User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

World government rv

Hi! You reverted my edit on world government, but I don't see my posting as POV at all (on the contrary, I think it is a little POV to paint things as though there is absolutely no international governing going on--whether one is in support of such a thing as I freely admit to being or whether one is opposed to it or indifferent). The previous revision made it sound like there is no superseding of national autonomy going on in the world whatsoever (I take the ability to intervene as a strong sign of functioning authority) and that is not correct, whether in the U.N. Charter or in practice (whether with the WTO making binding decisions, the intervention of the Security Council within a territory unwilling to accept it, calling for the arrest of current heads of state, etc.). Of course the U.N. is not a government in having its own mandatory source of revenue, a standing army, etc., but it does "govern" on certain issues in which the international community, particularly the P5, deem as within its decision-making scope. Also, other historical institutions like say the Confederacy were still seen somewhat as "governments" even if they too did not have the power to impose taxation. There is a spectrum of "government" and the U.N. is NOT completely at the far end of the spectrum, even if it is often painted as ineffective and is indeed hampered in significant areas. Brettz9 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I probably should have said original research as well. "However, despite the fact that the" is pov wording, of course. The statement "As of 2013, there is no functioning global international military, executive, legislature, judiciary, or constitution, with jurisdiction over the entire planet." is clearly correct. Changing to "fully functioning" is I think pov as it suggests there is a semi-functioning "global international military, executive, legislature, judiciary, or constitution, with jurisdiction over the entire planet." and that isn't correct. The key phrase is "jurisdiction over the entire planet." See List of states with limited recognition. Of course if you can find some reliable sources backing this, add them to the UN article first and see if they stick. Anything about the UN really needs to be in the main article first. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

al jazari article

hi dear Dougweller , i've added three new & reliable references for aljazari's kurdish ethnicity please read them ! & don't change the article thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

the place that he was borned

about the al jazari article & "your edit war" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazirat_ibn_Umar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

another reference

http://ismir2011.ismir.net/papers/PS4-16.pdf in this academic source as you see (in page 568-related work) mention's that ....was described by al jazari (1136-1206) a Kurdish scholar ,inventor ,.... i checked this source & it was qutie meet withWP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

new source for only 20000 assyrian in iran !

http://www1.jamejamonline.ir/newstext.aspx?newsnum=100951754043


به گفته دبیرکل اتحادیه جهانی آشوریان، جامعه آشوریان ایران هم اینک 20 هزار نفر جمعیت دارد و دارای یک کرسی در مجلس شورای اسلامی است

according to the CEO of the international assyrian federation the iran's assyrian society is populated by 20000 person in iran. & they have a chair in the iranian parliament... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But not, as you wrote, before the 1979 revolution. We also now have the infobox contradicting the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

assyrians in iran

what is your source for 50000 assyrian in iran ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, didn't you even read the article before editing it? It's in the article and isn't my source. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerned about your latest edit to Liberty University

Can you please drop by Talk:Liberty University when you have a moment? I'm particularly concerned about your latest edit that seems to indicate that you believe that because a source is reliable we are obligated to include it an article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sock?

Could "Marchoctober" be "RTPking"? RTPking ends at 28 august, Marchoctober starts at 16 september. Their edits are on similar topics: Tenali Ramakrishna, Cinema of Andhra Pradesh, Visvesvaraya. And Marchoctober knows where to find warning templates diff, to give an argumentation why he used a level-two warning diff, and to provide diffs diff. Quite an accomplishment, for someone who's made only 89 edits (and cleaned his Talk Page three times already, a habit RTPking also had). It took me months to get at the point where I started to warn other editors (before I even had the nerve to do so). And I still don't know what a "RFC" is, while Marchoctober and RTPking both do know. And, last, both have a habit of reverting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply. They are the same person, I'm sure, but not editing simultaneously - see WP:Sock puppet. RTPking has been blocked for edit warring 3 times. Make sure you don't get blocked, it's not worth it. 3RR isn't an entitlement by the way, I try to stick at 2. RfC is request for comment. This can be used on talk pages. See WP:RfC. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll take care; I'm well aware that a block is not good for someone's Wiki-reputation. He's got a way of editing which can be really inflaming; totally unaware of what he's removing with his reverts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Free Imperial City of Cologne

-Ilhador- anonymously restored his copyvio. This editor also created Free Imperial City of Aachen (possible copyvio of Aachen) and Free Imperial City of Ulm (possible copyvio of Ulm). --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I'd replied. Dealt with all the redirects, that won't happen again. As for the other 2, we can template the talk pages or merge. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice work. We just have to make sure that those articles are indeed internal copyvios (for example they could be copypasted from a copyright free version of Encyclopædia Britannica). Otherwise, it may not be necessary to merge them. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Brahmin

Regarding The Namhasudras , the claimed but on what basis , that is the Vyavastha, I can give you the reference but will you accept it: Why mr. sitush handed over this to you. That is funny bunch of **** ups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.25 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) And that other two is also simple claim , and you have not deleted those, they did not have the common Hindu custom of being included by "Vyavastha".I have the reference .Do you need it?117.194.207.25 (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults, it makes it clear what sort of editor you are. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your warning was ignored

Just an FYI, Wikitout has ignored your warning.[1] He hasn't actually supplied a single citation for anything he has added, or any claim that he has made in an edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet again

Hello Dougweller. The Armenian wikipedians are again disrupting the Georgian alphabet article and pushing their nationalistic propagandist agenda now by putting the picture of their national hero who they claim created the Georgian script. The origin section of the article written by the user Susuman is also gets violated. I want to ask you to protect this article for long-time period as I doubt it will never get settled as I see soon it will be another field of edit wars so again please do take whatever action you think is appropriate to protect Wiki from further disruption. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Page review

Hey there, long time no see. Don't know if you remember me at all, but I used to mess about on Wiki's arch articles quite a bit. Anyway, I saw your name on the old watchlist and decided to day hi and also ask if you might want to have a wee glance at the edits I'm working on for the Tel Kabri article. As you can see the current article is depressing pathetic, but I've got a good one brewing in my sandbox. Would you like to have a look and give an opinion? I've been away a while, so I don't remember what constitutes a good article here anymore. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 28 Kislev 5774 04:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Eh no worries. I think the content of the article is good and well-sourced, but what else can be done to improve it quality wise? I'd love to have it be a GA. Should I put in some in-line citations, perhaps, so that people can refer back to sources with the ease of exact page numbers? What about Further Reading? I've also asked Eric Cline to release about eight photos for use by Wikimedia. He should be sending them an email later today. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 30 Kislev 5774 10:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Eric Cline? That's brilliant. Do you know him? I listened to his lectures on the Trojan War on my iPod. I see he has a new book out. He does take the Bible as history a bit more than I do though. The GA criteria are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. You need a few more sources, definitely in the etymology section, probably in the palatial section. I'm not sure what you mean by in-line citations as you already have them. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, for five years now. Do you mean the Trojan War book or the 1177 one? The latter is one that everyone I know is looking forward to (Sea Peoples!!!). He likes to keep things balanced, what you call a biblical centrist. Thankfully likes to let the evidence do the talking, brilliant professor and dig director. Both he and Assaf are very much aware of Wikipedia editing policies, by the way. To my knowledge there's only about two - maybe three, but I've got to find it - sources for the naming of Kabri itself. Palatial thankfully has more, but I didn't keep an eye on the references when I was editing that section. Massive overhaul, you see. By in-line ones, I mean like (Kempinski 2002; 175), ones that point to individual pages rather than the whole work. I figure it's better for fact-checking then. Is there any way to combine those footnoted ones I have right now and the Harvard-style in-line ones? Also, can you think of any other sections that could be added? I was thinking Excavation methods under the Archaeology section. Thankfully people are always required to talk about them. I'm going to try and expand the Kempinski section, by the way, because I now have Kempinski's site reports (his prelim ones aren't as easy to find as ours).
Speaking of 1177, why is Bronze Age Collapse one article solely dealing with the LBA Collapse? There's two collapses, the EBA and LBA. How many sources would I need to justify moving that article to Late Bronze Age Collapse? I don't even get how it got that name, because I've never seen anyone call that the Bronze Age Collapse prior to that article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 30 Kislev 5774 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I listened to the Trojan War book, want to get 1177. Start a discussion at the BAC talk page and let me know, I'll join in. Citations to books should almost always include page numbers, by the way. See the section at WP:CITE on page numbers. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna try and find a way to get it early. The next one he's working on is even more awesome though. I started one actually, but it's dead quiet. Ah, I think I'll make another user space version of the article and switch it over to footnoted references then. I did take the one I'd been working on live. Hopefully there aren't too many changes between now and then or it'll be a pain to reconcile the differences. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 2 Tevet 5774 00:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Liberty University RFC

Thanks for commenting on the threaded discussion. I encourage you to also comment on the survey. MilesMoney (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, goody. So if I comment in the discussion then you'll leave similar encouragement on my talk page? Even though I'd likely !vote to omit? Doesn't involvement in the discussion make this sort of canvassing truly unnecessary? - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is canvassing of the time that should be avoided. Obviously I know about the RfC and will comment in the survey if I wish. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is Joanne Conman ?!!

Hi,

This is my answer about :

In the chapter:

[[2]]

We make a reference in certain one Joanne Conman, as if this one is an Egyptologist or a scientist, but after an in-depth research, Joanne Conman was never published !

She publishes articles, and proposes digital books but without publisher !

I thought that Wikipedia chased this personal attack redacted, but it seems that the American or English version of Wikipedia is less scrupulous than the French-speaking version.

I hope that this imposture will be fast considered to be erased, because this Joanne Conman does not hesitate to take himself by putting back the work of authors who were published at real publisher's, like Otto Neugebauer.

Joanne Coneman is an astrologer who apparently has to make nothing in an article on the Egyptology.

But the fact that its name represents in Wikipedia, will doubtless allow him(her) to sell more digital books than if she(it) was not there...

Thank you

Your answer :

This is utter nonsense. The source is an article published in Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. That's obvious in the article. It's a peer reviewed scientific journal - are you really claiming the French wikipedia doesn't accept peer reviewed material? And perhaps this is a language problem, but studying and writing about astrology does not make one an astrologer. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"

The link you transmit is not official material like a book...It is just an article...in very rare magazine...

Joanne Conman is not egyptologist and not astronomer, that's right ?

For her last numerical book edited by her up Amazon, we don't see the name of publisher : https://www.createspace.com/4303509

The article about Astronomical ceiling of Senemut Tomb talking about astronomy, only astronomy and the astrological theory of Joanne Conman is not share in the astronomical group or egyptological group in the world.

But you do what you want, i transmit you my research about her, that's all.

Thank you.

Alice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.244.172 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

what badly source ?

you are a pan arab mister... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 10:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What's a pan arab? And academic sources are only reliable for the subject in which the academics are specialists, and conference papers in any case often don't qualify. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

i will be grateful if you take my source to a dispassionate community & let them decide about this

when i gave a source about the iranian assyrians you removed it unstudied , because you have a nationalistic prejudices & concerns with YOUR EDIT wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are getting very confused. Here are the three edits you made that I reverted[3] - you didn't add a source at all, you made number changes with no source or explanation creating a smaller number before the revolution than after a large number left post-revolution - in fact there are sources for more than 20,000 after the revolution. You did add a source to a number in the infobox leaving the infobox contradicting the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

stop your chicane ! there are 20,000 assyrian in iran , i gave you a reliable source from an iranian government news agency !but you are keep saying 200,000!iranian assyrians extincted after the ottoman invasions in the west azerbaijan state in iran. as an advice , i live in iran & i never saw an assyrian in my country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, what I am trying to say is that the article said 200,000 before the 1979 revolution. Although this was unsourced, so was your unexplained change to 20,000, less than reliable sources show lived there in there a couple of decades later. And the fact that you live in Iran and never saw an Assyrian (or one that you recognised as such) is completely irrelevant. And the only edits of yours I reverted on this article had no source. And I am not creating any artifical turns, so I can't stop my chicane. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

new sources for al jazari article

here are three new sources for the kurdish ethnicity of al jazari please add them to article & change it

http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.html http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not place this on the talk page of the Al-Jazari article?
AND,
http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.html, appears to be a blog(which are not a reliable source, the section being written by Burcu Afrin(who ever that is).
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari, appears to be two links to Wikipedia, as such is not a reliable source.
http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/, appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia,as such is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


the first link is a historical & scientific website & it is much more reliable than a unknown PDF ! the second one is an encyclopedia & IT is a reliable source the third one is a website wich concenrns with math history they all are reliable & DO not remove the resourced article unless if you have a personal problem with it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because you want them to be reliable source(s) does not make them reliable. As for the "paper";
Steven R. Ness, is a Phd candidate in Music Information Retrieval - Machine Learning - Distributed Cognition [4]
Shawn Trail, is associated with the Dept. of Computer Science, University of Victoria [5]
Peter Driessen, is professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering [6]
Andrew Schloss, is a professor in Electronic & Computer Music, Musical Acoustics, Ethnomusicology [7]
George Tzanetakis, is a professor Associate Professor in the Computer Analysis of Audio and Music [8]
Therefore, this "paper" has been written by academics that have no specialization in the time period or area in question. As such this is not a reliable source in regards to ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Doug, I have completed a search concerning the sources for Arab ethnicity. I have posted said result on the Al-Jazari talk page and given a suggestion. What would have helped(this being directed at Cobanas) is for all editors to use the talk page, then this issue would have been resolved more efficiently. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

I didnt know the meaning of abrogated, what i meant to say was that if early Christian sources say the location of the arc was Judi and now Genesis says that its Ararat then obviously the bible in current form has been changed.

The Durupınar site discovered is at mount Judi which happens to be 20 miles away form Mount Ararat.

This was under Islamic tradition regrading Mount Judi. Islam believes that the Torah and the Gospel as revealed to Jesus were authentic revelation from God. But it has now been written into by various people...as suggested by the change in site of Noah's arc. therefore God revealed Quran and promised to protect it Himself and therefore Quran stays in its original form currently saved in the memory of at least 10 million Hafiz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.72.24 (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

But policy requires that for contentious material that has been removed before replacing it you need to provide reliable sources. These sources need to discuss the early Christian sources. Genesis doesn't say Ararat by the way, it says "Mountains of Ararat", not any particular mountain. That may be part of your confusion. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be rude

My edits are made in good faith and not out of a desire to sell political points. They are not therefore POV. The sentence I deleted was written by me. Was that POV? There is evidence for the existence of the "house of david" and therefore for David. I provided an up to date reference to a respected historian. There is hardly any evidence for anything from that time which isn't empire-associated. If you have a problem with the refierence, fix it. Its easy to delte stuff, not so easy to write it.

Actually existence for a House of David isn't quite the same thing. But the fact is that what archaeological evidence there is for David or Solomon is scanty to say the least. Your historian isn't an archaeologist and you really need to learn how to do proper citations. It isn't actually hard, there's a drop down template for it. And 'empire'? Really? Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Chechnya

While we are dealing with with an editor here trying to impose their own version of nationalism on the page (claiming Caucasian Albania as somehow part of Chechnya's history when it was neither run by Chechens nor included Chechnya for any substantial period of time, trying to assert that Chechens are somehow "more Caucasian" than other inhabitants of the Caucasus and so on...) I was under the impression we could use Jaimoukha's book to briefly cite the archaeological stuff as it is built on earlier writing on the matter (unfortunately, often in Russian as the region is obscure, especially for English speakers). When I look around the web briefly searching Koban culture etc, sites I find say things similar to Jaimoukha, but I'm rather busy right now. What do you think on the matter? Is there a reason I don't know why Jaimoukha is considered an unreliable historian?--Yalens (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(also, btw, as for Johanna Nichols, she's the leading expert on Vainakh linguistics, so for the most part what she has to say can and should be noted in my opinion, but I do agree that the placement by Kafkas of the quote about the Nakh languages being the "continuation" of the culture that "gave rise to Western civilization" was a bit nationalistic and probably shouldn't have been there). --Yalens (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nichols is without doubt a reliable source, but without knowing what she actually said I don't think that belongs there. That whole section reads very strangely. Ok, maybe we can use the handbook, but Amjad Jaimoukha is a really bad article. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Weller, I will give you the words from Dr. Johanna Nichols' website about the situation you are getting yourself into by listening to certain "anti-nationalistic" people above and deleting the referenced material of Georgian, American, Russian, German scientists and historians. "I have been doing linguistic field work on the Chechen and Ingush languages for many years. Though I am not an ethnographer or historian, I have tried to bring together here some general information about the people and their languages in order to increase public awareness of their situation and to put a human face on two peoples of great dignity, refinement, and courage who have paid heavily for their resistance to conquest and assimilation. This is based on an article on the Chechen circulated in January 1995 when the recent war began ... Perhaps because the golden age of Russian literature, which romanticized the Caucasian war, coincided with the conquest of the Chechen, or perhaps because the Chechen were the most numerous lowlands group, or perhaps because of their fierce and prolonged resistance, the Chechen came to epitomize imperial Russian disdain for "Asiatics" and have been vilified and demonized in Russian literature, popular media, and political discourse to the present day." Of course you can continue deleting, banning, vandalizing the webpages and we will continue to write the truth which will always stay the same despite geopolitical agendas. P.S. I would believe that you made a typo but letter Q and letter G are not near Kavkas (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not write the bit with the typo. Your comments make it clear you have an agenda. I have no horse in this race and trying to make sure we have reliable sources is usually not considered vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
And this is now at WP:RSN#Are these reliable sources for the origins of an ethnic population?. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

2.102.187.14

2.102.187.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He's resumed his campaign and edit warring on multiple pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Alhazen and user:Rarevogel

User:Rarevogel has a history of removing Arab from the article[9](along with a racial epithet,"Arabs are not a learned people.")[10] It is very apparent the Rarevogel removes what he doesn't like,[11] as has been doing so for years.

Here Rarevogel removed Arab, stating, "I can't find any reference anywhere to any Arab ancestry, he most probably was a Persian.", while he clearly removed references for Arab ethnicity![12] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding Alhazen's ethnicity, including what The Encyclopaedia of Islam states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. 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, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Enfield poltergeist=

Hello i have asked many (well 2) users and no one seems to give a straight answer so i will try my luck with you!! You put in your notes thats i should be blocked for RR more then 3 times but im just protecting the Original page which has stood that way for the best part of 10 years, now all of a sudden it has loads of references to American journalists as if we believe them?? why?? they had nothing to do with the case. I have put up many completely verifiable sources for them to be taken down. This new version of this page is a complete falsification of events and not verifiable at all. Why are you proliferating these false accounts?? are you getting paid to do so?

You really need to read the warnings carefully - none of these reasons will stop you from being blocked. Thinking that people who disagree with you are paid is the way to paranoia. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you re. editing and adding

Thanks, Doug. I will read the pages you suggested, then create the page on Women Thrive Worldwide, then change the links from red to blue. Feel free to correct any mistakes I make! Still learning. Mkingsense (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No

Muslims should not be allowed to add their vile, anti-Semitic garbage to Jewish articles. How would you like it if I, as a Jew, editing your precious fake Palestinian people article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loinsunsx (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How about now?

How's it look now? Tel Kabri under construction There's some minor issues here and there, and I do need to expand the Areas section as well as find stuff to put into the individual years for Kempinski (the 1986, 1987, and 1991 reports are incoming). How is it otherwise? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Tevet 5774 04:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Well of Souls 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:
  • the Palestinian Territories'' (Series: [[Blue Guides]]); [[London]]: [[A&C Black]], pg 125.</ref> (The name "Well of Souls" has also been applied more narrowly to a depression in the floor of this

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your email

The userspace page was conclusive by itself; thank you for mentioning the cord thing, but even without reading, I am 100% confident that you've done the right thing. Definitely block-then-SPI, so you made the right choice a couple of hours ago. Sorry for the delay, but I just got off work at 2200 UTC and didn't have Internet access for a good while. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

PS, the wording on the original arbitration case is weird, so I've requested a modification. I mentioned you in the request, since you brought this up just now, but of course I don't think you did anything wrong; I just wanted you to chime in if you felt like it. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding captions

Hello Doug, im trying to figure out how to add captions but im a bit of a rasclat so these things can be hard for me to learn,can you give me a quick explanation on how i go about it--Sleeveman (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug, it's me again (mkingsense). I read the pages you suggested, plus some others going into more detail on Lead Section, Writing Better Articles, etc. I was all ready to create a page about Women Thrive, and then realized through the prompt to make sure there isn't already an article on the topic one wishes to cover that there is an article on this topic already - under the org's old name. The article was last edited in 2005, and was nominated for deletion in 2007. The ultimate decision was to "keep" it - but it's way out of date. Now I just want to edit it, but I can' t figure out if I can / how to change the actual "first heading." Should I create the new one, point out that the old one is out of date and ask that it be re-considered for deletion? Or should I create the new one, and edit the old one saying the org name has been changed and link to the new one? OR just edit the old one, if I can change the "first heading" to the new name? Mkingsense (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. 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, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Early American peoples with skull shapes similar to a current Asian culture as noted by the Smithsonian...

Surprised you would erase a side note to this excellent article on the Ainu. Tracing ancient cultural movement by skull shapes, genetics, teeth structure, language (i.e. IndoEuropean, etc), is broadening our understanding of man and his development. In no way have the anthropologists indicated that the Ainu peoples as they are currently structured or located, journeyed to North America...but their current skull shapes are similar...and may suggest earlier movement. The Smithsonian has tons on research and comment on this.

I understand that it is perhaps your personal wish (and I am puzzled at just who you are(?), to limit this discussion, but it in no way detracts, and opens yet another door to those who find Wikipedia a treasure trove of information and discovery. That is why I make generous donations to what I thought was an open source experience. Htstanley (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC) HTS

Thanks for your reply, Htstanley, and I'm sorry if your first edit is not what you hoped it would be. Your edit had no sources that I could find that meet our criteria at WP:RS - we really need academidc reports, etc. [13] is an example of a source that looks good but fails at the first hurdle as the author, a science writer, not an academic specialist in the field, calls the Ainu " the first group to colonize the archipelago." That's clearly wrong. The text sourced to Cavalli-Sforza didn't say anything about the Ainu. And frankly I think that it is genetics that we need to look to - skull shape, teeth structure, etc can be interesting but not at all definitive. A number of factors can shape skulls. Do you know if there are any reports or planned reports for the Texas stuff, which might belong somewhere but I don't think in the Ainu article. As to who I am, I'm an editor with an interest in this field - a very experienced editor but that's not really relevant here. If you wish to discuss this more can I suggest Talk:Ainu to make it more public? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Copied stuff

Hi thanks for your tip, I actually didn't copy that material, I wrote them both, the second one I adapted the concepts to the context of the second article. Anyway, I don't understand what should I do if this is considered copying!! thanks Etimo (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks Doug re. Women Thrive. I'll take it from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkingsense (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Need a good laugh?

Check out the "discussion" on the Alhazen talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

BAR

Now that I've outed myself, I can say that you should scope the new cover of BAR. Now THAT's archaeology.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Tevet 5774 00:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed, haha. That's how you say Archaeogod, good sir. I had to self-out because of that awesome cover and also some academic work being done involving Tel Kabri. For the most part they do have something of a language requirement in the US because when you have archaeology departments outside of anthro departs they're typically rolled into (or heavily associated with) classics. This has actually been the topic of conversation on several pub trips (an essential element in archaeology). Thankfully it's never too late to dig though, so age isn't a factor in the actual process of digging.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11 Tevet 5774 03:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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

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

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

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Question re: how to rewrite to you specifications.

Owen a ferguson (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)hello. Just noticed you slated an article I wrote ( Bob's Watches )for fast deletion. I am wondering if there is any way to bring that article up to a standard that you would approve. Thanks for your assistance, -Owen--Owen a ferguson (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how, but it would have to meet WP:ORG. I noticed that some of the sources really discussed the owner, with Bob's Watches only being mentioned once. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. 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 December 2013 (UTC)

Buddhakahika

I've replied to this request but I'm a bit flabbergasted that it was even written. Is this not obvious given the SPI archives? I know how the system works but do I really need to provide diffs in such a situation? They'd just be rehashing what has already been said. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) Yep, you have to provide diffs, if only to show to the admin's what you've been noticing and what your line of reasinong is. Maybe you should also add 136.159.160.67. By the way, following the links, I just noticed that Buddhakarika is the same as Rocky. Good to know. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong revert

Dougweller, I have not done any vandalism What I have mentioned is correct

Rather the contents now are portraying the living person :Muhammad Ilyas Qadri" in a wrong spectrum The content say "Qadri served as the president of the Punjab branch of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan's (JUP) youth wing, Anjuman Tulaba-e-Islam (ATI)."

Rather this info is wrong, he was serving in a small organization called, Tanzim islah o aqaid" this can be verified through a recording of Muhamamd Ilyas Qadri himself on You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqy5vzRhtIo)

Also, the content that a man believed to be a member of Dawate Islami is wrong... My edits are 100% accurate, still if you feel that I have done vandalism, please let me know how?

I didn't think you were vandalising, the edit summary mentions good faith. Most of it is sourcing problems. You need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. The Hindu is a reliable source by our criteria, you need to find something similar independent of Qadri or Dawate Islami. We don't use photocopies of anything as a source unless it is linked to the original official source of the document. Influences/influenced need sources at least in the article. The same for converts, you need independent sources that are nothing to do with Qadri or Dawate Islami. As for adding Attar to his name, the title of the article and his name in the first line should be the same. His name was discussed a while ago at Talk:Muhammad Ilyas Qadri where I suggest you now post. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jewish economists

Hi Doug, thanks for alerting me to the fact that there had been a discussion which unfortunately led to the extirpation of the category "Jewish economists". It seems to me short-sighted and perhaps even prejudicial when there is a category "Russian economists". I had to remove Rubin from this category because as a Latvian born Jew active in the Bund, it is hard to imagine why anyone would think of him in such terms. No doubt those who were involved in the discussion did not consider the way in which Jews constituted a national category in the Soviet Union, and this perhaps explains why Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference was invoked. I think this is an unfortunate side effect of the cultural bias of Wikipedia, which perhaps reflects the way the Bund was more or less wiped out by Nazism, Stalinism and Zionism.Leutha (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

You are a Ray of Sunshine!

For taking the trouble to deal with rktect sock puppies! Egil (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The list

You know, when you said "as a recreation", for a moment I thought you meant "for fun". :-) Deb (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Direct quotation

Ok, I inserted Orel's direct quotation (what the author says word for word). Hope it's ok now!! Etimo (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's brilliant! I hope you understand why I removed it - wording like that is so strong it almost always needs attribution and a quote. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure, although I think rephrasing is important to fit the quotes in the article's proper context. There are also a few irregularities in the article I'd like to fix, e.g. the part when it says 'the terminology for fish and agricultural activities is borrowed'. This part is misleading, as it represents a partial truth (and in fact is unquoted) the way it is written. It should be specified what has been borrowed and what has been not in order to explain better the historical background (I was trying to do it but the editing has been repeatedly deleted). How can I do this in the proper way (or in the appropriate phrasing)? Thanks Etimo (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oral made a reconstruction of a number of proto-languages (in fact one of many reconstructions published). Even the title of his work confirms this one. Thus, I see no reason why this should be presented as historical fact [[14]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing it seems that Albanian-Greek isoglosses are surprisingly high is a slanted and misleading rephrasing of Orel's actual quote. Firstly, there is no 'apparently' or 'perhaps' when comes to isoglosses, either they are present or they are not. Albanian-Greek isoglosses are a scientific fact (they don't wander in the realm of theories). Second, of what 'reconstruction of other proto-languages' are you talking about? Orel in this section deals exclusively with Proto-Albanian and Proto-Greek forms (or with Albanian and Greek direct comparisons), and historical phonetics is not a matter of opinion, as far as I'm concerned. First I'm not allowed to insert a direct quotation of a scholar because 'to personal in interpretation', and when I insert his direct quote now it gets distorted 'ad libitum'. I'd say lets leave politics at least out of Wikipedia, but I'm sure it's not your case Etimo (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubtitle / Mic Neumann / sockpuppet, etc.

With this edit, it seems the IP in question has signed their post, probably confirming your suspicions further. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Robsinden's talk page.
Message added 13:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rob Sinden (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Niger the Perean

Did you see this recreation?--Cúchullain t/c 14:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Michaeltleslie

I suggest you propose a topic ban from all Rabbi Alam-related edits. GiantSnowman 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Y DNA articles

I can't say I am enthusiastic to work on these and I also have difficulty to find the time, but I did get involved on a couple lately:

  • R-M17, the main descendant of the once very controversial R1a article, seems to have slowly accreted some new problems, and I did a reasonably strict edit to remove some of the poorly sourced and strange stuff.
  • I noticed your intervention on F-M89, where there has been a flurry of edits, and I have rewound things a bit because I think some of the changes need more discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, taking far too long to respond. I did comment at one talk page but you've seen that. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/RfC: Change duration from 10 to 7 days

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/RfC: Change duration from 10 to 7 days. 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, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

2.102.187.14

They are repeating the same disruptive edits to Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Michael Jackson's This Is It after expiration of the last block. BTW, according to Geolocate, they are a static IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

They're only disruptive if you keep reverting them. Stop inserting false information and everybody wins. 2.102.187.14 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Blocked 2 weeks for edit-warring and having a battleground mentality.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Usage of AD/CE

IMO, we probably don't need to include AD/CE for the years from (also IMO) the 6th century until now. Image that if we say "World War I ended in 1918 AD". I feel it's like a joke. Cheer. ༆ (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Interested?

Would you be interested in helping me establish whether this "Horace K. Mann" is a reliable source? He authored a series on the popes. From what this states at the foreward of one of his books, he does not sound like a reliable source to me.

[15]

DY THE
REV. HORACE K. MANN
HEAD MASTER OF ST. CUTHBERTS GRAMMAR SCHOOL, NBWCAS I

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[16] "Readable and written very close to the sources, Mann’s work remains unmatched as a massive narrative history for the period from 590 to 1198." Oxford Bibliographies is an OUP publication. So the answer has to be yes. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. Good to know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help with the sock puppet User:Khamis Mushat - Sorry for delay, I've only just noticed your note on my talk page. Again, Thanks and Enjoy. Denisarona (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Dougweller, user Vahram Mekhitaryan repeatedly added wrong, not related links in articles, and starting edit wars. Please take some action against it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:India Related articles

India related are a nightmare. Many admins can't believe I persist in patrolling this "poison chalice" as WP:Competence as well as communualism are often rife. I've come in for a lot of personal abuse, but hey I believe in the wikipedian principles and making sure the truth is out there no matter how uncomfortable it is out there. Knowledge is power and the pen is mightier than the sword. Thanks SH 17:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tell me about it. It's a bit of a nightmare but I seem mired in it now. :-) Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gun control

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. 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, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

List of self-publshers

You deleted the addition of my company to the list of self-publishers. The existing list indicates it is a partial list and thus invites the addition of others. The word notable per Wikipedia does not apply to the content of the article. The article must be notable but the content in and of itself, such as in a list, can include items that are, shall we say, less notable. On that topic, however, my self-publishing company is already notable. We have published so far a poet who was nominated for a Pushcart Prize and one of the leading figures in Equine Experiential Learning. We have other notable manuscripts in development. The co-founders of our company have 35+ years publishing experience, having come from Jeremy P.Tarcher, the premier publisher of non-fiction human potential books, which I referenced. We have worked on over 100 books, including numerous best-sellers. There is every reason to include us on this list. While we are new, we are already notable. BTW, you should look at the entries for Vantage Press and Yudu Media -- to me, these indicate that we are more notable than they are. I think you need to be fair about who you decide to excise out.Rbenzel (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you for re-inserting my edit into the list. R. Benzel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbenzel (talk • contribs) 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Religion in South Africa – Mormon religion

Hi Doug. I would appreciate your input here if you don't mind. I think I saw you deal with something similar recently (I can't remember on which article now though). HelenOnline 14:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

need help asap

far left page, i am trying to make changes the proper way re the talk page, editor bryanmorrigan just keeps forcing his views and deleting everything. can you help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Fancy blocking someone?

Please could you take a look at User talk:Pk041#Final warning and their current efforts, notably at Bhati. If you are not inclined or are otherwise engaged then I'll take it to AN3. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Now they're doing similar stuff at Rana (title) - a dreadful article, I admit, but replacing one lot of unsourced info with another is not exactly useful. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sitush Saw that before I saw this. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
And I'm not really clear on the caste issue. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean the caste sanctions issue? - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and how he's violating them. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:GS/Caste is the sanctions page. By repeatedly disrupting/warring on Bhati- and Rajout-related articles since September 2012 despite a past block and sanctions warning. I'm not sure that the logged-out editing is deliberate but it is obviously the same person. It wouldn't surprise me if they've edited the Bhati page using other accounts but they'll be stale now - that article has been semi'd on a few occasions and it is usually similar stuff. I really need to get to grips with it but the subject is quite difficult to research well due to the congruence of personal names and caste, not to mention variant spellings. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Halal Page

Hi, I see you have reverted the amendment i made to the "See also" section of Halal page back to how it was before and called it a promotional stunt. Actually, i was trying to solve the "Orphan" problem of "OnePure" page. I didn't know it would be considered as promotional. Is it possible for you to guide me how to de-orphan this page or how to de-orphan any page on wikipedia when you can't find pages related to it on Wikipedia... Thanks, --U-droid (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:What did

I meant I wouldn't dwell on a smug blog post by an arrogant bully. Of course scholarly disagreement should be reported on Wikipedia; I didn't mean to imply that it shouldn't. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, J Milburn. I agree. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hello Pyule, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Sisupalgarh has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without... The penny just dropped. Even if you wrote it, it's still copyright. You can of course quote your own material, although you run into WP:COI perhaps...

PY (author): I have not the faintest idea of what "addition" you are referring to. Your entire context escapes me, even after looking at my text and images. Nor do I remember how I began the page re Sisupalgarh in 2006. Someone else put in a phot. Could you possibly explain if the alleged infriingment is an image or a text? Plagiarism is a serious accusation which even you will have to prove. Please articulate in which respect it it a copyright infringment? Certainly you must have a source. Your accusation might be convincing with some kind of substantiation.

In general, one is innocent until proven guilty. However, such accusations now have happened several times to me - fortunately only with Wikipedia. One fills out the forms for the copyright of an image and a few months afterword, one is informed of an alleged copyright infringement/unclarity. Am I being accused again of plagiarizing images which I made with my own hands? Once one of your editors 'proved' an alleged plagiarised drawing by insisting that I have no knowledge of Arabic, a language which I have used daily for many years in my work. Cock sure false allegations erode my trust and put me in a ridiculous Kafkaesque situation.

Wikipedia editors even incorrectly manipulate my cv (German language version). According to them, I started to teach at my institution in 2004, which actually was 1990. More difficult to prove in your dialogues than one might think. I am instructed that "Wikipedia is not facebook". Unsure if I am more unhappy about the tone of that dialogue or the resulting content. I am resigned.

My favourite is that in one case Wikipedia editors doubted my GPS coordinates because they do not match perfectly those of Google Earth, which is far more inexact.

It costs more time to figure out how to fix false accusations than research and originate an entire text. 84.155.122.35 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I could see you were having problems over your images. My comment was about text, which I discovered was yours after I posted the copyvio message to you. I then explained that it was still copyvio and how to handle it, easier than with images. I'll go to your talk page now and copy this and more detail about the text. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Alicia Esteve Head

Although things calmed down a bit, there have been still reverts. Can you extend protection time? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it wouldn't be appropriate. It seems under control and it's on my watch list. If it gets bad I'll reprotect. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy - New Rameses III and Amarna Genetic Studies

I reverted your changes to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and added a section in Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy for a discussion of the issue; please use talk page before reverting sourced and referenced material again. The section is Rameses III and Amarna Genetic Studies-Only Peer-Reviewed Studies Allowed on Wikipedia? Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Population history of Egypt, DNA history of Egypt

I have begun discussions at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Talk:Population history of Egypt and Talk: DNA history of Egypt in regards to your reversions of sourced and referenced materials. Discussion on the talk page would be appreciated before any further reversions. I do appreciate your take on these matters. As these are the two peer-reviewed articles in question there should be no further problems: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393

Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012 Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for your tireless efforts and for restoring my faith in Wikipedia. HelenOnline 10:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Lebanese People

I understand, I added in the article the Lebanese community in Venezuela. You should see this reference [17].

«Jaam0121 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)»

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Fasold

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Tuckerresearch's talk page.
Message added 21:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Tuckerresearch's talk page.
Message added 22:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment

Hi. Maybe this one is interesting for you. See Talk:Saib Tabrizi, last section and cited sources. Zyma (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet on JIDF page

I believe user "moscowrussia" is a sockpuppet of a banned user, Joel Leyden (a/k/a "israelbeach"). Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israel_News_Agency_%283rd_nomination%29 - Thank you. --Bobhope101 (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow, sorry didn't have time today. CU won't work here though. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't see the evidence that he is, but he now is blocked indefinitely. If we get another possible sock let me know. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

ancient india

About ancient India.

Afghanistan is and was part of the iranian plateau even in history look on internet for archonasia and Bactria it is modern afghanistan, only Eastern parts of Afghanistan was historically part of the indian subcontinent and do you have proof that Afghanistan was part of it? and Modern Afghans are part of the Iranian race which were from the Scythia look on internet for scythia.

Please don't change it back or give a proper reference thanks regards

So some of Afghanistan is part of Ancient India, yet you are removing it and couldn't even bother to give an edit summary? Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Why??

why my edit not accepted and be reverted again and again?? while i hv mention fully 100% authentic links???? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Ilyas_Qadri&action=history Ramiz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summations (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Thank you for the holiday wishes. I hope you and yours have a happy holiday season. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

ancient india

Hi Doughweller

I found more information about this. Afghanistan was part of the Iranian empires like Medes, Parthian, Acheamid empires because they are/were also Iranians from the Iranic race Only Gandara empire was part of ancient india so the empire that was between kabul and the Swat valley in Pakistan. that's about 79KM of Today's Afghanistan. you can look on wikipedia for those ancient empires which i typed above. You can google on Internet for maps of ancient india and the Mauryan empire they kept Afghanistan for 20 years but then Alexander the great took it and 1 century later the Seleucid Empire ( a persian empire) took Bactria and Anarchosia back (Modern-Afghanistan) Bactrian the spoken language in Bactria is modern Pashto language in Afghanistan. In ancient Afghanistan They spoke Eastern Iranian Languages, Western Iranian languages, Araimic and old Greek not Indo-aryan languages like sanskrit and hindi,urdu etc. Most largest Religion in Afghanistan was zoroastrianism you can look up, and buddhism brought by mughals and Indian traders from the Indus valley and buddism was only in the Kabul region of Afghanistan Proof: look at the languages they spoke in those persian empires http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/languages/aramaic.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AsokaKandahar.jpg

i have lots of references Doughweller can you please before you make an edit about this, discuss it to me thanks

Happy holidays

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The article as it stands was created by a sock-puppet and will probably be moved back where it belongs, which solves the problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hanno the Navigator

Hey, It's the only popular source about Explorer Hanno.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanno_the_Navigator&curid=328576&diff=587626398&oldid=58761272 It's a good documentary you should see it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_The_Story_of_All_of_Us — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafkasmurat (talk • contribs) 13:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you comparing a 2006 version of the Light Opera of Manhattan with the Hanno article - which I note is using a source, The Megalithic Portal, which fails WP:RS. Tv programs rarely make good sources for scholarly articles. If it focussed on Hanno, it might be worthwhile in the popular culture section. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a mistake. Sorry. I was surprised by the production of documentary. Whatever, if you say so...--Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :-)

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)


~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Dougweller, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have no problem with the action you have taken regarding my edit warring, and I acknowledge that edit warring does not necessarily involve breaking 3RR. But I didn't know what article you were referring to in this edit. I did not think I had made a fourth revert in any article - not only did I not want to break 3RR, but I also didn't want to game the system. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm, it was Garden of Eden. I didn't notice Tree of life (biblical) which I would have mentioned if I had. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The fact is, I didn't think this was a revert - actually, I was making compromise edit to try to find some common ground. It was the same with this edit at Tree of life (biblical). StAnselm (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Ambiguous and certainly not a good idea at that point, although I understand what you were doing. I presume you saw Black Kite's comment. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Theory

under the section 'conspiracy theories,' everything suggested is a 'theory' (we could use claim, but its not uniform) and/or conspiracy theory. To use 'myth' next to the Jewish theories is to say they are less preposterous then other ones such as alien abduction, also called theories, not myths... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.23.8 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point User:75.134.23.8. But we overdue the use of the word 'theory' - and these aren't theories anyway, which is why we say "Some New Chronology theories, such as the Phantom time hypothesis" where 'hypothesis' is correct even though it's a conspiracy theory. I've made a couple of tweaks - eg the Coca-cola guy was responding to what is better called (IMHO) a 'charge'. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism and Judaism

Is it just me, or is this not particularly coherent? It seems to me to be a mixture of attitudes about Jews in India, some India-Israel relations stuff, and some free association "gee, Hinduism has this, and Judaism has some almost like it" parallel-drawing. I'm not all that happy about being the person who nominates it for deletion but I'm just not seeing it as an article. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Some points are 100% similar, some are almost.. That's same with every other article like Hinduism and Islam, Jainism and Islam and many others, where 2 religions are developed in different nations. So you have to highlight the community's ties as well, if they are religiously affiliated. Just like it has been done with many of these articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi Dougweller -

Tony Fox mentioned that I might have an administrator who has been involved with this issue help. [[18]]. Tony Fox also said to mention that Laval removed my query [[19]] from Tony Fox's talk page without consensus and without Tony Fox's permission and that this should be considered. Laval also removed my query [[20]] on his page, then responded on the subject's talk page [[21]] before there was consensus and where the issue involves WP:BLP. I raised some questions about the gist and tone of an article Laval edited and his continual reversion on edits where BLP and RS had not been resolved and also where invasion of the article's subject privacy was at issue. I was also concerned that Laval threatened a newbie with an offline investigation [[22]] . The newbie Hapshepsuit, who seemed promising, has been traumatized (I inferred) because s/he has become a virtual mute. I sought to help but was met with a string of ad hominem attacks by Laval who also wiped my query from his page. Laval has been warned about WP: harassment on August 1, 2013 [[23]] and has had a number warnings about personal attacks. How much longer can such unpleasantness go on? I don't wish to work on any articles that have anything to do with Scientology anymore but I feel that an administrator should be alerted to what is going on because of the issues involved. Perhaps someone could oversee this page [[24]] and talk to Laval. Thanks in advance for your help. Happy holidays. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Clarification request

The clarification request concerning you has been archived, and the resulting discussion can be read here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ilyas Attar Qadri wiki page editing

Dear sir,

Thank you for kind guide line regarding editing on wiki pages. What i edited was to provide some good information to wikipedia users as i also use it often. I was studying about 500 top muslims of the world and found very less information about subjected personaility. So I researched about him from net and local library and same provided on the page. Next time i shall try to be a better editor according to rules.

Thanks againTehqeeqat (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ilyas Attar Qadri wiki page editing

Dear sir,

Thank you for kind guide line regarding editing on wiki pages. What i edited was to provide some good information to wikipedia users as i also use it often. I was studying about 500 top muslims of the world and found very less information about subjected personaility. So I researched about him from net and local library and same provided on the page. Next time i shall try to be a better editor according to rules.

Thanks againTehqeeqat (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Ilyas Qadri‎

Thank you for your message on my talk page. Unfortunately you misunderstand what a reviewer does. If you revert the edit, you're not reverting me, you're reverting the other editor. If you feel the changes are inappropriate then you should be bold and fix it. "The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits...." If a reviewer was required to fact check references and learn the history of every article there would be a huge backlog of things needing to be approved. I will not be returning to the article and making any changes. I see some of those things have been changed already anyway. Feel free to make any edits you see as necessary and one of the over 5,000 editors with reviewing rights will approve it. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 19:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Main

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Main. 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, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

GermarRudolf; here: conflict of interest

Sir (assuming you are a male): Thank you for reacting to my recent edits. I understand the concept of a conflict of interest. I've discussed this and other issues raised by you beneath your entry on my own talk page, so yours here won't cluttered. Please see there. GermarRudolf (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What do I need to do?

Dear User:Dougweller, since you are one of the few editors I "know" and etc. What can be done about User:Barfly99, who keeps altering my comments to him here: User talk:Barfly99, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barfly99&action=history. He altered my original comments to him, and at one point (see diff) making it appear as if I'm coming on to him. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And again. See diff. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if my warning doesn't work. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup X: Minoan connection?

Doug, again I apologize for misusing the Haplogroup X talk site. By the by, you might look at my follow-on: --Minoan copper miners revisited-- at the Haplogroup X talk site. I think I have talked myself out of any use of the picture in relation to Minoan influence in prehistoric North America. And I further apologize to Susan Martin. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing the second part of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt citation

Hi, Dougweller. Recently you reversed an reliably sourced edit on the article Black Egyptian Hypothesis. But you didn't give any justification.

This is the full quote:The 2001 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt states that "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "blacks", while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.”[1]

I would like to know your point of view and the reason why you removed the second part after the "thus". As I explained, this has the unfortunate consequence of misinterpreting the Oxford encyclopedia citation. You still decided to remove the second part of the citation without giving any justification based on reliable source or wikipedia guidelines. You simply said: "I also disagree, maybe an RfC?". Since then, a talk page discussion has been going on the subject. And since you were the one who removed the second part of the citation, we would like to know your input about it and the reason why you don't want to include the "thus" part on the talk page. DrLewisphd (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to it. An RfC would bring in more editors. And I very strongly disagree with not actually attributing it to the author, since we know who he is. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Americas and phoenicians

Hello Doug,

I don' t agree with you removing the parts regarding phoenicians. I agree with this only if you remove the vikings/ Leif Ericsson as well. Is the same line of thinking. It was already discussed with other administator and were agreed, I don' t see a reason to come back on this again.

I think this is a kind of anti-brazilianism, I don't see logic here. Please, explanations of this are welcome, for example why keep Leif Ericsson and why not King Hiram?

Do you know phoenicians had colonies in Italy and Spain? What' s the line border line here?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSzilagyi (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Doug,

I agree and respect the wikipedia rules. However my question still with no answer. I will no enter a edit war, but need to know why keep Leif Ericsson and remove King Hiram. No logic, no explanatio, nothing.

I'll not post anything else, no problem, but need clear answers.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSzilagyi (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yerevan-Erebuni

Sorry, but your revert was groundless and your argument ("looked at the sources, you can't say that the building of the fortress of Erebuni is the date of the founding of the city") is invalid. Please take a look at the first source [25]. It clearly states that "Yerevan was founded in 782 B.C." I'd like to see what sources you're talking about. Yes, 782 B.C. is the date when the Erebuni Fortress was founded and it is widely considered the foundation date of Yerevan. --Երևանցի talk 06:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not those sources. But I've made it clear that it its history dates back to the Erebuni fortress which was designed as a fully royal capital, and added that to the articles on Yerevan and Erebuni as well. This actually gives it a clearer description and looks more impressive. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It's generally accepted largely because the etymology of Yerevan is traced to Erebuni but the area itself was uninhabited for several centuries post-Achaemenid rule.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thus the idea that the city was founded in in 782 is at best a misunderstanding of the archaeology. A capital was built and abandoned, then a new settlement in a slightly different location grew into a city - at least that is what appears to have happened if you are correct. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Move assist

Can you give me a lift with a page move, please? I'm trying to get to grips with the Indian village mess by establishing a structure that might actually work across the entire country, although starting with just one district (!) I've been doing ok thus far - see the blue links at User:Sitush/sandbox2 - but have just created Kuthannoor (gram panchayat) before realising that Kuthanur already existed and deals with the same thing. Of all those that I've already sorted out, this is the one that has the most variant spellings & I fell into the trap.

I've done an attributed copy/paste from my new article to the old but to keep the structure and to take advantage of Kuthannur (disambiguation), Kuthanur could use a move to Kuthannoor (gram panchayat). There is method in my madness, honestly. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@SitushDone, although getting new editors to do this will be impossible (I keep seeing new village articles created). Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I realise that there is no way to make people comply. However, I'm thinking that if I can prove a point and get some sort of consensus then we might be able to minimise what will be an exponential growth in poor articles. Right now, I'm doing no harm and there is a benefit even at the district level. In the long run, unless something obviously sourced and notable intervenes:
  • census villages will have there own articles
  • villages that are a part of a gram panchayat but not deemed significant by the census will redirect to the GP article
  • Villages that are not even named in a GP will be PRODed.
If nothing else, this might help the folks at NPP and AFC, although it is always subject to administrative changes by the state governments etc. The thing is, I need to play this out to appreciate the problems & the scale is a bit big for sandboxing. @Dr. Blofeld: and others may have a long-term interest in this. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 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 January 2014 (UTC)

Bardrick

Hi I have his page on my watchlist, he removed the block notice, I have re-added, and explainedit had to stay for the block lenght in the edit summary. A more formal note from yourself on this might be helpful- I dont really want to get in a discussion with him if I dont have to as can be seen I have my reasons. Murry1975 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed again. I shalln't be putting it back this time. Murry1975 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Murry1975, but he was within his rights. See WP:REMOVED. I wouldn't expect you to know this however. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:REMOVED says notices about active sanctions may not be removed. DrKiernan (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but that's never so far as I understand it taken to mean simple block notices. I'll check. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Doug, in case you didn't notice, I left a message on Bardrick's talk page about this. As I recall, there have been some discussions about this issue, and not all admins agreed. I think the consensus was that the policy applied to the removal of current block notices, although some blocking admins still didn't like to enforce it. My recollection as to the distribution of opinions could be flawed, and I'm also not sure I've seen every discussion on the issue (I believe there's been more than one).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@Bbb23 Well, there's a new one now! I raised it at WP:AN. If you are right, we need to amend the relevant text. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It was my understanding that a block is a form of sanction, and it should stay for the duration of that block. Murry1975 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a consensus on this. It's being discussed again at WP:AN. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As a non-admin can I add to that thread? Murry1975 (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you can add to any thread at AN or ANI, one of the posts is from a non-Admin. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

See

Happy New Year, Doug. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Samizambak. An editor whom you advised a month ago keeps spamming various articles and my talk-page with a fringe theory. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC

Hi, According to Wikipedia rules self-published material should not be used as a source. That’s OK. But if there is not any other sources about a topic but a self-published one? Topic closed? Moreover, one of classic false deductions is that validity of claim/knowledge depends on who authored it and where and how the author published it. Phoenicians had trading posts and other colonies all around Europe, not only at Iberian Tartessos, where Phoenicians came in contact with Celts. Punic Eshmun a.k.a Ecooc (“Prince”)(e.g. Kassab 2007 Phoenician dictionary: Male i.e. Ec) was paragon of Christian Jesus and Celtic Esus: thus de facto Phoenicians gave centermost gods to both Druidism and Christianity. Not ludicrous at all, but a fact. And now to the issue: So far nobody produced any better explanation (volcanic phenomena) to abandonment of western Treveria between 250 – 150 BCE than Virpiranta. So, are you a scientist or an apologist? You can’t be both.

Yes, we don't have articles where the only source is self-published. And I can't recall what you are referring to here, as you haven't edited anything relevant with this IP address. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Dougweller!

Happy New Year!
Hello Dougweller:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Frze > talk 20:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year Dougweller!

Happy New Year!
Hello Dougweller:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Jerm729 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Point of Expansion

Hello,

I believe you were correct in reverting my edit as I was not aware of the restriction on content. However, I wonder of the significance of the study I attempted to crudely ad to the discussion warrants some additional effort. You point out that there is a reference to the more recent genetic data supporting replacement over acculturation, but I feel the point is under-emphasized in the discussion.

What follows is the paste and cut of the original article that I submitted followed by some further thinking on my part that I was inspired to write. Some of my points are a bit politically touchy in nature. I do not mean to offend anyone. They are just some of my perceptions. I thought I would share them with you for feedback or just for your amusement.

If you think a reworking of the material is warranted I would be willing to take a stab at it.

Thanks for your time,

John

Point of Expansion

A new study may shed light on the migration vs. acculturation question of the Bell Beaker culture and also confirms that people sweeping out from Turkey colonized Europe, likely as a part of the agricultural revolution, reaching Germany about 7,500 years ago. For decades, researchers have wondered whether people, or just ideas, spread from the Middle East during the agricultural revolution that occurred after the Mesolithic period. To find out, Cooper and his colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA, which resides in the cells' energy-making structures and is passed on through the maternal line, from 37 skeletal remains from Germany and two from Italy; the skeletons belonged to humans who lived in several different cultures that flourished between 7,500 and 2,500 years ago. The team looked a DNA specifically from a certain genetic group, called haplogroup h, which is found widely throughout Europe but is less common in East and Central Asia. The researchers found that the earliest farmers in Germany were closely related to Near Eastern and Anatolian people, suggesting that the agricultural revolution did indeed bring migrations of people into Europe who replaced early hunter-gatherers.

But that initial influx isn't a major part of Europe's genetic heritage today. Instead, about 5,000 to 4,000 years ago, the genetic profile changes radically, suggesting that some mysterious event led to a huge turnover in the population that made up Europe. The Bell Beaker culture, which emerged from the Iberian Peninsula around 2800 B.C., may have played a role in this genetic turnover. The culture, which may have been responsible for erecting some of the megaliths at Stonehenge, is named for its distinctive bell-shaped ceramics and its rich grave goods. The culture also played a role in the expansion of Celtic languages along the coast.

"We have established that the genetic foundations for modern Europe were only established in the Mid-Neolithic, after this major genetic transition around 4,000 years ago," study co-author Wolfgang Haak, also of the Australian Center for Ancient DNA, said in a statement. "This genetic diversity was then modified further by a series of incoming and expanding cultures from Iberia and Eastern Europe through the Late Neolithic. What is intriguing is that the genetic markers of this first pan-European culture, which was clearly very successful, were then suddenly replaced around 4,500 years ago, and we don't know why," said study co-author Alan Cooper, of the University of Adelaide Australian Center for Ancient DNA, in a statement. "Something major happened, and the hunt is now on to find out what that was." The findings, detailed April 23, 2013 in the journal Nature Communications, were drawn from several skeletons unearthed in central Europe that were up to 7,500 years old.

[2]

-

So the Western line bounced back from the shores of the Atlantic to begin its fateful expansion across the globe. So too, beginning in a latter age, the Eastern line, in Japan, tried to expand across Asia and the Pacific, but was halted by the Western line. But, as the Western line succumbs in this age to the seeds of delusion cast about by its enemies, which leads to a dilution of its evolution, and along with the guilt at its successes and the weakness of the associated political correctness, the Eastern line recognizes that its hope lies in the ongoing gradual demise of the Western line. Yet, the Western line has a great advantage, and will probably continue to have it for at least a generation or two. The Western line would benefit form a global calamity such as a world war or biospheric collapse within this time frame. If not, the Eastern line could eventually seize the advantage.

Another point regarding the basis of the political correctness of this age are the sentiments of the post Holocaust Jew, females, homosexuals, and the generally fearful nature of scientists that drive interpretations of history towards the non-conflict type (sorry about this perception). The migration (or replacement) vs. acculturation question of the Bell Beaker culture is a good example of how non-conflict type beliefs are popular. The genocidal nature of man is often too downplayed in the debate. The most favored solution of the ancients was genocide and subjugation of the vanquished - not the 1960’s style “make love, not war” sentiment. Yet, the more peaceful interpretation of acculturation is emphasized in the Wikipedia discussion on this point. These facts (assuming they hold up) fly in the face of this “weak man’s” interpretation. Irregardless, genocide should be at the top of the interpretation list is most instances, I think. And, the science is thus compromised when “Darwinian carnage” is under-appreciated.

Besides the genocidal implications of the above genetic-based study, I think another good example of this non-conflict bias, albeit of a non genocidal nature, is the popular disbelief that pre-historic Amerindians were not responsible for the mass extinction of large mammals that occurred near the end of the last Ice Age cycle. I would not underestimate man’s capacity for extinguishing entire species of animals. However, it has become popular to characterize Amerindians as wise stewards of nature in this silly anti-Western age.

I wonder if the Western man may prefer to assume a “tut tut” approach to this discovery as it would be used to fuel the fires of anti-Western sentiment. The thinking being that this discovery proves the inherent expansionistic and genocidal nature of the top of the Western line. Although I think all peoples possess this very nature, the most evolved of the lines are naturally and necessarily the best at that game and thus will be feared the most. Yet, such evidence of the origin of the “Western man” might give some of them a sense of solidarity and fate tied to their kind. Perhaps a unifying realization of sorts, a bit like the Nazi myth of the Tibetan origin of the “Master Race”. Interestingly, given that man’s intellectual capacity increased along the evolutionary lines, it should have been predicted that “Master Races” would or should have evolved along the western coast of Europe and in Japan. Although the Amerindians don’t hold to this simple prediction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martianice (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Maya calendar

A Wikipedia user has decided to rewrite the article to reflect the terminology and other features from unreliable sources. Please keep an eye on this and try to help. Senor Cuete (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For writing a very polite and detailed block of text to explain his reverting a very bold change he disagreed with. So many people would just have said, "rv, per BOLD". HectorMoffet (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

what the hell is going????????

why no one replying my question ? plz check subject " why??? " . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summations (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lycurgus Cup

has been very busy since Xmas, & might benefit from protection until the issues on the talk page have been settled. Happy New Year! Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction

In regard of your protecting Earthquake prediction: part of the problem is the IP editor's disinclination to engage in discussion on the talk page. I suspect he does not even look at the talk page, so I wonder if (prior to expiration of the protection) you might add a null edit to the article for the purpose of adding an edit summary directing him to the talk page. Also, although I am not happy with some of the unsourced (and npov) material now stuck in the article, in order to prompt discussion I would favor a longer period of protection. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

How can it be said that the material now given under Earthquake prediction is unsourced or not neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.138.63 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

For reasons best discussed on the article's talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Grandmaster_(martial_arts)#China

Hi there Doug. I understand that you do not feel my source from this article meets your criteria, however I was merely linking a generic picture that shows the traditional kung fu family tree of which there are many online. Even if the source is not good enough for Wiki criteria it does not take away from the content that I added. A grandmaster in traditional Chinese kung fu culture is known as Sigung or teachers teacher. I feel this should most definitely be included in the page otherwise it is not accurate or complete. Its like making a page about the grandfather yet only talking about the father, in this case the Sifu. To only mention the word Sifu and not Sigung is a mistake if you are trying to describe accurately a grandmaster of traditional chinese martial arts. I noticed that you even removed that Sifu is a romanization of the original meaning of teacher/father which is TRUE! I hope you understand what I mean, basically Sifu = Master Sigung = Grandmaster. If you dont get it maybe you could pass the case to someone with more knowledge on traditional chinese martial art if you have someone like that? How about if I change the source to this page instead?

Many thanks

Shaolinfist (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Shaolinfist (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaolinfist (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely there are books on this that meet our criteria at WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are I am not aware of it. However I have practiced traditional chinese martial arts for more than a decade and I can tell you for 100% that Sigung means Grandmaster in Chinese. Check out some more sources if you still don't believe me. 1 2 3 4 5. As I also stated in the information you deleted is that the Grandmaster in a traditional kung-fu family is considered like a Grandfather, the teacher of your teacher. Not only am I from this tradition but I am supplying you with multiple sources which back up my claim. I somehow feel that putting all of these sources onto that one page would not be a good idea.

Shaolinfist (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. I find a number of sources saying that Sigung is grade 7 (or 6). This one[26] clearly meets our criteria and says "of kinship cities. The Cantonese term sifu (pinyin shifu; teacher, literally father) is the title awarded to holders of the fifth degree black belt, but this term traditionally refers to any instructor, regardless of rank, among Chinese systems. Sigung (pinyin shigong; teacher's teacher, literally grandfather) is the title awarded to the sixth and seventh degree ranks. They usually wear red and white belts in Japanese tradition. In the 1990s, the title of professor was awarded to certain eighth and ninth degrees. Only the five founders retain the title sijo (pinyin shizu). Sibak (pinyin shibo) is the title for a student, usually a black belt, who studies directly with a founder. Unlike many Chinese martial arts, Kajukenbo does not use the term for stu-dent, toedai (pinyin tudi), nor does it use the familial term for co-students, sibing (pinyin shixiong)." Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Doug. I am terribly sorry but despite being from a book that source is describing a particular martial art named Kajukenbo. The source clearly states that it is a Japanese/Korean/Chinese martial art. This is not a valid source for traditional Chinese martial arts. Mine are! I am sure there are many books written on the topic which back up my claim however I feel you would be lucky to find one which is openly published online like the one you showed. I have provided multiple online sources for my claim and can provide many more. Shaolinfist (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese martial arts do not have grades or belts by the way. Although some modern schools may have adopted this system belts and grades in martial arts are a Japanese concept. Shaolinfist (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually Doug if you look closer your source actually backs up my claim by distinguishing the Chinese family style system with the Japanese belts one. In the Kajukenbo tradition they give the Chinese title Sigung to a (Japanese) 6th and 7th degree ranked black belt, but only in some hybrid systems is it mixed like this. Its not a good source for traditional Chinese martial art. Shaolinfist (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I am unable to find an online book about traditional Chinese martial arts as a source here is another source from a mixed martial art which like your source although uses a Japanese belt system also uses Chinese terms in their grading. You can see clearly that according to this source the name Sigung in traditional Chinese martial art means Grandfather or grandmaster. Just as Sifu means Father or master. It is still not a good source however as it is not specifically about traditional Chinese martial art. Another thing which makes it difficult to find reliable sources is the difference in interpretation of the Chinese words into English. The proper translation of Sifu into English is Father/master. The proper translation of Sigung is Grandfather/grandmaster. There are many online Chinese martial arts schools and records which back up my claim, it is pretty common knowledge to anyone familiar with traditional Chinese martial arts be honest. All the best and a happy new year. :) Shaolinfist (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest Doug I have spent at least an hour just tonight trying to convince you that you have made a mistake. I went out of my way to correct that wiki page for the benefit of others and although I appreciate you are trying to help I have lost a lot of time I could have spent working on other things. You clearly do not have experience in this field so as I said before maybe you could pass the case on to someone more knowledgeable in traditional Chinese martial art if you still don't agree with me? Thanks Shaolinfist (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example from a kung fu practitioner of the difference between Japanese and Chinese martial art etiquette: "When I started learning Kung Fu, I was hit with a bit of culture shock. The Karate culture, which is influenced by Japanese ideas of strictness and order, is heavily regimented. You wear clean, white uniforms. You bow. You follow etiquette. Or else.

The Karate culture was (and still is) almost like a military organization with its complex set of rules.

The Kung Fu culture, on the other hand, is quite casual. In all the different Kung Fu schools I’ve attended, there’s never been a standard uniform. My first Kung Fu teacher taught in jeans. Even Grandmaster Wong, who now chooses to wear more traditional Kung Fu suits, was wearing a simple polo shirt and Kung Fu pants when I first met him in 1997." Source Shaolinfist (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Here again people talking on a kung fu forum who are saying the same thing. (link) Shaolinfist (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tarkhan tribe

Care to take another look at goings-on at Tarkhan Tribe? Undiscussed (and incorrect) page move, repeated reinstatement of copy/pastes from unreliable sources etc, no apparent attempt at discussion by that contributor. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


IPs at Ten lost tribes, BI, etc

Hi Doug, I'm too behind schedule to detail the problems, but the IPs and the like continually making disruptive edits to these pages have become rather bothersome. Is there nothing that can be done to keep them in check?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Georgian alphabet

Hello Doug. You left an AA sanctions notice on this talk page on 3 December. Perhaps you would have something to say at WP:AE#Jaqeli, since the complaint is mostly about edit warring on this page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Whyte III Page Edits

Mr. Dougweller: Mr. Wales:

Again, we want to thank you for taking the time to help educate us in detail on the ins and outs of editing Wikipedia. It is greatly appreciated.

After looking over a few other Wikipedia pages of people whom we respect (Fred Luter, the first black president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research) we have written and sourced the information we would like to include on the page for Daniel Whyte III. You mentioned that there would be some difficulty in providing independent source material for educational qualifications, but we went ahead and sourced it anyway, however we noticed that neither Rev. Fred Luter nor Rev. Ed Stetzer had sources for where they graduated from, and Rev. Ed Stetzer graduated from the same college that Rev. Daniel Whyte III graduated from -- Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, USA which is fully accredited by SACS -- the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Association_of_Colleges_and_Schools

Regarding Torch Legacy Publications, as we mentioned in our previous e-mail to you: Torch Legacy Publications (www.torchlegacy.com) is officially registered in the State of Texas and is a part of GLM Omnimedia Group, LLC. Torch Legacy Publications has been around since 1992 and has published books by Whyte and other authors. Torch Legacy Publications is recognized nationally and internationally by the book trade, as books have been sold across the US and around the world through major distributors such as Ingram, Baker & Taylor, STL Distribution, and Choice Books which have sold books to major bookstore chains such as Barnes & Noble, Borders, Books-a-Million, Family Christian Stores, Lifeway and others.

The revised information for the page is below. If you do not mind, please review this information and let us know if it is satisfactory. Please feel free to post it yourself if you are inclined to do so. If not, please let us know when it is ready to post or if we need to change something before it is ready.

Again, thank you for your help in this matter.

Best Regards,

Syntyche

P.S.: In humble hopes that you will see that Daniel Whyte III is an established best selling author, please notice in the source for the Dallas Morning News best sellers list that Daniel Whyte III's book beat our present President Barack Obama's book, "Dreams from My Father," and on the source for the Amazon.com best sellers list, his book also beat Martin Luther King Jr.'s book, "Strength to Love." And it just so happens that, in this category, "Letters to Young Black Men" was #1 multiple times.

P.S.2: We would like to change our username from Kwwdts to Syntyche. Please let us know how we can go about doing this.

________________________________

Daniel Whyte III is a full-time ordained minister of the Gospel, president of Gospel Light Society International and Torch Ministries International and a bestselling Christian author.*

SOURCE:


BACKGROUND

Daniel Whyte III was born in Brooklyn, New York on September 15, 1960. After living in Brooklyn, New York, for a while, he was raised in New Bern, North Carolina. His father, Daniel Whyte Jr, was a pastor and gospel singer.*

Whyte joined the United States Air Force at the age of nineteen. He served for four years and was honorably discharged.**

In 1979, while in the Air Force, Whyte became a Christian and began preaching shortly thereafter. Since that time, he has preached in forty-three states and twenty-two countries.***

On December 19, 1989, Whyte married Meriqua Althea Dixon of Christiana, Jamaica. Together, they have seven children.****

He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Theology from Bethany Divinity College & Seminary (1994), a Bachelor of Arts in Religion from Texas Wesleyan University (2008), a Master of Arts in Religion from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (2010), and a Master of Divinity degree from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (2012). *****

SOURCES:

  • Whyte III, Daniel (2009). God Has Smiled On Me: A Tribute to a Black Father Who Stayed and A Tribute to All Black Fathers Who Stay.


WRITING

Daniel Whyte III is the Essence Magazine national bestselling author of Letters to Young Black Men,* which was also named a Dallas Morning News bestseller,** and a #1 Amazon.com bestseller (in the African-American category).*** Letters to Young Black Men was also endorsed by the National Baptist Voice, the publication of the seven million member National Baptist Convention. **** Whyte has also been frequently listed on the BCNN1/BCBC National Bestsellers List. *****

Whyte's other books published by Torch Legacy Publications are below: ******

Non-fiction 

   * 2005 - Letters to Young Black Men
   * 2006 - Letters to Young Black Women
   * 2006 - Letters to Young Black Men Study Guide
   * 2006 - Letters to Young Black Men Leaders Guide
   * 2006 - When Black Preachers Preach Volume 1 (Compiled and Edited)
   * 2006 - When Black Preachers Preach Volume 2 (Compiled and Edited)
   * 2007 - When Black Preachers Preach Volume 3 (Compiled and Edited)
   * 2007 - 7 Things Young Black Women do to Mess up Their Lives...And How to Avoid Them
   * 2007 - Just Jesus! The Greatest Things Ever Said About the Greatest Man Who Ever Lived (Compiled and Edited)
   * 2007 - Money Under the Car Seat And Other Things to Thank God For
   * 2008 - Mo' Letters to Young Black Men
   * 2009 - God Has Smiled On Me: A Tribute to a Black Father Who Stayed and A Tribute to All Black Fathers Who Stayed
   * 2010 - The Prayer Motivator
   * 2011 - How to Forget the Troubles, Problems, and Failures of the Past and Make the New Year the Best Year of Your Life
   * 2011 - A Praying Time: Why We Need to Pray Now More than Ever
   * 2011 - Hell: Do We Really Believe It? (A Biblical Response to Rob Bell's Redefining of Hell in his Book, Love Wins)
   * 2011 - Just Jesus (Volume 2): More of the Greatest Things Ever Said About the Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
   * 2011 - 10 Things God Wants You to Do in the Last Days
   * 2012 - The Greatest Love of All: Takeaways from the Triumphant and Tragic Life of Whitney Houston
   * 2012 - The Prayer Motivator Devotional Bible (Full Edition) (General Editor)
   * 2012 - The Prayer Motivator Devotional Bible (Concise Edition) (General Editor)

Fiction 

   * 2008 - The Little Wise Girl
   * 2010 - Bug-a-Booh Learns to Give (The Adventures of Bug-a-Booh)
   * 2011 - ...And Family Drama Just Won't Stop
   * 2011 - No Time for Evil
   * 2011 - A Miraculous Thanksgiving
   * 2011 - Booh's Christmas to Remember (The Adventures of Bug-a-Booh)
   * 2012 - Shaking the Gates of Hell
   * 2013 - Charmaine
   * 2013 - The Unspoken Prayer Request
   * 2013 - ...And Family Drama Just Won't Stop II
   * 2013 - The Prophet, the President, and the Pastor
   * 2013 - The Thanksgiving Letters
   * 2013 - I'm Dreaming of a Black Christmas

SOURCES:


Radio & Podcast Ministry

Daniel Whyte III hosts several radio broadcasts and podcasts. 

   * The Prayer Motivator Devotional (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/prayer-motivator-devotional/id434585567)
   * The Prayer Motivator Minute (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-prayer-motivator-minute/id426392014)
   * Gospel Light Minute X and the Gospel Light Minute (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/gospel-light-minute-x-daniel/id426392615)
   * The Prophet Daniel's Report and the Second Coming Watch (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/prophet-daniels-report-daniel/id501279378)
   * The Soul-Winning Motivator (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/soul-winning-motivator-daniel/id618983790)
   * The Reasons to Believe (www.buzzsprout.com/18053‎)
   * The History of Christianity (http://historyofchristianity.buzzsprout.com/)

Kwwdts (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Re: Tanbur

By all means, have at it... My knowledge in this area is really quite minimal. I mainly got involved with that article in order to address some serious WP:COI issues – see Talk:Tanbur (Persian)#Improvement, nomenclature etc. (and the previous sections on that talk page) if you have some time on your hands. (BTW that talk page currently belongs to a redirect, but is otherwise orphaned. Not really sure what do do about that, if anything; at the same time I haven't worried about it, much.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pandur ,harp or gudi?

What is the name of this musical instrument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samizambak (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Samizambak, the question itself shows that you don't understand the fields of history and archaeology. Do you mean what modern musical instrument it resembles? Because the other meaning of your question, what did the users of that instrument call it, could only be answered if there was an inscription on the stone saying the equivalent of "Nanci Griffiths playing a guitar" in the language of the sculptor. Or if there was a contemporary text in the language of the sculptor describing and naming the instrument. And as you know, there are no Sumerian texts calling it a pandur. Or so far as I know an inscription on the statue. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To investigate the similarities with today's instruments are known. As seen in shape tanbur instrument shows great similarities with.Samizambak (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Christianity by country lock request

Can we lock the page to users with accounts please? The sheer volume of anons coming in and adding old or wildly inaccurate data to the table is overwhelming. Alatari (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 "Black Egyptian Hypothesis". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 05:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain

Thanks for your work on Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. Given your interests, may I recommend you read Robin Fleming's Britain After Rome: The Fall and Rise, 400 to 1070 (Penguin History of Britain, v. 2)? It is a history of Britain from 400-1070 based largely on archaeological evidence, including isotopic evidence. She knows the textual evidence (Bede, et al.) backwards and forwards (after all, her earlier books were detailed analyses of Domesday) but recognizes its limitations. Robin is a close friend so I hesitate to use this source myself. --Macrakis (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds very interesting. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Enjoy the book! I think you'll find it very useful for the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain article. It is strange, I agree, that Penguin hasn't issued an ebook. But one good thing they have done is to keep the price of the paper version very modest. --Macrakis (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I wish I was going to be in the US again soon, Amazon UK has the book from £42 up, Google Shopping at 3 figures. Cheap in the US though. Abebooks in the UK was also much cheaper. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I see it at £7.69 at Amazon UK in paperback. I don't know why Amazon lists it multiple times, with multiple prices (some outrageous). --Macrakis (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
What a pain! I even looked at her Amazon page. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
That's why I only paid £7.76 plus postage then at AbeBooks I guess, so at least I didn't pay way over the odds. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

jatland.com in citation

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

DiptanshuTalk 06:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

At saraswati

Well, there are some sources, reliable ones, representing saraswati being regarded as daughter of shiva, i got to that page through the edit by a IP address who made similar edit on Shiva, but Saraswati's page is not so greatly constructed.. I shall give a try? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your direction.

Mr. Weller, I think I understand your guidance. I looked at the Nofollow page and also the External links page. A Reading List is made up of external links. External links to my book on Our Overpopulation-Violence Connection are viewed as a conflict of interest. I will, of course, follow your guidance.

In 1992, 102 Nobel Prize Winners joined a total of 1,700 scientists to issue what they called our Warning to Humanity. They expressed concern that tragedies of the past century will look like a walk in the park if our modern world continues adding a billion hungry people every 12-13 years. As you probably know, half our world’s people today live on less than $2 a day. In addition, you probably know that our atmospheric composition is approaching 50% more carbon dioxide than in 1750; global annual protein production from oceans has been declining since 1989; per-person calories from worldwide grain farming have been falling since 1984, among other significant modern trends. (Citations provided at your request.)

In response to that Warning to Humanity, advertising-supported media reacted mostly with a yawn.

I do not want to violate Wikipedia’s policies in any way. I would though, very much like to improve relevant WP articles where they might better address modern challenges as perceived by many of our very best scientists.

If I see that some edit I propose may raise an imaginable conflict of interest, should I simply follow the External Links advice and “go to the talk page and let another editor decide?”

Again, I do not want to violate Wikipedia’s policies in any way. But I would like to do what I can to help make Wikipedia’s content see into the future as clearly as we Wikies hope to document the past.

Thanks!

BetterWorld4 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DNA history of Egypt

Thanks Doug. I have proposed at Black Egyptian Hypothesis that we agree on a standard paragraph for this material, as it is now being inserted into every article that has bearing on Egypt, and that we enforce the deleting of extra SYNTH and OR material thereafter. The paragraph must explain that half of all DNA experts believe you can't reliably determine such things due to contamination etc, and as you say there must be a link in the source to the Race of Egypt issue otherwise its bordering on SYNTH. Please join in at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis to help get some momentum going toward a consensus? Wdford (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wdford. Didn't see this before I added my comment about needing such a link. I agree that your paragraph is better than the earlier stuff which as I said bothers me - quite a bit unless I can be shown to be way off base. I want this new editor to show where the sources back the claims. Did you check them? One was even about climate change, no mention of DNA, mummies, etc.Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I read all the parts I could access on the internet, and saw no mention of anything. However apparently they also published tables of genes etc, and that is where the POV-pushers saw it. Using it in this context is clearly SYNTH, but I don't think leaving it out completely is going to be practical - it will keep reappearing until that editor is banned, which is not really an ideal solution. Wdford (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbComm

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

/* Conflation of science and religion */ I have put forward a different view on the relation between religions and evolution

I am astonished to see that you have deleted my contribution on this topic with no word of explanation. I have read your page explaining why you "revert" contributions and can find nothing remotely applicable.

Perhaps you would like to explain your reasons. Do you censor any view that you personally disagree with?

Fingermoving (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

He removed it because it wasn't backed by a reliable source. We have a foundational policy, verifiability, that requires us to cite sources for any content we add. That's why Doug said your contribution was "original research", because it didn't have a citation. If you can find a citation that talks about that in more depth, you should propose it on the article's talk page. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
And since User:Fingermoving uses edit summaries, I assume he knows how to read mine yet he says I reverted with "no word of explanation" - clearly false as I wrote "original research (& technical point, a lot of archaeologists think religion only developed when people started to conceptualize a secular mode of thought". Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Fingermoving (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Dougweller overestimates my familiarity with Wikipedia edits. I certainly did not previously read his comments and have had some difficulty getting to here.

The contribution did have a citation. It was Lachmann PJ (2010)"Religion -an evolutionary adaptation" FASEB Journal 24:1301-1307. I hope you will read it. To describe evolutionary arguments as original research is perhaps flattering but, I think, inappropriate. Your technical point could itself do with a citation. I am afraid I do not know what it means. Before there were religions surely all modes of thought were, by definition, secular. Only after religions arose could there have been non-secular modes of thought. Please explain.

On the last point, some archaeologists believe that the division between the secular and the profane arose only within the last few thousand years. Virtually all of your edits have been reverted by either me, User:Mann Jess, or whoever reverted you at Árpád Pusztai and Cultural evolutionism. I think this is because you are new and unfamiliar with the way we work. Your edit at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism was inappropriate because the article is about the book, not the issues in the book. As for Creation–evolution controversy there are two issues. Should we be using Lachmann at all, and your text. Text first. Your first two sentences are your own observations. "This view explains why religions need to be intolerant of competing prescriptions" is your interpretation of Lachmann's "cannot be totally tolerant of the prescription of other religions", so that is original research also. And he doesn't mention building blocks. Now should we be using him? I'd say no. Because no one seems to cite him, see[27] which are the only 2 cites Google found from [28]. On the other hand, Dow's article:[29] and [30]. This is one of the ways we determine whether to use a source - have other scholars cited it? Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller “Archaeologists believe that the division between the secular and the profane arose only within the last few thousand years" . You still give no citation for this assertion. Furthermore it is meaningless if you use the words secular and profane in the sense that the Shorter Oxford dictionary (and I) define them. They are largely synonymous and defined as being in contrast to religious or sacred. MannJess If you judge veracity on the basis of numbers of citations you will doubtless be particularly impressed by cold fusion; by various forms of alternative medicine; by AIDS not being caused by HIV, by the MMR vaccine causing autism as well as by the claims that genetic modification of food plants, as a technique, gives rise to disease. I could go on at length. Because this is a deeply flawed assessment journals and grant givers use peer review - even if it is much more expensive and time consuming than counting citations. I had assumed that Wikipedia did the same but seem to be mistaken.

You are right that my experience with editing Wikipedia is slight - and it will remain so.

Fingermoving (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think I should give a citation in a casual conversation on my talk page and I see that you aren't actually interested in that given your trivial response, but I offered you peer reviewed citations for the main issue, something you seem to have failed to notice. I never suggested that it was just the number of citations - I clearly said "have other scholars cited it" - the key word being scholars. We do not simply count citations or mentions on Google, but if someone is ignored by other scholars then there would have to be excellent reasons to use him. But this shouldn't be discussed here but on the article's talk page or WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) May one presume you meant to write something like “… the division between the sacred and the profane arose …” in the remark quoted above? A common enough type of ‘thinko’, but it seems to have led User:Fingermoving astray regarding your position.—Odysseus1479 01:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Doh! What was I thinking? Yes of course, sacred and profane. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you recently blocked an editor (indef), and I see that another editor has since created a user page for the editor you blocked, just for the purpose of adding the {{blocked user)} template. The template's guidelines state that should be left to the blocking admin. I'm wondering if you have an opinion on this. Thanks - theWOLFchild 13:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

Hello, Dougweller! You reverted my edits on the page above with the reason too long - too long in any case and at this length copyvio. Yet, if you have a closer look at my edits, you will see that in the context of the afore mentioned criticism, the passage added by me is in fact necessary: Namely, Sam Harris et al. reproach Alexander for not accepting the possibility that his NDE happened after the coma, when his cortex was rebooting. Therefore, we should somehow integrate the author's statement concerning that temporal argument. By the way, here you find another "argument" of Alexander's, reading "In fact, I know that my experience happened within coma because of certain anchors to earth time in memory." Does he specify that anywhere? That would be extremely important to my mind since everything hinges on the crucial question when the NDE took place, but I couldn't find anything. Adequate information should then of course be added. I hope for your support. Regards,--Der Spion (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: nutshell

To be honest with you, it took me quite a while to parse out her theory. But once I got it (or at least I think I did), I found it quite amusing. The victim mentality combined with nonsensical conspiracy theories are great to read about, but to be part of it? Now that's awesome! And you're right; she genuinely believes we disagree with her because we have an agenda, and not because she's going against facts. Oh well, it's pretty obvious at this point -I'd hope- for the ArbCom. Yours faithfully! (<--anyone digging for a conspiracy, check this out!)
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 22:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Grandmaster

Hi Doug, you may remember me from about a week ago. I was trying to discuss with you the "correction" you made to my edit of the Grandmaster page. However you moved our discussion to the WikiProject China page where it is being completely ignored. I spent a lot of time coming up with sources for you to prove my point, and when I showed you that the source you were claiming was better than mine wasn't even on topic you say you are too busy and move it to this other page. Have I really just wasted hours of my time editing the post, arguing with you about your "correction" to my edit, only to be ignored when I come up with a valid argument? I will most likely not bother wasting my time editing any more Wiki pages if this is what I have to deal with. Shaolinfist (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you weren't ignored, I was trying to get more input - which is what you asked me to do. It's university holidays, hopefully once they are over someone will respond. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I am being impatient, its just a little frustrating that you edited my post when you don't really have background knowledge in that area or the time to look at the evidence I have dug up for you and find out if I was correct. As you can probably tell I am a bit new to this, hopefully someone else can help us out! Shaolinfist (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. 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, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tiye

Thanks for the message. I must admit that I find discussion of this topic utterly dispiriting, repetitive and wearying, as the same claims get made over and over and over. Of course I am impressed by your stamina. However, I will add comments. Paul B (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just a note. You keep making red links on the section you've created at the NPOV page. The article is called Black Egyptian Hypothesis, not Black Egyptian hypothesis. Though I think per MOS the last word should not be capitalised, it currently is. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Doh! I was thinking of how it should be written, not how it is. I've proposed a change. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a question

Do you think my edits have been constructive or not? I know an answer may impede chances to ban me. The question stands.Rod (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Dougweller. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, your comment on his talkpage suggests you may not be aware, or may have forgotten: Beeblebrox became a member of ArbCom as of last week. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm an idiot, yes I forgot. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Block Hammer

Can you please look into [[31]] is the same ip found [[32]] and [[33]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources and the Hawass article

Hi Doug. Sorry about the WP:SYN confusion. I saw you had deleted the item from some articles but had seemingly left a reduced version in other articles, so I assumed there was a reason for this and I fixed it - it was misleading as it stood. I realize it is difficult keeping up with this, as the gunk sprouts like mushrooms all over the place every time you turn your back. Apologies for making it even harder. Wdford (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem Wdford, I've probably left it somewhere today when I removed it from various articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. However I see the Ramesses III comment is back again at DNA history of Egypt. Wdford (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi Doug! Long time. I hope you are well.

May I please steal some of the stuff on your userpage? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine, hope you are also. Sure, it's all stolen from elsewhere anyway I think. :-) Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Splenid. Thank you kindly, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Why have you filed a duplicate SPI? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please ans

Hi dear,

Please ans in following article talk page :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_Ilyas_Qadri#Views_of_Ulma_E_Ahlesunnat_about_Muhammad_Ilyas_Qadri --Summations (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, it's some time ago i wrote to you :). Can you please take a look at this [34]. Even though i have added sources, this guy completely ignores them, and seems to forget about the Britannica-Wikipedia rule. We have already discussed about it [35]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm. The category description says "This category is based on linguistics and, in some cases, culture and genetics. In other words, it incorporates people from diverse backgrounds who speak a related group of languages. A core group of Iranian peoples exist, while other groups are either assumed to be putatively descended from them or have some unknown affiliation. Some of these groups, such as the Mountain Jews and the Hazara, are either entirely or predominantly descended from non-Iranian peoples. Their inclusion pertains to their linguistic affiliation." The core bit there is "related group of languages", and the article doesn't establish this. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

I can see that BIH has created several spam and paid editing of following links. I have messaged you for same in the past and i believe that there is no fairness on wikipedia for this user. Why are you allowing him to create spammy pages offcourse for which he is paid thousands of dollars.

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Link?

Hi Doug. You need to correct the link you gave at WP:RSN just now -- something wrong with it, I think! Andrew Dalby 15:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MMfA

Is this your idea of a source which has even a sliver of a reliabile source? I am just checking, because I don't see how an organization which has specifically stated their desire to destroy another organization to be reliable. They certainly are not objective. Additionally, this study faile WP:SCHOLARSHIP for material that is presented as scientific. You know very well that a non-peer reivewed/non-published study like this would never be allowed in any of our other articles. Hell, even published research is all but impossible to get put into articles. I know you know this because you have commented on scientific research in other articles. You are an admin, please don't let your bias cloud your view regarding this kind of partisan crap. Arzel (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for indefinitely blocking Andajara120000. That user was definitely disrupting many articles. Keep up the good work. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page hiperxerófila

You previously deleted a page titled hiperxerófila, leaving numerous wikilinks undefined. I propose creating a page with that name that redirects to Deserts and xeric shrublands, as well as a page named xerófila that redirects to the same place. I've entered those terms in the Deserts and xeric shrublands article. Would you approve the redirect pages? If not, what would you propose to do about the undefined wikilinks? Sbalfour (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sbalfour, I've got no problem with your suggestion, it was just part of a deletion of some sock created articles. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. 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, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Can I draw your attention...

to this? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Isamophobic incidents

I am coming from the page Talk:Islamophobic_incidents#Proposed_merge_with_Persecution_of_Muslims, the tag remains added to the main page as well. I want to make a view myself, but i can't because next section says that "discussion is over", I think you should really open it once again. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Bladesmulti. And I've removed the tag which should have been removed by the editor who closed it. That was closed only 3 weeks ago, it would be wrong to reopen it so soon simply because you want to comment. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, so now the tag is removed, case closed once again. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Could you please intervene here: "I think there has been a lot of undiscussed editing by JJ from this edit (dated 20 November) onwards and it seems to have taken the shape of vandalism. " I consider the use of the term "vandalism" a personal attack, and close to trolling. By the way - no, as a matter of fact, he's been blocked before for this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

THANKS!

Hi Doug! I really appreciate your help and advice...you have been a great example of how to respond to a new user who has something useful to contribute but is unfamiliar with the protocol of editing and technical aspects of navigating the site. Thank you for renewing my hope and interest in participation. I have read thousands of Wikipedia articles and now I feel I have been able to give something back. I will ask the WP help desk to see if I should re-submit the photo at a reduced size, and try to determine the ideal size of photos to contribute. At least you have shown me how to proceed. Thanks again for your intervention and guidance! Steve Culp 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Periodyssey (talk • contribs)

Page numbers

Here I am again: this too feels like an ad hominim attack. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi, this is Steve (user:periodyssey). Thanks for your help. Could you please explain what I need to do in order to have my user account approved? Also, I can't figure out why my edit to the "Crystal Skull" page was removed: in my opinion it is the key to understanding the whole mystery about crystal skulls, and I cited my references and sources. Also, who decides which edits can remain? Finally, how can I get the documentary photo I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons to appear in the page: do I insert the Wikipedia file name or the URL address of the photo file? I spent hours trying to document the information behind the two sentences and photo I added, and it is very discouraging to a new user to have that work undone. Are you adopting anyone new...haha? I am very grateful for your help and patience, and any insight you can provide. If you need to respond directly, my email address is periodyssey@gmail.com Periodyssey (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: the reversion was made by a user whose conduct has come in for comment in the past [36]. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
Thanks. I see he lost his rollbacker rights in December for abuse at Sajin Vass Gunawardena. Looks like further action may be needed with him. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Dougweller and Xxanthippe, firstly, the revert in discussion here was not invalid and was a good faith revert; user was not clear of the same and hence it is upto all of us inform him about it rather than taking the discussion to a whole new level. Also, if the entire edit was valid then what was the need of restoring only one part of the edit and why not whole? I am sure you have noticed that I use STiki that reverts all the edits in a rage and issues an automatic warning, if you feel that is incorrect then please feel free to drop in your suggestions to STiki and spare the messenger please.
Secondly, coming to Sajin Vass Gunawardena's discussion, I did not abuse any privilege rather than reverting change by one user who was blatantly blanking the page without citing apt reasons. Earlier same day, two different IPs had been attempting to blank the page (you may want to check the page history) and following protocol I had reverted their change and issued notices. I reverted the third person also attempting to do so and reverted him (only once); invited him for discussions; both on his talkpage and of article talkpage. He did not bother to reply and since he was an admin, he went ahead and revoked my rights with whatever reason he wanted to put. I did raise this issue on WP:ANI and later gave up since almost everyone involved dragged the discussion from inapt action by an admin to if the article content was correct. Not my article, not my update, I just restored the content as Dougweller did in the current discussion. As far as the WP:AfD discussion is concerned, yes there was an error of judgement on my part in some cases, some were borderline cases but over and above, yes I could have done better and hence I am refraining for the time being from that area. Trust this explains and we stay focused on the key subject that why the edit from periodyssey was reverted and how do we make him understand how to edit correctly. Trust this clarifies and we don't waste anymore time on this trivial matter. Cheers AKS 09:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The edit was valid but there was a slight technical problem which I couldn't resolve about an image. You reverted the entire edit and didn't explain yourself to the new editor. Perhaps you shouldn't be using STiki, you certainly should not be treating new editors making good faith edits this way. Treating new editors like this and reverts like this aren't trivial. At the moment I'm busy but might come back to the issue raised by Xxanthippe. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Posterior meningeal artery

Hello Dougweller. I came though this edit. "Jugular foramen is a large aperture in the base of the skull" whereas "Foramen magnum is a large opening in the occipital bone of the cranium". ref provided in the article does not help much and I am not sure which edit is correct and should be kept. Can you flag this to a relevant workgroup for their attention and discussion? I am passing this edit for now. Thanks. Cheers AKS 11:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of citations from VAWA page

I'm a little bit unclear as to why you removed my citations of articles about male victims of domestic violence being underserved from the Violence Against Women Act page. The articles are all from the period that VAWA has been in effect, including one from since the most recent (2013) reauthorization that added the non-discrimination provision. Considering that VAWA is the primary source of funding for DV programs, this is directly indicative of VAWA's failure to provide equal access to services for male victims. DGAgainstDV (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:VRS - "We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail". And WP:SYN - you are putting together sources to make an argument, fine in an essay, book or journal article, but not here. It's original research. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, Mel Wren Here

Hello, Dougweller. Thank you for your instructions and comments. I will comply. Best all, Mel Wren. 74.171.223.193 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that merge tag when I forgot to (after mentioning it in the edit sum and everything!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

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

Survey on Ethnic name Bushmen

I see you deal with some African pages. If you can drop an opinion on if you think people should still be called Bushmen, as opposed to San. Bushmen or San--Inayity (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits done by Andajara

Don't waste your time on fixing the edits done by Andajara2000. I will take it from here since I have started to do so. If you find ones that I have missed please notify me of them. AcidSnow (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks AcidSnow. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio Images from User:Bard Cadarn

I've done my best to clean up his more obvious copyvios on en-wiki, but I'm not an admin on Commons. He's uploaded clipart there, claiming he holds the copyright to it. I attempted to speedy it, but am not as savvy with the process there. Thanks for your eyes on this. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Image has been deleted. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert

   Please do not revert me. You are changing the word 'butt' to 'butt'. I've gone back to the correct version. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please can you explain the difference between 'butt' and 'butt'? MatthewWilkes (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't. That's because I actually wrote "You are changing the word 'butt' to 'butt'.". Right now I'm trying to decide if there is any reason not to block you. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, god. I'm so sorry. I just tried getting this with cURL to see what I was missing and saw the problem. One of my colleagues had showed me https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en last week and I must have hit install without realising. I honestly thought I was reverting vandalism and that 'butt' was some sort of technical term (and, of course, searches backed it up). MatthewWilkes (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, I do. I couldn't understand why people kept reverting it to to say "butt hole" and "hole in my butt". Well, that's embarrassing. MatthewWilkes (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Destructive SPA at Shroud of Turin

Hi Doug. I have encountered an SPA at Shroud of Turin who has a strong POV and is deleting material he doesn't agree with on the grounds that the professors and PhD's who gave those opinions have not convinced him of their case. Please advise? Wdford (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Wdford (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A vandal

Is there something we can do about 216.162.91.10? He did repeated vandalism throughout the last two years, never did any constructive edit and just seem to continue vandalising articles now and then. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iry-Hor, thanks for bringing this IP to my attention. It's a school with a long history of blocks, now blocked for a year. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. 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) 00:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sion8

Hello Doug, I recently reverted a couple of edits to Americans by User:Sion8 and I noticed that his editing history has a rather disturbing trend. It seems that he is committed to removing instances of the word “American” and replacing them with “U.S.”. He even has something that looks like a kind of manifesto on his user page. I have counted at least seven ([[37]], [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], [[41]], [[42]], [[43]]) instances of him removing American from articles, and then I stopped counting. I was going to ask him to stop on his talk page, but then I noticed that he’s been around since 2006 and is clearly well acquainted with the rules by now, so I’m reporting him to you instead.

Oh, and good luck with Ancient Egyptian race controversy. That article attracts POV-pushers like whiplash attracts lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.171.90 (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

He's back...

Another sock of Andajara? Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 13:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I was actually waiting for more. Do you have time for an SPI? Trying to write a new article. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
And lying about what is or is not in sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's kinda obvious. I don't have much time today, but I'll wait till the weekend. If nothing is done by then, I'll try to get something going.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sikhism

Hi Fellow editor, I'm having a particular issue with this editor. He lacks WP:Competence and his command of English is extremly poor. I normally get quite a few "extremists" on the Sikh related articles, but this chap is persistent. I am trying to "Anglacise" the headings for Sikh and other India related articles, but because his understanding of English is so poor, he keeps reverting them back. I'm at a loss. I've tried everything. Working with him, and warning etc. Even other editors are getting a bit sick of him. Now he'ss got cute recently and added a warning on my talk page. Any ideas? Thanks SH 17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Emigration from Europe

Thanks for reverting the use of U.S. to American in the article. I was hesitant to revert, as WP:COMMONNAME doesn't appear to apply in this instance. To my reading, it was a POV push which can't be pinned down as being such, so I wasn't prepared to risk an edit war over the matter.

Do you know of any RfC's or other debates on the subject which would indicate a preference? Having examined the issue several times before, I haven't been able to find any consensus on the matter in the guidelines. Cheers, in advance, for any assistance you could render. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Central East Africa

Hello Doug. The requested move for this article is now waiting to be closed and I considered doing the close. Then I saw your name at the bottom of the page commenting about socking. I don't think you have voted in either the move or the merge, so it is probably safe for me to ask you if you have an opinion about what's going on. After I wrote this note I next observed that you full protected the article! Anyway, what do you think? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You kept "U.S. American ancestry", why?

As seen in the article "Emigration from Europe" (Asia in the "By region" section) you or someone else changed my edits to it, yet the already stated "U.S. American ancestry" of the Philippines was kept. However as much as I understand why it was there I do not understand why my edits to this article where changed when the reason I did it was because the Philippines had it already so I figured that no one would mind if I added more of it to the rest of the Asian places mentioned in the article. -- Sion8 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Also nothing "is wrong with "South American"?" the reason I changed it to the "mainland of the Americas" was because I found it weird that having "South American" in the sentence where Belize was also written made it confusing to someone that did not know that Belize is actually in North or Central America, depending on how one wants to divided the Americas. Sion8 (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I missed the U.S. American bit - I was just looking at your edit. You should have changed it to South and Central - mainland just looked weird. I'm glad you responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States and hope that you will agree there to follow the guidance of the other editors who also responded to my post. I've got my preferences about certain things that I'd like to change in articles but I don't as I know that I don't have consensus. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision deletion

I'd appreciate if you would take a look at the revision history of Counter-Strike and Counter-Strike: Source and delete most revisions from 195.181.206.x. They are mostly comments of a sexual nature in Danish, which I will not repeat here. They mention names (first names only) and seem to be a form of cyberbullying. Sjö (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I protected Counter-Strike for 3 days, the other article was already protected. Not on my watchlist though so let me know if further protection is needed. Thanks Sjö, Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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

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

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

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Penguins53

He's wreaking havoc on a slew of Syriac patriarchs. This has to stop. Laurel Lodged (talk)

Just saw it but it's late here, maybe sometime tomorrow I'll have another look. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Doug, Ok: I never said they were Turkish. I made a category for Assyrian/Syriac ethnicity writers that were born in/lived in the area corresponding to modern-day Turkey. @And Doug, what you're saying is something different. I added Syriac Biblical names because many of the Hebrew names came from Aramaic and are both historically and religiously significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Penguin's spamming of categories is a really bad idea. Adding "Iraqi" writer category to person(s) living in the 4th century, bad idea.[44] Adding "Turkish Assyrian writer" to articles that clearly do not mention them being Turkish/Turkic, bad idea.[45][46] Edit-warring over these bad ideas.......yeah. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I am also having the same issues with this user. Please view: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to see the discussion. Numerous amounts of edits involving Syrian figures or language. I would like to have your opinion Dougweller since your an Admin so please see the discussion. -- ♣Jerm♣729 04:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Persephone

Thank you for your instructions. By mistake I didn't use the sandbox for the "Sumerian version". I will try to find a reliable source if available. Thanks. Jestmoon.jest 15:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestmoon (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

On Dating Creation

I had discussion with the other user about it, previously. The given source, by Sunny Press doesn't add "Nasadiya Sukta" in whole page, you can check yourself from this link:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=x1haOIxj6aIC&pg=257#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's only the page(Nasadiya Sukta) itself that resembles the given info, but it should be wholly written, like i had. As for the Najemi being self published. In the WP:SRS it is noted that if the same author has published non-self published or through reliable publishers, it can be regarded as reliable source. But nonetheless. There are more sources that talks about similar thing, these should be reliable [47], [48], [49]. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, not using him as source for the information. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You forgot to sign on "Reliable source noticeboard"? I just added your name after your comment though. Hope it's ok. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply from RichardDHeath

Hi Doug, Thanks for your welcome, however great! I have uploaded three sections to the Talk area to see if people object and why. You will see they belong there even if the megalithic yard is officially case closed. The truncation of historical development on Wikipedia over what have been controversial subjects, claimed to be closed by certain academic interests, removes the integrity of the cumulative wisdom over the years that is real in its own right and useful for anyone knowing what has been tried and why it eventually failed to be accepted. Where on Wikipedia, are reasons given by "leading academics" about why the megalithic yard is definitively an incorrect conjecture? ~~RichardDHeath~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardDHeath (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. 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, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User page polices

I don't remember user page polices, but is it alright to advertise another website on the user page if it's your own? The reason I'm asking because I was about to talk to user: Joaopaulopontes about unsourced and unexplained edits involving article: Aristobulus II. I have not discussed anything yet about the website posted on his/her user page or the edits yet. I would like your consult first about the user page before I start a discussion about the edits to this user. — cheers — ♣Jerm♣729 07:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Although advertising such as referral links is not allowed, I think this is perfectly ok and doesn't come under the description of excessive unrelated material at WP:USERPAGE. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thnx for the input...just suspicious about it. -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gateside, North Ayrshire

Hello. Can you help? I obtained permission from the author of a poem about her days in Gateside to place it on the Gateside article. It was removed and called 'Vanity Doggerel'. This and the comments have upset the author of the poem and she would like that section of the talk page removed as her friends are commenting on it. Is that acceptable and if so, what is the procedure? Thanks Rosser Gruffydd 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have deleted your own comment yourself, but I've done it for you. I'm afraid that it never did belong in the article. Only if were both written by a well-known poet and then commented on by the media, other poets, etc would a poem belong in an article on a place. I've certainly never seen one. How did you end up finding me? Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to provide my supervisor's contact information

Why did you delete entire paragraph in Chechen history? If you disagree with something put citation needed. I also plan to put Glenn Beck's article citation on the genocide of 1944: "This operation was carried out during one day – February 23, 1944. 20% died en route. Ironically, the Chechen families were transported in the American-made Studebaker trucks, provided by the allied U.S. as war aid."[3] Please provide me with your supervisor's contact information. I would like to see if Wikipedia really about "neutral" view. Thank you Kavkas (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. I'm willing to act as your supervisor in this matter, if you don't already have one. I'm mostly tied up until Friday though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:-) Demiurge1000, if you want to get involved in this area, please be my guest. I've got enough nationalist pov problems on my plate already. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Why the patronising approach

I am just a honest person who has tried to do a good job on a page. If I got something wrong sorry, but your approach is arrogant and rude. Honest people with a wish to contribute will be put off if experienced editors like yourself take an arrogant approach.J Beake (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if my tone seems arrogant, it isn't meant to be. It may be short, but that's just because given all the articles on my watchlist I don't have time to go into as much detail as might be ideal. Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing my contribution to Gospel of Judas. I will resubmit when it meets standards. Maybe you would like to help? Sahansdal (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Need attention with Sati and Death by Burning

Since I have seen that you have solved similar issues before, I would like to notify you this one. A user is making really disruptive edits on the page Sati (practice), Not even a single time he would bring to talk page, when I brought the issue to his talk page, he would make irresponsible reply like, "you think modern historian cite these stats", which is already contradictory. Check the history of death by burning, he made the similar and more edits on this page, due to the on going issues with the article of Sati(seen in talk page), I removed it, as per description on edit summary, but he reverted each of my edits, calling them "vandalism". And later on his talk page he writes "It is not surprising that vandals like you start bullying others." Yet no better source has been presented. Thanks, waiting for reply. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

renfrew and indo-europeanism

hi.

1) renfrew *is* a creationist. that's the basis of his work. there's a long history of archaeologists, some very prominent, that wish to align the archaeological record with biblical accounts. in terms of titles that he holds, he's a very prominent academic, but he doesn't really seek to hide that his alternate theory is an attempt to align the spread of the indo-european languages with a tower of babel like scenario. his ideas have been through several revisions, for the precise reason that he's trying to fit the evidence to his narrative and has to modify it when holes are pointed out. regardless, he articulates the most widely cited counter-theory to gimbutas'.

2) there's a long history of indeo-europeanism being skewed as a basis for nazism. it's a legitimate science. it doesn't come with racial ideas of supremacy. and there's not really anything valid to connect the things together. with gimbutas, her ideas were published after the war was over. the suggestion is legitimately a goofy witch hunt. it's not a new thing. and it doesn't belong in any credible source.

so, i'm going to acknowledge that i may have been a little pissy, but the content of my responses is valid and i'm going to try and reword it and put it back. there's two points - (1) suggestions that gimbutas had anything to do with nazism or ideologies of racial supremacy are baseless attacks that have no basis in any valid discussion of her research and (2) renfrew is gimbutas' most prominent critic, and he approaches the topic from a christian/creationist viewpoint that informs his criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your post here. The problem with what you are saying about Renfrew is the lack of reliable sources - or I guess that would be it if he were dead. But as he is alive, we need him saying that he is approaching his work from a Christian point of view. I certainly find it hard to believe he's a Creationist - I looked for sources suggesting that or even if he has any religious beliefs and couldn't find them, although I see he belongs to the Conservative party. I also agree that the business about Gimbutas and Nazism doesn't belong in the article unless it is sourced to some damn good sources and even then attributed. And I doubt that can be done. And yes, there's the history that indo-Europeanism gets skewed and we shouldn't let that affect Gimbutas' article. So, I agree that the Nazi thing doesn't belong, but I also think that you can't label Renfrew that way without the sort of sources you'd want for Gimbutas. (and I'm wondering what you mean by Creationist - you really think he believes in Noah and the flood?) Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"Renfrew served as Master of Jesus College from 1986 until 1997.". it comes out really strongly in his hypothesis. like, overwhelmingly. his approach seems to suggest he's into the "educated christian" symbolic thing. god didn't literally create the earth in seven days, but the seven days represent an abstract truth. and, likewise, the tower of babel represents an abstract truth - so the spread of the languages necessarily must come from the flood. hence, turkey as his urheimat. and hence the need to constantly revise the ideas to fit the narrative as evidence shifts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else actually make this interpretation of his work? I can see some Creationists doing that, but anyone mainstream? I don't see any reason to see being Master of Jesus as evidence - none of the other recent Master's seem particularly religious. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
i'm not an anthropologist or an archaeologist by training, i'm a mathematician dabbling outside my field. and it's been a few years since i read this stuff so the sources are blurry; i'm throwing out ideas that i'd rather see an expert evaluate than post. that's why i'm communicating through the talk pages. but what i'll say is that, with gimbutas, her ideas about kurgans remain the mainstream. it's her ideas tying neolithic religion to fertility cults and, by extension, to a matriarchal culture that are up for debate. for example, a lot of people will argue that the existence of a female-centered religion could actually uphold a type of patriarchy that reduced women to symbols. and there's actually been a lot of push back by *feminists* that see it contradicting their ideas of patriarchy being a sort of universal of civilization. but, renfrew's ideas about the spread of languages are not accepted by linguists. if you check the page on his anatolian hypothesis, you'll see the opposition in terms of dating. it's a hypothesis that simply doesn't make linguistic sense. the only way to make sense of it is to interpret it as an interpretation of the tower of babel. one of the unusual things that renfrew does in his hypothesis is scatter the languages all at once from a central point, rather than have them evolve in bunches. so, iranian and indian go out from the urheimat one at a time rather than separating at as indo-iranian. again: linguists oppose this strenuously. it only makes sense in a biblical interpretation. but, i can't source anybody else that has published this obvious reading. really, i'll be honest: my fleeting interest in this has passed, and i'm going to do something else now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I take your point and as I've said, Creationists use Renfrew as evidence. I've always thought he was way off base when he started to discuss linguistics. I'm familiar with the feminist pushback of Gimbutas as well, but try to stay away from the whole thing myself. There are more interesting things to do and I don't blame you for your fleeting interest having passed. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Peter2212 unblock request

Hiya... noticed the open unblock request and that you were discussing with the user about their block and the copyvio text in question. Any thoughts/progress? --slakr\ talk / 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I leave that to your discretion? I don't mind anyone else unblocking. I don't have time tonight to deal with it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter2212

I've looked at the recent discussions (i.e. since you indef-blocked Peter), and from them I think an unblock appropriate. What do you think? If you disagree, please let me know, especially if your reasoning depends on stuff that doesn't appear in the recent discussions. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Woke up early and I agree. Sorry I lost track of this (New Year's Eve block...). I meant to get back to you anyway. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Concern, possible solution?

There have been some serious issues with the edits of WellsSouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
In the French wars of religion article, I noticed multiple instances of plagiarism[50][51] and original research.[52]
In the Henry VII article, I found at least one instance of original research[53].
Despite two attempts to initiate discussion, WellsSouth has chosen not to respond and has continued to add plagiarism and original research to articles.[54][55]
This editor clearly is, in my opinion, not disruptive, but perhaps overzealous and does not fully understand the ramifications of plagiarism or original research. Would there be someone, an experienced editor or Admin, willing to mentor user:WellsSouth in the proper way to add content with corresponding references? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As an example of WellsSouth's edits;

  • "Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville can really only be explained as the impulsive love-match of an impetuous young man."<Charles Ross, Edward IV, p. 86.>

Page 86 states, "The best explanation may also be the simplest - that it was the impulsive love-match of an impetuous young man." Looks like plagiarism to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee Anthropologist

Yes, they're no longer in existence, although the new Tennessee Archaeology has apparently taken its place. I actually discovered that by accident; a Google search gave me this PDF, two full issues of the latter publication; page 1 of the original (PDF page 3) mentions the demise of Anthropologist in 2000. Curious what you mean, though: are you talking about the Bat Creek inscription? I've never heard of it before; I just went to Special:Search and typed bat creek. I've almost never been to the Southeast since the late 1990s, and not at all since 2005 except for one day last spring, when I just barely touched the NE and NW corners of Arkansas and Tennessee respectively — as a result, although I know comparatively little about the archaeology of the Ohio River states, I still know a lot more than I do about the Southeastern states. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend - Yes, the Bat Creek Inscription. Having decided not to study archaeology at Yale because I'm no good at languages, my interest in it rekindled a while ago both on the practical side (digs, evening sources, running a group for youngsters) and debunking fringe stuff (hence my old website [56], an interest I maintain here. I'm originally from Miami (Florida, not Ohio). Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On Shivaji

Just changed the reference, and wording. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Dougweller,

I got your message about the restaurant stakeout page. I think it's good advice. I'll do accordingly. Sorry for any confusion on my end. Kind regards Kingslove2013 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Subject of discussion at Rajiv Malhotra yahoo group

Hi Dougweller. I was just warned that I'm being discussed at the Rajiv Malhotra yahoo group ; see User talk:Joshua Jonathan#You are discussed on the Rajiv Malhotra yahoo group. I dont know if this is cause for concern, but I thought it wise to let you know. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. 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) 00:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

2013 census

There are only preliminary results of 2013 census in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is necessary to wait for final results or to mark preliminary results as such.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thannks. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Zomi

Dear Dougweller:

My addition to Zomi are not copyrighted material. I am the copyright holder of the text and anyone can freely use the texts anywhere. Zogam.org is my site, all the contents there are my creation. I was just contributing for/helping Wikipedia. Please do not redirect the Zomi article to Zou people.

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for information on what your site needs to show to be used here. Note that as your personal site, it fails WP:RS so can't be used as a source. The Zomi Human Rights Foundation[57] uses the term Zo for the Zomi, and we have an article on the Zo already under the article title Zou. If you think there should be a separate article, use the talk page there to discuss it. I spent far too much time on this because it looks like copyvio and there was some clear copyvio in it that wasn't from your website. Also, the language was not encyclopedic. Fine for your website, but not for Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't recall if you added the copyvio at Kuki-Zomi Ethnic Clash 1997-98, but someone did. By the way, I have absolutely no off-Wiki involvement in any of this. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't spare much time on Wikipedia so I would have to accept whatever you did. But you must know, "people" means "mi" in our (Zomi) language. No confusion on "Zomi" and "Zo people." You said you already have an "article on the Zo" under the title Zou. There, in the Zou article, it says "According to the 2001 Census, the Zou population in Manipur is around 20,000, less than 3% of the population. The community is concentrated in Churachandpur and Chandel districts of Manipur in North-East India." Do you really think our population would be only 20,000? This article is not an "article of the Zo", it is about a "community" under the nomenclature "Zomi" or "Zo people." The "Zomi" or "Zo people" are found in the Indian states of Manipur, Mizoram, Assam, and Chin State in Myanmar as well as parts of Bangladesh. The entire "Zomi" or "Zo people" population crosses 3 million.
There are different communities under the nomenclature Zomi. Zou is just one community. Others include Paite, Vaiphei, Simte, Tedim, Kom, etc. For one, according to the 2001 Census, the population of Paite is over 60,000. Again Zou is only 20,000.
I beg you to please, please stop redirecting the article Zomi to Zou. It hurts the sentiments of the 3 million Zo people spreading across the entire globe. Thank you so much. Vaphualization (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I really would like to get this right. But there does seem a lot of confusion and disagreement about nomenclature here. Can you explain the Zomi Human Rights article which uses the word Zo? I found the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics published by Oxford University, and that says: "Zome:also called Zorni, Zomi, Zu, Kuki Chin. 46.400 speakers in Myanmar and India. In Myannur: 30,()00 speakers in Chin statee, Tiddim. Chin hills. In India: 17.000 speakers in Manipur. Chandel and southern districts; Assam. Roman script. Related to Simte.
All of these articles seem to show confusion, see for instance Chin. And can you see page 201 here? And page 86 here which says "The movements for unification were not successful because many of the smaller tribes had already developed a feeling of dislike for the term Kuki. Following the attempted failure to be united under the term Kuki, a political organization called Zomi National Congress (ZNC) was formed in 1971 at Daizang, Manipur. The seven cognate tribes from Manipur state—Gangte, Hmar, Paite, Simte, Tedim-Chin, Vaiphei and Zou adopted the name "Zomi" at Pearsonmun, Churachandpur on June 26, 1993. This alternative movement for unification under the term "Zomi", though successful for quite some time, faced a similar rejection first from the Gangte who later came back to the Kuki fold. Other tribes such as Vaiphei and Zou are divided among themselves into those who are in favour of the term Zomi and those who are not." So this is a real mess, not easily sorted out to make sense on Wikipedia. I'd like to get all this reflected according to our WP:NPOV policy, but it's tricky. Please stick with me and help. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Please mail me your correspondence address at: vaphualization at gmail.com. I will send you by courier a copy of all the relevant books that have been published on this nomenclature, articles written on local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines. A bloody ethnic clash was fiercely fought over this nomenclature where hundreds of lives were lost. I will send you all the relevant pictures, news clippings and even videotapes. Most of these information cannot be found online. You can't re-write our history and our identity simply by using Google search alone. Vaphualization (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Animal welfare

Thank you for assisting with the problems in this article, and for not blocking me after I reverted the IP for the second time . --Epipelagic (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Could you take a look at User:Devanampriya? He's POV-pushing and close to edit-warring at several articles (Yoga, Dharmachakra) at once, and taking recourse to the familiair rap of discrediting academic sources which are not in his favour. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not point of view pushing. You have made some questionable assertions about the chronology of hinduism on those pages without a proper discussion on the talk pages. Some of them are very basic errors regarding yoga--which even britannica (hardly hindu nationalist) asserts is one of the 6 orthodox schools of hinduism, but you have contested this fact as well. You are also removing my content through rewords (i.e. dharmachakra article to get around 3RR). More than a few users have pushed back against your views, including your friend bladesmulti.
Rather than prematurely involving admins, wouldn't it be best to initiate a proper/collegial dialogue on the hinduism article talk page? As I mentioned already, it would save us both time and acrimony. It is up to you which track we take our disputes, but I do hope we can resolve it the way wikipedia intended--through civil consensus on talk.
Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller, how long is this going to drag on? We now have a stalemate at Talk:Dharmacakra, a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Dharmachakra, a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshua Jonathan, and a second Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightocha being dragged in. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Need attention on Voltaire

First check the history of the page Voltaire, Inayity is edit warring? Even after receiving warning minutes ago[58], thats probably 3rr rule break. Other than that, Itsmejudith admittly copied and pasted the french wiki content to the section Voltaire#Islam, which can be seen from here:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#On_Voltaire

So its obvious that the article has multiple disputes, since it is depending upon unconfirmed primary sources, but Inayity is certainly rejecting them, and removing the tags, even though dispute is not solved yet. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent choice, please inform the admin what the dispute is about and what tags you are adding. --Inayity (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a heavily referenced section so a tag asking for more references is inappropriate, as is the OR tag - I can't see any reason at all to use tags there. User:Itsmejudith is an experienced good editor, adding material from the French article is a good thing, and I also don't understand why it's at the fringe board. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It has OR, from the first line, unsourced too. I had discussed it on Fringe board, because the claimed quotation seems to be unknown, never existing. Most of section depends upon a primary source which has no page numbers either. So what you will call it? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, whether it should be at FTN or not, it's there, so discuss it there. Let Itsmejudith do what she says she will, bring in more sources. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Blade is totally ignoring all the talk page discussion about why his tagging is an issue. WP:LISTEN is an issue. B/c the section has in ONE Or and it has already been tagged but he is putting tags for the entire article on a section. He cannot get it, he refuses to listen to the issue I am tired of repeating. The tags do not belong there. And this happens when ppl have such a strong POV they do not pause. --Inayity (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Tags were inserted by Itsmejudith back, with the similar content. So in short words, no one has agreed with the removal of tags, since the section is really nonconstructive and undergoing changes. I don't think we can get much help from someone who believes that "You CANNOT put article tags on a section, they belong at the top of the article." Bladesmulti (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
You are engaging in a pointless edit war over tags when you refuse to listen to anything I am saying. You have violated GOOD FAITH by assuming Tags embarrass me. I think you think I am editing with an agenda. B/c how else could I be ashamed of tags? My years on Wiki show no such issues. Despite explaining each tag has a purpose and needs a rationale you continue to edit war over this issue. You are new to Wikipedia and I can see you do not understand what I am saying. you were told by Dmries to leave it alone, it is not a big deal and STILL you continue. The section already is tagged to death it almost looks like an agenda. --Inayity (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies told to add reliable sourced version, i did, but the version was reverted back by itsmejudith. Who seemed to be wanting the tags, I am not against the tags for such situation, and you are the one who broke 3rr rule just now. Not me. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

U are edit Waring why must you have those tags? Drmies said it is not constructive, let the other guy have his tags these are not things you edit war over. You listen and then you go an accuse me of being ashamed-- of what? What a bigot polemic thinks of Islam. Where on wikpedia has that bothered me?--Inayity (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

There have been reverts this month. Protection will expire in a few days. --George Ho (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Help

This user won't let the issue go. He keeps trying to claim Cambridge University is fabricating sources, and Simon Digby is unreliable as well as the Guardian, as well as the Indian Express as well as Journals universities publish. I can't tell if he's trolling me or is very, very, very stupid. I really need to know what to do as he just won't let the issue go and is being increasingly disruptive I would really appreciate some feedback on this as you're an admin and he's ignoring everything everyone says and refuses to cooperate. Here is the ANI discussion. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't read properly. I only said that it depends upon the author, as well, who wrote the article. But I don't refuse "everyone", or "anyone". Bladesmulti (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):StuffandTruth, it is really, really important that your edit summaries aren't attacking another editor, ditto on talk pages. When that happens it diminishes the complaint - I speak from a lot of experience. Yes, I am concerned about some of this editor's posts, I'll look at the RSN post. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's very frustrating when someone does not listen to reason, I'll try not responding to ridiculous assertions in my edit summaries. But please, have a look at ANI too (there is more evidence there). I'm not the only editor who has concerns over this users conduct, and his single point of view. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

WPEditor's cyberbullying

Dear Dougweller, I'm stuck away in Asia with limited internet contact (for this kind of message anyway). WPEditor has reversed the change to Common Era dates at both Aesop and Aesop's Fables with the excuse that the question has not been discussed, let alone consensus reached. Since you were involved in the discussion, I wonder if you feel like taking the question up again. I'll leave a similar message with others who took part. It seems that this stickler for 'rules' is only going to respect his own obtuse interpretation of them. 118.163.240.164 (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Dan653's talk page.
Message added 13:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dan653 (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Dan653's talk page.
Message added 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dan653 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at GiggsIsLegend's talk page.
Message added 23:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GiggsIsLegend (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note.

When you made this edit [59], my comment was removed along with it. Just letting you know. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. 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, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

edits to history of england

Hi Doug - please see history of conversation so far...

Latest revision as of 03:27, 29 January 2014 Recent edits to History of England Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your 4 edits to [[History of England] because your contribution does not include one or more citations to reliable sources. Thank you![APerson] 03:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

edits to history of england Thanks for your message (yes I'm new) - but the previous edits likewise had not provided proper cited references - besides, it is charged with an agenda throughout which cannot be substantiated, hence my edits.[Bouncing Faces] 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


For example and for the record, they claimed people had been living here for over 800,000 years - where is the proof? There was none, there was merely conjecture - I changed it to "thousands of years" (because I didn't want to be pedantic).


"That's a good point. Feel free to undo my edit. Also, you may want to start a new section on the article's talk page. [APerson] 03:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC) "

Also, you are instructed not to think the worst in others but to assume good faith - do please kindly bear that in mind when speaking to me as I've done nothing wrong and am not guilty of "vandalism", thank you. Bouncing Faces (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you simply don't know anything about the subject, in which case it would be better if you avoided it. No one claimed people were living there for over 800,000 years, the evidence points to habitation at that time. You changed the dates for the end of the last ice age by 5000 years, the date of the bow in Europe by 4000 and the date of the channel opening by 1500. You changed numerous to few. You were not "correcting unsubstantiated claims", you were changing sourced statements and even deleting the sourced material about the Devon jawbone. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28
  2. ^ [60]
  3. ^ http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/35286/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_30&oldid=1147986574"