User talk:Dougweller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The current date and time is 21 September, 2014 T 04:00 UTC.

User talk:Dougweller

Talk Page


Site Map




Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...
Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia.

If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic.
If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place.

You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Article Hala l' Badr[edit]

Hello, Doug.

I received an email from you today regarding the edits that I did on the article [l Badr]. You deleted my edits and you said they may be/were a conflict of interest. It is true that I edited the wiki page and I am the author of the paper linked; my article on this subject was published in a peer reviewed journal (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament), and I am working on this topic for my thesis/dissertation. I didn't think that the details I added on the wiki page were unnecessarily biased. Perhaps I shouldn't have linked my page, but that could have easily been erased. I didn't say anywhere in the article that the views I was presenting were right or better than the preceding theories; I was adding new evidence. I find it disturbing that you deleted/reverted my edits and did not include me on the people who have advocated for this theory. It seems to me that you have a biased approach to the subject, since the spin of the article is now negative towards the connection of Sinai with Badr. You spend much more time and focus in the article on views that argue against the evidence presented by people such as Beke, Humphreys, and of course you deleted my edits/article dealing with the subject in full. My article and edits to the wiki page also dealt with geological data from Badr, something which many previous studies do not.

Secondly, there are several problems with the article as it now stands: First of all, it's Mount Baghir, not Birghir (as you have now added this to the article). I suggest you also research Jean Koenig more, who is only mentioned in passing in this article. He wrote a book (Le Site all Jaws dans l'ancien pays de Madian) which is cited, but nothing from it is discussed. Again, this article really only presents views against the theory, not for it.

I welcome you to write back.

Best Jacob (Israelite Historian)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dougweller. You have new messages at MatthewVanitas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Split of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn[edit]

Since it was decided to split this section to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn instead of Al Qaeda in Iraq, I think it would be helpful to move the talk page history, and maybe also the revision history from AQI to the new article. I know this takes sysop powers. Could you do this, or is it not wise to do?~Technophant (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I manually copied over the old talk page contents. They should get archived automatically soon. There's probably no need to do anything besides the task list I've posted to both talk pages.~Technophant (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Also The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia is locked. It should be rd to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn.~Technophant (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Could we get this editor blocked per WP:NOTHERE? Their ~160 edits from 30 September 2010 till 13 September 2014 consist in blind substitutions of the word "god" with the word "devi" and blind substitutions of the phrase "Hindu mythology" with the word "Hindu theology" in blatant violation of WP:NOR and MOS:QUOTE. Any attempt at communicating with them (User talk:Amanhanda) ended nowhere. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry, just too busy and lost track. However I did take a quick look yesterday snd I don't know that I can issue a block right now. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I understand. In any case, all their edits have been and have to be reverted which is time-consuming for many editors (User:Sitush, User:Richard BB, User:Aoidh) including myself. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We'll see how he responds to my post to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My ani message to you[edit]

I hope you saw it, if you are going to be the closer. I want to know if it's ok for Sitush to engage in that behavior and if so if it's ok for me. I also would like to know what diffs show I've engaged in any behavior against individuals as bad as his. It's just more accusations without proof. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No way am I closing that. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, now that it's become clear Sitush started that bio to piss me off and start a brouhaha to force GGTF to arbitration.... What a little $*%&$^. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You edited a list I was expanding[edit]

Hello, I was starting to expand the list of longuest wooden sailing vessels, and you reverted my changes.

The reason was "31m is not that long". But I don't see where the limit would be. I think it's relevant to include more ships, even if they are not that big, if they are still operational. Nowadays there are less and less wooden tall ships, and I think it's remarkable that some are still sailing around.

In any case, and whatever your final choice is, thanks for keeping Wikipedia nice and clean.

Best Regards, Alfonso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonso Garzon (talkcontribs) 13:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Alfonso Garzon, thanks for the compliment and the polite response. I've started a discussion at Talk:List of longest wooden ships#How long does a ship have to be to be on this list? - chime in. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as a piece of string? - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Now this one [1] is almost certainly Lokalkosmopolit. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the edit was extremely suspicious. And what could be worse in an encyclopedia than making a small yet necessary clarification of a Gaullist party's ideology? Chop off his head!--Advice Polack (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If you are talking about your edit, it was inaccurate. Hardly a clarification. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Lol, you have some other explanation for the party's participation in the Republican Front (France), a coalition of centre-left parties? :) Advice Polack (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Um, you added "left-wing"[2] which I changed to "centre-left". So I have no idea what you mean. Dougweller (talk)
Well done to Volunteer Marek. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit, sock blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

Super Mega Church Of The New God[edit]

This entry has been reinserted in List of founders of religious traditions by an anonymous IP. For details, see talk page. Could you please take appropriate action? Thank you! Jpacobb (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. 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, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Japanese deportation[edit]

I don't dispute the number of 100,000 Japanese-American deportees during WWII. It's that David M. Kennedy's book, Freedom From Fear, never mentions a number. Kennedy addresses the issue on pages 748 to 760. He mentions there were 120,000 Japanese-Americans living in the continental U.S., and he mentions 15,000 voluntary removals in the early days of the deportation effort. But at no point does he ever say how many total internees there were. This total number of 100,000 needs a separate citation. Tossing in the 100,000 number implies that Kennedy uses that number, and he never supplies it. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Hey admin, thanks for your prompt feedback. But I have a few points to share:

1) Hinduism is one of the oldest of world religions, and purans are the chronicles that

  Form the very foundations of te religion. Visit any of the museums preserving these scriptures and     you'll  know that the question of any hindh scripture being written later than Genesis, DOESN'T ARISE.

2) THE MATSYA PURANA clearly states the story which bears great similarities with that of Noah's arc. Infact i came across another article on wikipedia that says that a Sumerian scripture also mentions the same story.

So you see that there is a huge possibikity that all world religions somewhere have a common source, and that was what i wanted people to know. When Matsya Purana and Manu articles refer Noah, i think its completely fair rhat articles on Noah refer to the former.

Thank you. Your reply awaited

Sssxccal (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC) SSsxccal,kolkata

Ignoring the fundamentalist claims, we need secondary sources, and we only paraphrase what they explicitly state. We do not [[WP:OR|draw conclusions from primary sources that are not explicitly stated.
Oh, heck, I just can't let it go -- Matsya Purana was written in the third century AD at earliest (possibly the sixth century), at least eight centuries after the latest date for Genesis's composition. The Babylonian version dates to 1500 years before the Matsya Purana, and the Sumerian version at least another 1000 years before that. To pretend that the Matsya Purana is the foundation of the story is intellectually dishonest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: "The opening"[edit]

From here:
The article you asked me to read supports my request for citations. Read the contention WP:LEADCITE carefully.
Travis Daily (talk, edits) 19:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Which, as Maunus has told you, does not justify a general citation needed tag. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
To quote WP:LEADCITE: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads". The title of the page in question contains no citations and is of obvious controversy. The general citation tag is one thing that I know of which asks for citations, so I used it. Maunus has decided to be passive-aggressive and recommended I add the citation need tag to statements which citation is needed. I will. Travis Daily (talk, edits) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)