( talk) 18:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I now understand the rules and why you have done your edit.

Is there a reason why you removed the quotation from Sacha Stern which referenced the Ketubah at Antoopolis dated to Year 6 of the Shemittah Cycle, Day 20 / Month 9 on the fourth day of the week with a link to 412 C.E. on the Creation Calendar at torahcalendar.com? This sentence was accurately referenced and is scientifically verified by the link to the Creation Calendar proving that there were Jews in Egypt who were observing the calendar in 412 C.E. that had been followed by the Levitical priesthood until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.178.202 ( talk) 18:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil response. I simply did a mass reversion of something that was simply not acceptable, I wasn't trying to actually edit the article other than that. Suggest it at the talk page saying where you think it should go. The source certainly meets our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller ( talk) 19:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Administrators

The page Khwarazmian dynasty is not suitable to the content of the article. Because the article is not only about the dynasty of Kwarezm Shahs but also about one of the greatest turkish empires of middle ages. For that reason I strongly request you to let me change the title to Khwarezm Turk Empire (Khwarezm Shahs Empire). For further information: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=kwarezm_shah_empire.

Sincerely ahnenerbe1935 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahnenerbe1935 ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As I told you, get agreement on the article's talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 19:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Nataev has decided that Dilip Hiro is a historian, citing some nonsense fallacy. Apparently he is also going to remove my "unreliable source" tag applied to the Hiro "sources". Would you care to be involved in this? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr.Dougweller, Sir, I had recreated the page relying on the contents of the section, “Can I recreate an article that was deleted in the past?”, of the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which states that an article that had been deleted but which was a biography of a living person may be recreated if reliable sources are included, and that the biographies of living persons created after 18 March 2010 require at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject. This is precisely what I had done but by retaining the form of the article that was deleted. I had added reference to a quote “In a later Hindu interpretation, as Ravinder Kumar (2008) says, agni stands for knowledge. The light agni emits is the light of knowledge….” from the Article titled – “An umbilical cord relation with the environment” by Dr. F. Andrew SJ, Associate Professor, Dept. of Commerce, Loyola College, Chennai published in the International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management Volume No.2 (2011), Issue No.11 (November). This fact you do not seem to have noticed.

Previously you had not found the cited book of the subject on the Amazon and therefore you had deemed the subject to be an unreliable source and had readily deleted most of the references to the subject. The same very book and other books of the subject are on the Amazon, and on the basis of the cited book that had then not found favour with you the subject has since been allotted a VIAF number which I had now taken care to mention. Since you have deleted the page you would in the hind-sight now aver that all these new additions are meaningless and not worth any notice. But then, you are a far more experienced administrator and editor, instead of pointing out to me my many faults, shortcomings, and directing me to different guidelines etc. why don’t you practically help me create this page when I have repeatedly failed? Why don’t you re-shape the article? No one stops any editor or administrator from doing that. Are we not here to cooperatively contribute and make Wikipedia grow and gain in strength? You and I at our own levels have already created numerous pages. Do help me by recasting the article and making it acceptable. In fact you will find for yourself that an administrator was actually recasting the previously deleted article to make it presentable just before the delete button was pressed on 25 June 2012.

I thank you for keeping a close watch on my activities. Regards. Soni Ruchi ( talk) 06:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the statement "If an article was deleted because the subject was not notable, but since that time many more independent reliable sources discussing them have been found or published, you can re-create the article if you include these new additional sources."? You haven't done that and I am far too busy to work on an article I'm not interested in. Take it to WP:DRV and appeal my deletion as I see no reason to undelete it. Dougweller ( talk) 12:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, for Christiane Wyler we received a permission, OTRS ticket number 2013101110004566. Can you have a look at the article and see if you can undelete it? (I'm not an administrator at this project, so I cannot judge if there are other issues.) Kind regards, Jcb ( talk) (OTRS member) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The text was copyvio, obviously promotional, and created by someone who seems to be a paid editor, so sorry, no. I've seen the ticket by the way. Dougweller ( talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Jcb ( talk) 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Doug, I left a response to a comment by an editor in the "Survey" section and Bahooka removed it, placing it under the only comment (also by me) in the "threaded discussion" section. I reverted his refactoring and he reverted that. It seems clear that he is attempting to proscribe editor interaction here. I see no hardwired rules on the RfC page regarding this, so what should I do? He has tried to close the RfC prematurely with a false claim of consensus based on a !Vote call that has produced no policy-based rationale or even a single response to any of the policy points I've presented, and now he is trying to preventing me from directly engaging other editors in dialog. I'm inclined to take offense at such conduct at this juncture.-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not forget to mention that my edit summary quoted WP:RFC which states "Feel free to ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section." I set up the RfC specifically with separate Survey and Threaded discussion sections, and moved your content to the proper section. Bahooka ( talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Since I've done what Bahooka has done (fairly recently) then I'm afraid that I have to agree with Bahooka. You should put @editor and if you use the editors name, eg User:Ubikwit they will be notified about your edit, so you will be engaging with them that way. Dougweller ( talk) 16:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to waste any more time on this, so I've done that. Thanks.-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Grutness's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for noticing. I'm afraid I have reason for my edit.

I wrote my editing based on the grammar note, mentioned in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Edition. I copy the entry on "AD" as follows.

AD n abbreviation Anno Domini (used to indicate that a date comes the specified number of years after the traditional date of Christ's birth).

USAGE AD should be placed before the numerals, as in AD 375 (not 375 AD). The reason for this is that AD is an abbreviation of Latin anno domini, which means 'in the year of our Lord'. However, when the date is spelled out, it is normal to write the third century AD (not AD the third century). Compare with BC.

So, based on this entry, I changed all the "AD". On the contrary, BC is written after the year number.

BC n. abbreviation 1 before Christ (placed after a date, indicating that it is before the Christian era). 2 British Columbia (in official postal use).

USAGE BC is placed after the numerals, as in 72 BC (not BC 72). Compare with AD.

That's why I let the "BC"s as they are. I hope you could consider this as a reason why I did all the changes. Thank you for your attention.

And I reverted you as the article has used the other style, 59 AD, which makes it look consistent. It wouldn't matter if it was only AD. See WP:ERA. Don't forget to sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~. In any case changes like this should be discussed first. Dougweller ( talk) 18:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, based on your mail, I wasn't able to identify the sanction or user at issue, sorry. If you'd like me to look into it further, I recommend raising the mattter at WP:AE, although I'm not able to edit much the next three days.  Sandstein  06:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I may do that. It is User talk:Galassi#Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction: Indefinite topic ban who you banned from "making any edits related to Ukraine, including any edits related to Cossacks. If this includes editing articles related to people who are Ukrainians (or that he believes are Ukrainians) and articles such as Katyn Massacre (which discusses events that took place in the Ukraine) and Pogrom then he is clearly in violation. Dougweller ( talk) 06:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

His version of the Manila article removed any references to the American burning of Manila. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Manila&oldid=581019327#American_Colonial_Period

Whereas in this version. It is clearly stated. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Manila&oldid=580563269#American_Colonial_Period

I'm currently angry at you both for conspiring to have me banned while you two strut around and delete content that makes Americans look bad. This is a very serious breach of Fairness and Neutrality. I would like to discuss this further in a civilized manner. But Im really trying hard to control my temper. Thank You

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 10:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, not banned, no conspiracy. Stay within the rules and it won't happen again, use socks and you will find yourself blocked again. Use the talk page of the article. Your 2nd link doesn't seem to say anything about burning. Dougweller ( talk) 10:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Blocked for a whole week, and that made me really vexed because I was explaining why I made those edits and then mid-range... puff! I can't even talk in your talk pages. Well I admit it doesnt specifically talk about the burnings. But there definitely was a battle for Manila which brought much devastation to the city.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 10:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I was writing this last week before the block took effect and now I have to wait a whole week to post this in the talk-page. Read it ok? I am not a vandal who invents things out of thin-air and neither am I an evil person who doesn't want to achieve consensus. My calling of Manila as the City of Man is confirmed by Governor, a Journalist, A University and a Book.

Let's discuss it further in here.

/info/en/?search=Talk:Manila#Manila.2C_City_of_Man_an_explanation

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 10:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Talk:Sea_Peoples#B_class.3F.
Message added 17:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I guess I still can't use the tb template properly after six years - or I jinxed it, it didn't make a subject, and got my sig wrong :( Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you reverted me by mistake at Airlines for America. If you look at my edit summaries you will see that I removed the labor relations section because it was unreliably sourced, not because of the bit about A4A supposedly being a union. The original site cited is not available but you can see it through the Way Back Machine. See here. I think it is pretty safe to say that an advocacy site for a labor union cannot possibly be reliable source for this material. Also, you will see that the edit summary you reference is only for the little chunk of text about A4A being a union. See my two edits here and here. Thanks! Intermittentgardener ( talk) 13:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

An advocacy site can't be used for factual comments? In any case this seems factual, and if you don't like that source I'm sure you can find others. Dougweller ( talk) 15:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My username "DRGENITALIA" is Mongolian for DanozDirect. I work for a company that makes and designs mops like "The Swivel Sweeper". My pay is extremely low so I decided to work in an office. The Mongolian authorities found out and they prosecuted my family. I had nothing I could do. In Mongolia, it is illegal to switch jobs without a legitimate excuse. I really had nothing to say when the authorities came. I have no house and no place to live. I'm an intelligent person, so I decided to work in Wikipedia. I know there is no pay, but I find it happy to help other people with their work and learning new things. I also appeared on the show "Refuge" where I was interviewed about my journey to America. I learnt English their and now I am a Uni teacher in Physics and a Part Time High School teacher for Geography. I teach the 9th grade. There I also appeared on the show "Go back to where you came from" where again I was interviewed about being a refugee. After that I scraped enough money to go to Australia where I became a reporter for the "Sunday Telegraph" Now I am on my way to visit my remaining family in England and hopefully make it before remembrance day. I am also applying for a job of being a reporter on 7 News. In England I plan to get a job as a Journalist and then hopefully make it to Afghanistan for the show "Refuge" where I am the host. I also realise that my name in English is DrGenital. Sorry for my inappropriate name. Well, continuing on,, after going there I plan to fly to Russia and do a program helping Children learn about Communism. Then I also plan to visit Mongolia and visit my families grave. Now, I just want to help as much as possible with Wikipedia. Sorry for any inconvenience. - DRGENITALIA (AREM ROGEYUZ) DRGENITALIA ( talk) 07:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that we're in the third and final stage of the RM discussion at Talk:List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible#Requested_move_09_November_2013. I'm sending you this message because you participated in an earlier stage of this discussion. We'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doug

I am Myron Paine, Ph. D., [39] I have advised engineering graduate students. I know the criteria for valid data and the rules for references.

I respect your role to determine that the data is valid and the references are correct for Wikipedia.

Re: Norumbega.

See the Lok map. [40] Norumbega is clearly marked on this map of 1582 by Michael Lok [41] in the location of modern New England.

The Lok map has the names of J. Cabot, 1497 and Jac. Cartier,1535. The rivers and terrain features around Norumbega are similar to the New England terrain today.

Richard Hakluyt [42]b knew what was on the map when he included the map in "Divers Voyages touching the Discoveries of America, London, 1582."

A similar, but better, drawing of Norumbega was made in Rome on a map 
[43] by Bolognini Zalterij in 1595.

0n both maps Norumbega is as prominent as Canada. I.e. if Canada existed, then so did Norumbega. On neither map is there an attempt to connect Norumbega to Vikings.

So the words, "Inextricably connected with attempts to demonstrate Viking incursions in New England." are misleading. They imply that the name "Norumbega was found by scholars who attempted, but did not succeed, to connect Norumbega to Vikings.

Norumbege was a correctly named location in America before AD 1600 without any indication of Vikings. Today modern scholars have repeatedly demonstrated close valid connections between Norumbega and Vikings in New England:

The French called the people in Norumbega, "Nauset." ^{[3] [4]} [If the French silent "t" is not voiced, the word "Nauset" sounds like "Norse."]

     The Nauset spoke/speak Old Norse 
[5] 
[6]

Many New England place names are Old Norse, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Narragansett, and Wampanoag, ^{[7] [8]}

The Nauset origin stories included ancient migration from Iceland ^[9] and

The Nauset had/have Norse DNA. See Gene Park in http://lenape-epic.blogspot.com/2012/04/norse-christians-called-lenape.html

The evidence indicates Norumbega was an established Norse settlement in America in 1497. The most knowledgeable scholars of America in 1497 knew that Norumbega was located in what would become New England. Those scholars did not know that the name was associated with Norse.

The names Norumbega and Nauset are not found on English maps after John Smith's voyage in 1614.

Modern multiple attempts to verify that Norumbega was, in fact, a Norse territory have repeatedly produced valid results, which have been ignored by the social scientists.

Ignoring a name and results DO NOT make the name legendary. There is a reason a name is ignored, i.e. maybe to cover up and erase the knowledge that the Norse were in America since 1497 at least.

Then the 17th century English accepted the Columbus was first myth to deny Norse presence in North America. The issues were the Doctrine of Discovery [44] and the English Charters, which stipulated that the English could not settle where there were Christians already, settled. [45]

Any hint that Nauset were in Norumbega was a serious concern for the Puritans.

I think Norumbega should read:

Norumbega (orNorumbègue,Nurumbega, etc.) was a place name for modern New England on the world's maps for 119 years. (AD 1497 - 1616).

In 1616 Robert Clerke drew Captain John Smith's Voyage to Norumbega and beyond.

[10]

Clerke omitted both Canada and Norumbega from the map. Norumbega never appeared on an English map again.

French maps of a century later still show Norumbega near New England.

^[11]

The French found Nauset (pronounced "Nause") in Norumbega. The Nauset spoke a dialect of Old Norse. Many place names in Norumbega are Old Norse.

DNA studies show that on the northern route into the United States, the Norse people mixed with [American] peoples. That fact is 98.7 percent fact, confirmed by y-DNA.

Have a good one

Myron f — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyronDavidPaine ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I should make another thread at ANI or if you can handle this without all that, since you made a posting in that thread saying you would block if User:BGCTwinsEdit kept uploading images constituting copyright infringement. Today they uploaded two more, despite being told explicitly why their defense didn't work in that thread, as well as on their talk page by another user. [46] The two images uploaded can be seen here [47] [48] LM2000 ( talk) 19:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually confused about that - I saw it but can't find the images on Google, and don't understand the template used. Isn't it possible these are their own images? I'm off to bed shortly. Dougweller ( talk) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I found one of those images on JoJo Offerman's twitter feed (image here) so it's not their work. I'm not the one who placed that template there, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion personally. Anyway, have a good night! LM2000 ( talk) 21:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, you might want to tell the person who left the warnings on BGC's talk page about the image you found. Dougweller ( talk) 22:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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

List of cities by time of continuous habitation ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kediri

Redenhall with Harleston ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry III

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to editing wikipedia but browsing over some of the policies makes me wonder what wikipedia actually is and what it presents itself to be.

"Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media" "Its content is determined by previously published information"

One would think that a gigantic encyclopedia would be interested in actual fact, truth and reality. Not just facts or opinions that someone has printed somewhere.

It seems wikipedia is really the "encyclopedia" of what people "think" happened, based on third-party media sources. I guess that's why you call it "wikipedia" instead of "encyclopedia".

I'm having difficulty understanding the verifiability and reliable source policies. I think they are in need of some restructuring.

I don't think i'm going to be a wikipedia editor, but it is a shame that a source of information that many go to seems quick to present the negative, not the positive, and not the neutral it claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonDeva ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact it calls itself an encyclopedia, and you are a Wikipedia editor just by being here. It's meant to be based on reliable and verifiable sources - mainly academic for academic subjects. It differs from most encyclopedias in that it is meant to present the main viewpoints on a subject, whereas most encyclopedias use experts that write about subjects from their point of view. For many things 'truth' is an elusive concept. I work mainly with historical and archaeological arguments where it is often impossible to say 'this is truth' except about some very basic things. Dougweller ( talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten who you were. You wrote "an ignorant and immature western society" - that's an opinion, not a truth - unless you want to call it 'true from a certain point of view". "Immature" is a subjective opinion, and we are all ignorant - at least I've never met anyone who knew everything. Dougweller ( talk) 21:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI: new article List of Dalit Hindu saints links to List of Adivasi Hindu saints. Ruby Murray 22:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I was removing that content and you have been adding it repeatedly another user has undone you now. 
Marchoctober (
talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You removed some content but added some, which I removed. Dougweller ( talk) 06:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doug,

You shared a citation you found,

“The Pharos of Alexandria,” Proceedings of the British Academy 30: 277–92

on my talk page. I've been to my friendly local academic library with that citation, and what seems to be going on is that the Proceedings of the British Academy in that era were published as separate monographs, which would have been cataloged by libraries as individual books. Searching the well computerized catalog of my alma mater library didn't turn up a shelf location for this volume. Of course, as I was looking this up, I saw other online references to this source, perhaps some that built the Wikipedia article and some cribbed from the Wikipedia article that cited this source, but I can't say that I have succeeded in verifying this source yet. I am keeping it in a source list document that I always take with me whenever I go to the academic library, and I'll keep trying. Feel free to bring up other research puzzlers as you find. Thanks for your constructive work on the project; it's always good to see another editor who is diligent about seeking out reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Esc2003 has launched a campaign in the Urartu article to remove any sort of association of the Urartu civilization with that of the Armenian people. In a comment on the talk page of a Turkish speaking user, Esc2003 pointed out that the article was " "too Armenian" (fazla Ermenileştirilmemiş) and that something must be done. Since then, he has tried to make the Urartu article seem as though it is as Persian as it is Armenian. I feel that the only remedy to this is an AE sanction. Don't know of any warnings given to him however. But he has been sent to AE before. Is that not sufficient enough? Proudbolsahye ( talk) 18:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DougWeller, can you please provide advice with the question I raised at Esc2003's talk page. I don't know which venue I should take the issue to. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 08:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A while back you and I shared the same concerns about this editor ( User_talk:NeilN/Archive_13#Vcorani). Can you please look at today's contributions [49]? They seem to lack the same sort of clue, especially on Cold case review. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to turn the above into a redirect to Cold case. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Also [50]. Highly distasteful. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh, Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kaveh Farrokh was proposed for deletion and the debate resulted in this entry to be redirected to his publisher. I am concerned about his notability and proposed it for deletion again. -- ,dgjdksvc;jknhg ( talk) 05:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This kind of thing is getting worrisome. Of course it has to claim that the Welsh Annwn appears in an Irish poem.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 15:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And what drives me nuts is the use of so many fringe sources - or should I say neo-Druidic? There are a handful of RS that mention this, but... Dougweller ( talk) 19:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of the Annwn issue and have resolved it. I only put it there in the first place because I was unaware that "Celtic Otherworld" has its own page. -- Bard Cadarn 16 November 2013) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pashupati seal Does not shows seated ithyphallic. It shows animals surrounding a human. All of 24 tirthankararas are associated with 1 animal. example Lord Mahavir is associated with Lion, Pasarvnath with snake, Rishab with Bull, Shantinath with Deer. The striking feature is that, there is deer below the seat of human (Exactly this is the way jains put one animal as a symbol below the seat of their Tirthankaras). All tirthankars are nude but not ithyphallic like shiva.I saw the similarity hence i disseminated my knowledge of history. I think it is good to have others point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.204.213.43 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Jainism teaches tolerance to other religions but it also teaches to stand for truth. Hinduism and Jainism both originated from Indus civilization and both are as old as history can go. So, how can one say that there cannot be (or must not be) any Jain idol or picture in Indus valley? how can one say that there cannot be roots of Jainism in Indian history/Indus valley? Yes , Pashupati is one of the names of shiva. Hinduism is very popular in India. Can any one tell me if, Hindus place a small icon of animal under the seat/throne of Shiva exactly like this in picture?

As far as the name " pashupati seal is concerned, it was given by a british archaeologist. Probably because Hinduism was very popular and Shiva rides on bull. Also because pashupati is one of the names of shiva. But, this is a modern nomenclature, there is no such name as 'pashupati seal' in brahmi language. It is not the name written on the picture. Therefore i am sharing my knowledge of history. dissemination of knowledge is not a crime...why my posts are deleted with bias? Yes I have been to Kathmandu Pashupati Nath temple and i have seen the idol of shiva. It is different !Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani ( talk • contribs)

The reason for stating the anarchist anthropolist's politics is because the cited observation about the correlation of religion and coinage in the Axis Age is that it is stated in the cited book which is a book of importance to anarchist theory and it enables one to understand from what viewpoint the association of the new philosophies and coinage is made. Cogiati ( talk) 12:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, and you think his article isn't enough? It wasn't at all clear to me and wouldn't be clear unless a reader already new all that, so maybe you need to find a better way to explain it. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to the book hmm. well I've a copy of the book somewhere, if I'm not bored I'll find it and check to see whether and how he mentions any connection explicitly. Cogiati ( talk) 13:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 17:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Young Justice (TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why this edit? It seems to be fashionable to strike blocked editors' comments, but I have no idea why. Whatever their merits, they were clearly intended to, in their minds, improve the article. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Striking sock puppets edits is done to make it clear that they were a sock in cases where reversion is inappropriate. I didn't revert because of the replies. I see there's another blocked sock there now. We've got no way of knowing obviously if this is just one person or several, but that's moot. Dougweller ( talk) 11:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As a basic principle, I'm more concerned about (real world) censorship than WP's (in-universe) rules - I was more concerned about another edit with which I disagreed, but I think we've resolved that now, and your striking of comments got sort of caught up in the crossfire. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack at all. As I said, I was more concerned about another editor's edit. My use of the word "censorship" wasn't intended to be taken personally - if you saw it that way, I apologise - but equally the striking out of comments which were not vandalism but merely comments by someone who was infringing WP's own internal rules seemed (and seems) to me to be an unnecessary step. No reason to prolong this, surely? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! Thanks for bringing to my attention that close paraphrasing may have occurred. I stress to students the importance of using their own words and not copying other people's work, even if with minor changes. It would count as a violation of academic integrity and carry a penalty. I will look into it. Also, if you could leave a message directly on User_talk:Tdwyer9532 with your feedback, that would be helpful. I will tell all the students to look at their Talk pages. Finally, if you're interested in being an online ambassador for this course in the future, do let me know (email would be best). Your experience would be valuable to us all. Thanks! Chapmansh ( talk) 13:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but what exactly are you referring to? Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 19:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You reverted [51]. Dougweller ( talk) 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

All I did was restore the removed Israel content. The new info remained in place. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 22:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I hereby declare my apology i was ignorant but my intention was not to spam but to provide some useful info for readers with help of wikipedia and this is to inform you i will not continue to contribute further by providing links.

regards gkrish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkrish1001 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 20 November 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I question whether full-protection is necessary here. Semi-protection would seem to suffice. I could see full-protecting an article where a run-of-the-mill edit-war was occurring between IP's and registered users, as semi-protection would force the IP's to discuss while allowing the registered users to continue editing. This was a case of a single-purpose IP with an obvious conflict of interest warring with multiple users. Semi-protection would end the disruption while allowing editors to continue to improve the article. Joefromrandb ( talk) 05:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, not sure now why I did that. I also had a mouse slip and clicked the wrong box, so I'm now overriding another Admin to change to semi! Dougweller ( talk) 07:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone off-site pointed to this. I'm finding it hard to assess given that the entire first page of GHits is to their own website(s) (they appear to have several). After clearing that away it's hard to tell how seriously to take it: I found at least one book which compared it to Jediism as a made-up thing. Mangoe ( talk) 12:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mangoe. It's made-up of course but seems real. You've probably seen [52] (of course it's a tabloid) and this non-RS maybe? [53] (which actually does make it sound real even if not an RS). And [54]. Dougweller ( talk) 13:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that in my revisions to the Page on the Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, I based my citations on European origin on the coverage of the paper in the journal Nature's news article covering the piece -- which mentions "European roots" in its title. ( http://www.nature.com/news/americas-natives-have-european-roots-1.14213) While the material itself is not part of the same peer-reviewed study, the article reflects the authors' interpretation. I tried to cite those views directly in my entry. Overall, the conclusions of the paper seem to be best summarized in the Nature News article in a quote from Theodore Schurr: '“The data from this paper support a single-migration scenario,” he says, but still allows for several sequential ones from the same intermingled Siberian gene pool.'

The concepts of "Europe" and "Asia" are not truly scientific, but reflect a cultural convention. I think "western Eurasia" is technically more precise, but that's not something that's necessarily accessible to most readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2fnr ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A2fnr, Europe as commonly understood by geographers does not include the Middle East, and western Eurasia does - cultural conventions indeed, but they are important distinctions. We need to stay faithful to the source, and as I've said on your talk page, it is possible that this gene arrive in mainland Europe from the Middle East, that it did not come from Europe. Dougweller ( talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gita Govinda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mithila ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This editor keeps reverting changes on Jewish diaspora to a version which is framed in non-neutral/POV terms. I've tried talking this out with him, but to no avail. He is not following Wiki guidelines and is now engaging in an edit war. Help is needed. Evildoer187 ( talk) 15:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This characterization of my edits is rather off the mark. Evildoer187 is the party trying to edit-war the article without building consensus for his edits first. Ed187 has also under edit-warring warnings. -- Dailycare ( talk) 19:41, 24 November 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I submitted WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy#26 November 2013.— Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you deleted this article. The topic is a real thing [55] [56] [57]; if it doesn't warrant its own article, there may be material suitable for inclusion in the Chevrolet Master article. — rybec 19:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It was part of a mass delete of creations by a sock of a banned editor. In fact it wasn't an article, just a redirect to Chevrolet Master. Dougweller ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I had been about to make a redirect, before seeing the entry in the deletion log. Would you mind if I recreated the redirect? — rybec 20:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Dougweller ( talk) 08:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Royal family SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I go about having an article, that is falsely sourced, deleted? I contacted the editor that created the article, [58] stating that I did not find any mention of Nazaruddin being the architect of the Niujie Mosque. As of 27 November I have not received any response from user:GHYU666, therefore I have decided to have the article deleted. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 07:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Seems to be a variant spelling of Nasir al-Din (p.13 of the referenced PDF), but not apparently one of those by that name on whom we have an article. If more sources can be found, the spelling should be normalized, with appropriate disambiguation.— Odysseus 147 9 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't say what the article says, but I can find a reliable source. "The Oxen Street area of the Xuanwu city district in the southeast corner of the city has the highest concentration of Hui. Oxen Street is known for the largest and oldest mosque in Beijing, the Niujie Libaisi, (also known as the Wanyu Lou), founded in the Liao Dynasty (a.d. 916-1125 ).6 One legend has it that the mosque was established by the Liao Emperor Jinzong in his 14th year, while another tradition suggests that the Northern Song Emperor Taizong in his 2nd year was the one responsible. Nasur al-Din, the son of a prominent Arab scholar, Guam al-Din, was supposedly the founding imam of the mosque." [59] Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism in the People's Republic By Dru C. Gladney Harvard University Asia Center. There's an earlier snippet also. [60] Dating isn't secure, see [61] which might be used for the mosque's own article. [62] also points out the lack of archaeological dating for the mosque (which may not be the oldest, some sources just say 'one of the'. Dougweller ( talk) 09:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ), Madhya Pradesh, [[India]] with rock art ranging from the [[Mesolithic]] to historical times<ref>{{cite web
• *Zboray, András, 2005 )2009), ''Rock Art of the Libyan Desert'', Fliegel Jezerniczky, Newbury, United Kingdom (1st Edition 2005,

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Doug,

    The Constitution Party state affiliation pages that I have been creating (and you have subsequently been deleting and redirecting) have been nothing more than copied code of other CP stub pages that I found and have just updated with current contact information for that particular state.

There ARE plenty of secondary references available for these state affiliates of which the listed state party contacts will soon be adding. The Constitution Party and its many state affiliates has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS and thus it cannot be denied that it is a notable organization.

Unless you are planning on deleting every single stub page on Wikipedia, I do not think your actions are appropriate.

ALSO, please note that the Constitution Party of West Virginia page began as a stub page created by Ngfan1 on November 13, 2013 and it wasn't until almost a year later (November 7, 2013) that I stumbled across it and began adding the external references - which now number almost SEVENTY (70), by the way.

Please give this some time. Thank you.

- Lexington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington62 ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The main party is notable by our criteria. Most of the state parties don't appear to be which is why the redirects were made. And it is our criteria at WP:ORG you have to meet, please read them carefully. I've tagged them for lack of notability, if you can show they meet our criteria fine, otherwise they will have to be returned to being redirects or someone, maybe me, will take them to WP:AFD. Being a stub is irrelvant, many stubs clearly meet our criteria.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• They* are the ones in an edit war.

An IP user added a well-founded adjective to the article lede. A user reverted it on contentious grounds. I restored the good-faith edit (on solid grounds: the man was merely accused of a crime - one he vehemently denied, and much evidence suggests he may have not committed - and was never tried or convicted of anything, criminal or civil, only charged with the deed by a blue-ribbon panel). Immediately, that edit was reverted; when I restored the original content (and re-stated briefly a stronger case for its inclusion) the original reverter reverted it and slapped an edit war warning on my Talk page. (A most peremptory and imperious gambit. Hey, I've been quietly editing at Wikipedia for going on six years and close to 15,000 edits with less than 2% of my edits being Talk or User Talk, dodging controversy and slogging along.).

No sooner that than another user piled on.

Might doesn't make right, nor does a 2nd user. But it's enough for me to walk away. I don't need the headaches, and Truth isn't the point here, obviously. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 04:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So no one behaved well? Your template was a bad idea. WP:NPOVN is the place to go for issues such as this one. You probably would have had people agreeing with you (although the trial thing is a red herring, dead people don't get trials). And neither of you should have used templates, which I will tell the other editor. Dougweller ( talk) 06:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the original reverter was imperious, dismissive, and aggressively deployed the edit war template at the page of a highly experienced, non-contentious editor (after just two reverts made with reasoned explanations, and, tellingly, neither offer nor caution to take it to page Talk) to intimidate them. That is simply internet bullying.

Anyone can see I'm a quiet, conscientious editor here, whether at Blocks (zero), on my Talk page (where they will find but a trifle of comments over the course of this year (or any, archived there), including invitations to join Wikipedia projects, barnstars, requests for help editing articles (and three disambiuation notices I fixed but never bothered removing):)

Contents

   1 Invitation to WikiProject Hotels
   2 Promoting some smile
   3 A barnstar for you!
   4 Wambach article invitation
   5 Care to take another pass at the Weetamoo article?
   6 Ordering of sections for medical content
   7 Disambiguation link notification for May 4
   8 Disambiguation link notification for May 20
   9 Please discuss
   10 Disambiguation link notification for September 29
   11 November 2013

...or doing a quick edit count (where they will see less than 2% of my edits go to Talk or Article Talk and the entire balance to nose to the grindstone copy editing (and authoring a very occasional article).)

Article 13858 96.08%

Talk 248 1.72%

User 6 0.04%

User talk 275 1.91%

Wikipedia 22 0.15%

Wikipedia talk 1 0.01%

File 3 0.02%

File talk 2 0.01%

Template 4 0.03%

Portal 5 0.03%

You'll find the same non-controversial diligence at Edit Summaries, User Logs, anywhere in Wikispace. I don't go in anywhere guns blazing and template slapping.

Thus I'm not sure what you mean "Your template was a bad idea". Certainly a user perpetuating an edit war (and not an administrator or 3rd party seeking to quell things) posting it at my page under the above circumstances was. I merely re-posted it at the reverter's page with a brief message at the bottom indicating I was aware they and neither of the above had posted it on mine. That was it, throwing in the towel and never returning to the page in contention.

Within two minutes of my 2nd revert a third user, and administrator (I learned by looking their status up), piled on, declaring the matter was "A matter for history, not law".

Though I did not continue to contest the revert of a well-founded good faith edit, I must observe (as I subsequently did at the latter, User Gamelial's, Talk page) that a substantial majority of America has consistently rejected the conclusions of the Warren Commission and are in no way aligned with Gamelial's "history" or "historians". In the mid-90s it was as high as 77% (cited in this CBS pole here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-jfk-conspiracy-lives/). Today, following substantial attrition among the elder cohort that lived through the assassination, it remains 61% (according to Gallup pole cited by USA today here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/11/17/john-kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theories-gallup/3618431/). These are not "fringe" numbers of disbelievers.

To whitewash this is not relying on "history", its sanitizing it. With no trial let alone conviction and a majority of the country's own population disbelieving there is more than reasonable room for qualifiers like "alleged" (or "accused") to describe someone who's name was merely mentioned at an article about someone else.

As for the lack of a trial being a "red herring", it most certainly is not. A man was accused of a crime he vehemently denied and was prevented from defending himself by being immediately assassinated. Being dead is not a conviction, nor is a finding by a cherry picked blue ribbon panel that set out to come to that conclusion when it started (See Deputy Atty. General Nicholas Katzenbach's memo to LBJ press secretary Bill Moyers only three days after the shooting and before any formal federal investigation had even been conducted, excerpted verbatim here from Katzenbach's Wikipedia page for just one such glaring indictment:

"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy’s Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he had no confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial...Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off...Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat—too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.)...We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

Oswald's is not a black and white case of guilt. Preventing any qualifier and blockading dissent behind preemptive edit war templates and a glaringly tarnished "history" while dismissing the majority view of a people meant to have been convinced of the subject is a discredit to Wikipedia and a disservice to its users.

Thank you for your thoughtful observations and diplomatic tone. Yours. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 15:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have encountered a "new user" Cobanas that is continuing the removal of referenced information, previously done by an IP. I will be starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, but I would be surprised if this "new user" Cobanas participates. I just thought I would give you a heads up. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the talk page of Glastonbury Tor. I've changed the geology as suggested and added a sentence about Hutton's medieval spiral walkway theory. Could you take a look and see if there is anything else you think is needed?— Rod ^talk 12:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This article appears to be plagiarized from this book, "Martial races of undivided India", by Vidya Prakash Tyagi, [63]. And, according to User:Utcursch/plagiarism from Wikipedia, this book is copied from Wikipedia. Your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Haven't checked the dates, but Awan (tribe) has some of the same material. Copyvio by copying between Wikipedia articls without attribution is not allowed. But I don't know when "Tribal history holds that Qutb Shah and his sons married local women" etc was added to the Awan article. I'll look again tomorrow. But I really doubt that the tribal history can be verified, so all that probably needs to vanish. Dougweller ( talk) 19:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the Awan (tribe) article has been edited by Malik Sultan1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Peerjogoth ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edits also closely mirror Kingofjungle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have noticed these editors usually delete references and referenced information. Anyway, I am digressing.

I would agree with the removal of non-verifiable information from both of these articles. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not so sure about the tribal history bit, missed the references. But that bit isn't sourced, so can't tell. Dougweller ( talk) 21:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The 'tribal history holds' enters Wikipedia, I think, with this edit [64] to Khokar - it was User:Moonriddengirl who created Qutb Shah after deleting an earlier version for copyvio, splitting material from Khokar. Qutb Shah has been vandalised, the Awan article has the bit that comes after "Their descendants not only came to heavily populate these regions." Dougweller ( talk) 21:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That happened 3 years ago [65] - the total change made by the IP then is shown here: [66]. Dougweller ( talk) 21:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted this Moderen Era part of the article because in Philip Edward Jones book only Awan tribe is mentioned.Someone has corrupted the original text of the book by inserting Khokhar/Awan and then pasting it as a reference.You can read the book to verify my claim. ( Kingofjungle ( talk) 21:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

You deleted referenced information without explanation or discussion. [67] Are you currently using multiple accounts as well? The sentence and reference in question was added by Tariq alavi(last edited 20 Oct 2013). [68] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing Jones is fine, but KingofJungle has not explained why he removed the other sourced material which I've replaced.

my last edit was encountered by you , it was about the "al jazari" i think the reference about his kurdish ethnicity refered to the age he was living in , which was the same time & era that saladin the great was in war with europeans in current palestine (or israel)& he was ruling over the middle east i'm wondering why you removed a resourced article! when we are talking about some one , we have to tell people that what ethnicity he was from... for example alexander the great was a greek from macedonian ethnicity , etc al jazari was living in an kurdish habbited area ( diyar bakir ), the common language in that era was arabic , even persians & turks used to write & read in arabic it is not necessarily mean's that he was an arab please let the article be as the way it was ... thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug. An editor with a COI, Brian Josephson, has recently been contributing to Talk:Water memory. In my opinion, his behavior has recently become tendentious. See, for instance, #Pollack's water conferences, where he has advocated for the inclusion of unsourced content, saying "A Bayesian analysis indicates that any source I produce would be declared 'not RS' with high probability. Accordingly, I will not use up any of my valuable time looking for one." I think it may be appropriate to let him know about Arbcom's discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience, but I'm not an admin, so I can't post the template. Could you take a look, when you get a chance, and post the template if you feel it is appropriate? There's no major rush, I'm just hoping this will head off future issues. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_basques10.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.252 ( talk) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol - Edo "everyone is Basque" Nyland? All languages are derived from Basques (although evidently English is an invented language). Dougweller ( talk) 21:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)