User talk:Doug Weller

Welcome

Hello, Doug Weller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Community Portal
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you will enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and voting pages using four tildes, (~~~~), which produces your username, the time, and the date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Prehistoric Britain

Hi. Actually I think things have changed a great deal in the last 15 years largely due to genetic analysis of both fossilised and extant humans. Early genetic work concentrated very largely on mitochondrial DNA because it's a very short sequence, it's easy to isolate and is not modified by myosis. More recently however, analysis of the Y-chromosome has turned the whole notion of non-violent cultural exchange on its head. It appears, for example, that there was rather little Y-chromosome in England and Scotland remaining from before the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions, suggesting either mass exodus of males or genocide. The latter seems more likely given the lower replacement levels of mitochondrial DNA. This model is consistent with linguistic and cultural data. The effect of this is to mask out what happened to the Y-chromosome during earlier cultural revolutions but data, again on the Y-chromosome, but taken from a broader European population suggests that a similar migration/replacement picture for the Neolithic. There are other data supoporting replacement rather than cultural exchange (which now seems like the traditionalist view). Other data, this time on mitochondrial DNA suggests extensive movement from southern europe at the time of the last glaciation. I've put in refs to some of these studies in the article. Francis Prior might be able to get his own TV shows but he's becoming increasingly isolated academically - he doesn't attempt to counter Mike Weale's work or fit it into his world view - he just says invasion must be wrong because there aren't any battlefields in the archjaeological record. Have a look at Weale's presentation on Genetic Anthropology

Cheers Paul Laetoli (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time for Francis Prior, I admit, but I'm not convinced Weale's work is as broad-sweeping as he claims. Not my speciality, but it looked when I read it as though it only applied to limited geographical areas, particularly the Danelaw (he talks about Central England) (and I don't think he was able to separate Danish from Angl-Saxon. He also writes "although our models assume asingle instantaneous migration event, we would also expect a more gradual process lasting several generations" -- and I'm not convinced that means mass exodus or genocide. Perhaps more importantly, there is this A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles with quotes like " Many men in York and east England carry Danish Y chromosomes. But surprisingly, there is little sign of Anglo-Saxon heritage in southern England." and "One tends to think of England as Anglo-Saxon," Goldstein said. "But we show quite clearly there was not complete replacement of existing populations by either Anglo-Saxons or Danes. It looks like the Celts did hold out."

So unless that's been overturned more recently, mass exodus or genocide aren't a done deal and Weale et al isn't the last word. What do you think?Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just looked, this is covered at Sub-Roman Britain and that also mentions the work by Oppenheimer and Sykes, which doesn't back invasion hypotheses.Doug Weller (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but surely you accept this is a complex unresolved debate with people lined up on both sides with Weale and Pryor on opposite extremes. The reason I removed your paragraph is that you were imlying that the migration idea was an old-fashioned one which has now been discounted. You must, surely accept that the issue is at least under debate and that a lot more genetic studies need to be done. The old archaelogical and linguistic data is still there and must be incorporated into the final picture. Can we reword the opening to reflect the fact that these issues are still being debated? Cheers Paul Laetoli (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I don't think there is any set of data that trumps any other at the moment, and the article should show the whole range of opinion without, obviously, favouring any particular POV. That wasn't my paragraph, by the way, but I take your point.Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis

Who gives you the right to play with somebody's work? If you don’t agree with it it’s your problem. There are forums for debates not in here. You have been reported to the Wikipedia moderators and your action will not be tolerated!!!

New here are you? Your attempt to copy my username was banned, that's what isn't tolerated. I've got every right to edit the article and bring it into line with Wikipedia standards. Since there are no moderators, I doubt you could have reported me to them, especially as you seem anonymous.--Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am new and I know what the Wikipedia standards are. They have nothing to do with your opinion. My paragraph is legit and referenced. You reference the opinion of someone whose work is banned from this page? Who are you to think that your comments are appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italianboy101 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference, the only one on the web I can find to you/Nikas, was by Georgeos Diaz-Montexano whose name is mentined twice on the page with a reference. So I have no idea what you think you are talking about. --Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My name is not nikas, I am just a fan of Mister Nikas. you have to learn how to search better. Here if you want a ref: http://atlantisinmalta.art.officelive.com/default.aspx

It is not my job to find references for you. And your putting a pdf on Wikipedia was a flagrant breach of policy.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Slaves from San Seban

Thnx for the help/input on the talk page about pre-colombian african contact in the western hemeisphere. it's hard to get straight answers. you say san seban was settled in 1510. do you know if they had any slaves. holla back and keep up the good work.Scott Free (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - no, I can't say for sure that they did. Officially there were regulations about African slaves which suggests that this might have been slightly (we are talking about a handful of years at most) early. But were the regulations always followed? I simply don't know. Then of course there were the Portuguese, and surely there must have been unofficial and unrecorded visits. So, who knows?--Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

Doug, I reverted (back-off) your recent adds to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact because it was unreferenced and unencyclopedic in tone. Thanks, and sorry, Madman (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear why some of the most amazing claims are just marked with a need for citation, and this, which is generally accepted and has its own Wikipedia article Columbian Exchange needed deletion instead of a citation request. However, I've replaced it mentioning the Columbian Exchange. Can I now delete all the wild claims made by Menzies etc. where a request for citation has been there for months or more?--Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Missed this, it is also in European colonization of the Americas. OK now? I am still very much of a newbie at this. I didn't know for sure what to do with the 1421 stuff for instance.--Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. I appreciate the editing you've been doing to a couple of articles that deal with ideas about pre-Columbian contact. At lot of those articles are ridiculously biased towards ideas from the extreme fringe, which is a situation that is a little daunting to attempt to address. Remember that no one owns an article or has final say over what goes into it, so feel free to edit as you see fit. ClovisPt (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gene Matlock

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gene Matlock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Matlock. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Roll back and Childress article

The vandal has returned despite the semi-protection tag. Could I please have the rollback feature to make fixing this sort of vandalism easier? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, after looking at your contributions I have decided that you don't quite need the rollback feature just yet. Maybe you could get WP:TWINKLE instead? Also, the roll back feature is only given to people whom have shown that they can be trusted/actually require it. Have a go with twinkle for a few weeks and get back to me and I'll see about giving it to you. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just am not clear how to easily revert and avoid the 3R problem. And I asked for it to be protected, I thought it was semi-protected, but it seems as though it isn't, so this guy is just going to keep vandalising. Thanks for the quick and useful response--Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries mate. If you read WP:3RR it'll tell you that you can revert vandalism as many times as is necessary. 3RR only counts for content disputes (e.g. one user wants to keep a word in but another user doesn't want it included). I'll take a look at the article and see if it requires protection. Good luck with twinkle! If you need anything don't hesitate to ask :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional note - yes, the article was protected from the 14th to 21st of Feb. I have extended the article's protection for a further 2 weeks. Message me if you require anything else. Take care! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Doctor, doctor

Hey, Doug, the good doctor has contacted your French talk page saying he doesn't want to have a discussion with Americans because they're "dishonest and lack erudition" [1]! (The message was blanked as vandalism shortly after by another user). Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This reply to you by D. A. A. Boubouleix (he must have trouble remembering his password judging by the number of new accounts he creates) is one of funniest moments from this whole affair: "I see, you are only a little undergraduate of Yale ... IJTS is managed by a Welsh and an Italian .... I have nothing more to tell you because it seems you dont come from a well educated 'milieu social'; so little undergraduate stay where you are; all you say is diffamation, proofs of your lack of education: so stop and stay in your cultural idiosynchrasy of heavy saxon". Yes, stay right there! He's desperately trying to get his French Wiki bio deleted but keeps falling foul of the anti-vandal squad. Maybe we should tell him it's easy enough to get rid of the article if the subject is non-notable and there are no reliable sources - which is more than true in his case. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now he has deleted my comments and says he is going to take legal action against me! [Dominique Boubouleix]--Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I really don't see what you are trying to achieve on phayul.com. Your time is your own to spend of course, but you come across like a man trying to teach a pony to play the piano. But I respect your equanimity, of course :) dab (𒁳) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:-) Well, it will get listed on Google, I thought it would be useful to set the record straight. I want to pull out of it but they keep posting the most outrageous lies!--Doug Weller (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fasold

I confused you with the other guy editing the article with a a name that started with "D" named "Dab". I apologize. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Solutreans "refuted" ?

I see you've made several edits citing the recent AJHG paper's claim to have "refuted" the Solutrean hypothesis.

However, as I have written at Talk:Haplogroup X (mtDNA), reading the paper it seems to me that it does a persuasive job of showing the Solutrean hypothesis is unnecessary to explain the observed data. But I don't think the argumentation is developed to actually refute it - at least, not in the paper itself.

I'd welcome your thoughts, on that talk page. Would you be happy that this would be a good way (a bit more cautious, and a bit more informative) to report the study's conclusions? Jheald (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed, and I'm changing the quote I'm using to another one from the same paper that is more cautious.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More about merging

Hi. :) I note that you recently performed a merger of material to the article Grayson Space Navy, and I just wanted to drop you a line to point out a few things about the merge procedure. As Help:Merge sets out, when we merge material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary, because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Merge from [[Sourcearticle]]". Then, we note the merger as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material merged to Grayson Space Navy", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been merged remains. If the merge is complete and the article becomes a redirect, we add it to {{R from merge}} just to make doubly sure. :) In this instance, I will correct the edit summaries, but I wanted to alert you for future reference. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea about how merging works and in fact also wasn't aware that contributors retained rights to authorship (although from my experience a lot of contributions seem to have been more cut and paste from other sources!). I will keep that in mind and make sure I don't make that error again. There's a lot to learn about editing (and I'm discovering that the most frustrating thing is dealing with people who know nothing about editing). --Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little known facet of Wikipedia, I know. :) I know in my early days as a contributor, I had no idea that I could not simply copy text from one Wikipedia article to the other; in spite of the GFDL link, I basically presumed I was releasing anything I wrote into public domain. But the way GFDL works, we still "own" the right to have the text we create credited to us, although we have no control over how it is used, modified or spread. Somebody could publish an article we write in a book as long as they give us proper credit. We really need to find some way to clarify GFDL for all contributors, because this is a common mistake that we probably often don't catch. Anyway, evidently consensus has emerged to remove the merged material since the AfD closed as "delete". I just wanted to point out to you that there is nothing wrong with creating a new section in the article using different language. I have no doubt you know that copyright covers the arrangement of words, not ideas, so as long as the text is not duplicative we don't have any issues. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to be at the same stage as you were in your early days. Yes, I can copy the idea -- a bit like a recipe (although there you can copy the exact ingredients). I need to be careful as I've been editing a Sumerian mythology article and deleted something that was copied from another article (the original had a reference so I'm sure it was the original), got someone to edit the original as it seemed to contradict the original, and now I know that what he's written should go in the first article. So, I'll reword it and put it in but I won't just cut and paste.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One more stage in this: given concerns expressed at AN that the closure of the AfD depending on the information being present in the article (and the circular concern of GFDL concerns), I have completely revised and placed the text myself. :) I leave it to you and other editors of the article to determine if I've put it in a good place. It can, of course, be mercilessly edited from here. As far as the Sumerian article, you can cut & paste as long as you do it properly. You just need to include a direct link to the source article in the destination article and include a direct link to the destination article in the source article (of course; you also mention in those edit summaries that you're merging). If you decide to go that way and aren't sure you've done it right, just let me know. I'm happy to help out. The procedure is not complicated, but feels like it is until you've done it a time or two. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Grayson Space Navy

During the AfD of High Admiral (Honorverse), you offered (twice) to undo your merge of the material to Grayson Space Navy if the result of the AfD was delete — it was; please consider using this link to do so. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to but reading the decision it looked as though it was expected to stay. I need to make sure I do the right thing this time, so I'm checking first, I hope you understand my hesitation.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#A case of merge and delete and the GFDL, User talk:Black Kite#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Admiral (Honorverse), User talk:Moonriddengirl#Honorverse (where I just saw you've been). Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I see there is still a High Admiral category, should that be removed?

And, Where do I go to talk to someone about categories? I've run into this [2] user adding categories to do with Jewishness, can anyone just create any categroy they want? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what category you're talking about; Category:High Admiral doesn't appear to have ever existed. In general, if some deletion empties a category, someone or somebot will find and delete it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I mis-linked in my earlier post; wrong noticeboard

• WP:AN#A case of merge and delete and the GFDL

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grayson Space Navy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Atlantis, Copying Text, and the GNU

Hi Dougweller. Thanks for your comments on Talk:Minoan_eruption about the proposed Atlantis section and the issue of copying from one article to another. I then read the various conversations and links in your talk above which was very educational for me. Anyway, I think that I've come to the following conclusions:

• it's ok to copy text as long as the source is accredited, which by wikipedia policy, is best done by a simple link in the edit summary.
• the general guidline is to avoid duplicate information on multiple articles. This is best done by splitting important subsections of articles into their own articles and using the main: template to link back to the original. (see also Wikipedia:SS)

Specifically for the Minoan Eruption theory of Atlantis, this presents an interesting case. The orginal text was found on Santorini#Thera_hypotheses. I then came across Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis. This seemed like a more logical place for the theory, so I copied the text with reference in the edit summary to the original source (although I didnt put an active hyperlink). Now it appears that there are other pages which might go into some detail on the theory including Minoan eruption. In the future, its possible that still more pages may want to go into the theory such as Minoan civilization or Akrotiri...

I see from your discussions above that you've found your way into a bit of a merger mess, so I'd appreciate any insight, comments, or advice you might have. At present, I'm thinking that the best path forward on this atlantis thing might be to either 1) slit the section from the santorini article into its own article, which can then serve as the main article for the others or 2) utilize the existing Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis article as the main article for all of them including the Santorini article, merging that specific subsection into the main article (maybe already done). Anyway, again, I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, Dspark76 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First, how do you use the main:template (and where is it?). Ironically, I've actually ordered a book to help me with Wikipedia. Anyway, I've been thinking about this for a while, ever since the Santorini/Crete section was deleted from Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis. Your comments have made me think some more. Of all the locations associated with Atlantis, Santorini has probably received the most attention, particularly from the mainstream. Do we want to reflect that attention in Wikipedia? I think we probably do specifically because it has received so much attention and thus, unlike (my opinion here) other locations, warrants it. Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis is, in my opinion, not the proper place to go into any great detail on any one location. And neither is Santorini or Minoan eruption or Crete because it would overbalance those articles.

This brings me a bit reluctantly to the conclusion it warrants its own article. That way people like the classicist John V. Luce (usually known as J V Luce) and the other scholars who have written on it can be covered. I've said locations associated with Atlantis, because Rodney Castleden in his book Atlantis Destroyed puts forward an argument that although there was no Atlantis, Plato drew his story of Atlantis from proto-historical elements about Minoan Crete & Cyladic Thera -- see my review of his book On Amazon.co.uk or .com. I'd better say right now I'm no expert on these civilizations.

Anyway, for what it's worth, those are my thoughts. Should we be discussing this somewhere else as well?--Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, thanks for you response. To answer your questions:

• The main article template is pretty basic, it just points back to the full article(s). Details can be found here Template:Main.
• I was thinking the Minoan / Atlantis theory might deserve its own article as well. That would make including info in other articles easier. However, I'm not sure there is enough info already written to create much more than a stub. Still, it might be a good idea. I don't personally have enough source material (yet) to do much of an expansion, however, it sounds like you might?
• If you/we want to take the new article spin out futher, lets move that conversation over the the Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis page.
• If we want to have any discussion about GNU, copying, or template formating, it's probably best done here (or on my talk page).

Again, thanks for the consultations. - Dspark76 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get back to you in a few days. I've got some source material, but not J V Luce. And thank you.--Doug Weller (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hi Dougweller, you left a message on my talk page a couple of weeks ago. I responded here for you. Acalamari 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Acalamari 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orion Correlation Theory

I know your interest in this kind of thing, so I thought I'd alert you to this entry I've just set up. Basically a page to link to was needed from both the Archaeoastronomy and Astrological Ages pages, so I did a quick cut 'n' paste from Hancock and Bauval's pages. That way it won't overwhelm the two AA pages, but at the same time we won't lose any information from Wikipedia. I'm not up to speed on the latest in the rebuttal/counterbuttal arms race, but I thought you might be. If you're not interested please ignore me. :) Alunsalt (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Civ1

[3] The current wording is fine with me, the issue I saw wasn't that it was based on the megalithic yard. It's the judgment that I think is original research - that the book's premise falls if other works are disproven. On the other hand, if a reliable source points this out for you, it's 100% legit to add this to the page. WLU (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that paragraph is still not right (or in fact accurate), but I'm off for a couple of days. That bit about 1% needs to be replaced, or just cut as it does refer to megalithic yard which I've tried to improve with proper references.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nibiru

My edit to Nibiru was not unconstructive and was made as I needed more information on the planet and had to visit the Planet X article instead to which there is no link. It is not generally accepted to refer to the planet Jupiter which was depicted as a completely different planet to Nibiru in Sumerian astronomy. I will not dispute that it may be associated with the god Marduk though I have yet to see that this is always the case. As it is it's not accurate and to be frank, actually leads the reader on a wild goose chase. I do not mind discussing what you disagree with but please don't make allegations of unconstructive edits when my edits were made purely to be constructive. Thank you. 83.138.172.79 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sumerian astronomy only had 5 planets besides ours. The disambiguation page is correct as it is at the moment. See for instance [4]. Perhaps you were trying to be constructive, but what you were adding was wrong -- where are you getting your information from?--Doug Weller (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandal

I wasn't the one who blocked that particular IP, but I did leave the 4im warning on his/her talk page. Note that before you make WP:AIV reports to give an appropriate number of warnings, and ensure that they vandalize after the final warning. Procedure is important. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Megalithic geometry

I replied here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Megalithic_geometry_%282nd_nomination%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little sawyer (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So you mean to say that different people, without knowing each other, and at about the same time, all decided to build what is known as henges or stone circles, all across Britain, just by chance??? And by another miracle no one else in the world ever built any henges anywhere. Sorry, but that's bloody ridiculous and not even one scholar in the whole world thinks like you.--Little sawyer (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I certainly don't think that, or that all megalithic monuments in the British Isles appeared at the same time or look alike, it is a ridiculous concept.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(about The Times:) Thank you, I didn't know that. But at least they talked about it, and didn't ridicule it, which is a form of (indirect, perhaps) endorsement, as opposed to just any lunatic Internet theory they would never have mentioned.--Little sawyer (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Times didn't say a word about it, they just let the authors publish an article in the Times -- what the financial arrangements were we don't know. And as it was in the entertainment section....--Doug Weller (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyria (Persian province)

Doug, I have laid out my arguemetn and I hope you continue the discussion the issue in the talk page. I'm asking you to work with me because dab is disrespecting me (once again) with name calling, when I am trying to discuss the issue. Let us come to a conclusion on the issue. Chaldean (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I just wanted to say no matter what the fate of the page is, it has been great working with you. Perhpas be can colab in the future on a project. Chaldean (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you. You never know, we might work together sometime I agree.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What topics do you usually work on? BTW, here is a nice chart about the Assyrian issue [[5]] Chaldean (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

History and archaeology, right now working on 'Chinese Pyramids' (which are earthen mounds) and the Terracotta Army, maybe will do some work on Stonehenge, and want to write something on 'giants' and ancient fossils which may have caused some of the stories about giants. Mainly archaeology though.Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I most likely will be going back to northern Iraq this coming June, and will be taking many archaeology pictures (hopefully) and try to upload them for the use of Wiki. Chaldean (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been working extensively on the article (and almost every single sentence I have added, I have backed it with a source) and I would like for you to read through it briefly and tell me if you think its qualified now to be named Achaemenid Assyria (I have dropped my argument of Satrapy or Province being included in the title for the sake of neutrality.) Chaldean (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, put Oppose at the top to cast your vote too. Tourskin (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

? What does this mean? Vote where, and why are you telling me what to put there?Doug Weller (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we are having a vote there, (you see the the three Supports). If you want to support the move that Chaldean has put forward, by all means. You don't have to oppose. Tourskin (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering if you could give me your opinion in the archaelogical section - Achaemenid_Assyria#Archaeological_findings. What do you think of it? Any way of improving it? Chaldean (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Battery

Replied on my talk. -- Secisek (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hi Doug, I've started a section on the Talk page of British Isles for the edits. Feel free to join the discussion. I see that you are reverting any edits I've made and calling them "nationalist". Many of the edits you are reverting were researched and the edits included appropriate links. Bardcom (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, I am sure the phrase gets misused, and some of them may well be justified, but not a wholesale effort and not one that leaves 'the Ireland and United Kingdom' or whatever. And I think the March 25th one leaves it worse off (you have Ireleand now and for all I know the two different parts of Ireland have different quarter days).Doug Weller (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moving text between articles and links

Hi Doubweller.

From what I've learned, the only requirement is that you credit the original authors. In Wikipedia this is done by including a link to the original page in the new edit summary. If you are moving text, then when you delete the old text from the original page, its a good idea to put a link to the new page in that edit summary as well. Dspark76 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom. Tb (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gympie Pyramid

G'day, I was a little confused about your removal of the Anthony Wheeler quote from the Gympie Pyramid article. All that stuff about an alleged Thoth head is true (the stuff, not the head). Some people, particularly Rex Gilroy believes this is accurate and keeps making these ridiculous claims on various internet sites. It is used as evidence that the pyramid was constructed by Aztecs/Incas/Egyptians/Phoenicians/Chinese (take your pick). I think it should remain. Comments? Gillyweed (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- Are you sure I removed a Wheeler quote? The stuff I removed doesn't seem to be mentioned in Wheeler, which is why I removed it. It might be a good idea to add more of the stuff Wheeler mentions, but since he didn't discuss that and there was no reference or comment on Thoth, coins, an Easter Island statue, etc, I removed it.Doug Weller (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted or Merged articles' talk pages

If the article was deleted, you'll have to ask an WP:ADMIN for the talk page. If the article was merged with the history intact, go to the article and click on the tiny link above the article reading "Redirected from". That will take you to the redirect page where you can click on the associated talk tab. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding rollback

Rollback granted. :) Just remember to use it for reverting vandalism, and not for reverting good-faith edits, or use in revert wars. For more information, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper citations

I see you care about these, and I am guilty, very guilty I'm sure, of not doing it correctly. Today Amazon delivered Wikipedia, the missing manual, and it lead me to a citation generator at [6] -- in your opinion, does this generate proper citations? If not, what should I be doing? I've read around various Wikipedia pages and am still confused. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

I usually prefer to use Wikipedia:Citation templates for the purpose. The full topic of citations is covered on Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. One of the main problems is of course coming across a page full of footnotes in different styles.Doug Weller (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Wilson

Thanks. So much hokum there I simply couldn't leave it stand as it was. Still needs a major overhaul. Are we sure he should be classed as a "Welsh historian"? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Abubakari II

Thanks Doug, will do. If there's some pseudo-countering source I have difficulty in tracking down, I know where to come to for advice, appreciate it.

I had been meaning to get back to that article for a while now, to try and conclude those points I had tried to make that there are considerable doubts the guy even existed, let alone surfed his way ashore at some beach at Rio or Playa del Carmen. I was glad to see at the talkpg there you'd been looking it over, and had quoted from a couple of papers like Levtzion's that I had not been able to access. Unfortunately the earlier discussion kinda got sidetracked by some gratuitous and sarcastic remarks. The other contributor who had been trying to raise the issue didn't help his cause, although I think he actually knew a bit about what he was talking about- if you take a look at the german wiki article de:Abubakari II. he'd worked on, you can see it's a big improvement.

Have been glad also to see you weighing in at the Olmec speculations, pre-Columbian contacts, and sundry other articles in need of some sanity checks against pseudo and questionable 'research'. There's still a chunk of material in the Olmec spec article that was added by Clyde Winters aka Olmec98 (talk · contribs) -the genetics section is one from that quarter I think, that hasn't yet been closely examined.

Anyways- see you round, and cheers. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone head to head with Winters, not a pleasant experience. I started on the genetics section yesterday, I'm away today and must remember to get back to it when I return.Doug Weller (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Re: Lost Cities

You are correct. I was mistaken. All I can say is that it was late, I was irritable, and I was not really paying close enough attention to what I was doing. My apologies. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.Doug Weller (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Gate Project

Why do you believe a book or a recorded interview tells you the truth? Just because it is in black and white? It is a question of probabilities, research and motive. The study of history is not a study of what really happened. It just doesn't work that way. It is the question of objectivity. Did Paul H. Smith have something to gain by giving me his side of the story? Should the outside testimony of one who has written an autobiographial account, Reading the Enemy's Mind : America's Psychic Espionage Program by Paul H. Smith, Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 2005 and been interviewed many times about the the Star Gate Project have value? All the material is on my user discussion page for any one to see. And of course, you can check with Paul H. Smith yourself if you so desire. You see I really have a passionate curiosity. Sometimes getting a fuller picture requires getting answers to the questions maybe no one else has asked. (I seem to have a knack for that.) Is the desire to want to learn more wrong? Is this information give to me personally from Paul H. Smith invalid? It means nothing? What pleases you? Is there a right way and a wrong of collecting data? What are your boundaries? What are my boundaries? What are the boundaries for the Wikipedia and perhaps truth? The ancient "story" goes every document that passed through the gates of Alexandria was copied and preserved in its great library. Should Wikipedia do less? Kazuba (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't self-published then it is 'verifiable' WP:VERIFY -, right? So ok for Wikipedia. But, however good it is, sadly, your User Page may break WP:USER Doug Weller (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Archeology/Archaeology

Well, I must confess I am not sure why you are telling me that. Is there something specific you would like me to do? (that sounds sarcastic, it was not intended to be) I am not an administrator; what exactly are you asking? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really except that maybe if you see him doing it again you could report him. He's actually changing the names of book titles. I'm an American myself, but I know that 'archaeology' is now the main spelling. --Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that from Location hypotheses of Atlantis. I had no idea that the statement was so ludicrous. I'll check my sources more carefully before i post next time. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of human prehistory.

With respect you are onto the wrong author, my contribution to this article is limited to correcting a spelling mistake and showing by an internal link that the article in terms of the volcanic eruption is purely a theory.Paste (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: twinkle

Thanks for the note, will try it out sometime. Should it be downloaded?  S3000  ☎ 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Will check it out later. I use Opera by the way, but I'm sure it'll work. Thanks!  S3000  ☎ 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, will try it out!  S3000  ☎ 14:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. As you advised, I'm currently using Twinkle. Its really simple as you said, but I'm not sure why all edits (i.e. rollbacks) I make are added to my watchlist. Can I exclude this feature? It's really annoying. Sorry but I didn't know who else to ask. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the 'watchlist' tab' in 'my preferences', 'Add pages I edit to my watchlist' is unchecked. (in fact all the titles are unchecked). Could it be a fault with the TW code?

By the way I'm using Firefox. I'd like to try it on Opera (as I'm more familiar with it). Do I need to recopy and paste the TW code into my monobook in Opera?  S3000  ☎ 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

King Solomon's Caves

Refers to the caves and underground tunnels under the city of Jerusalem. These are accessed under the dome. Featured for some ten minutes in documentary and definately worth mentioning. What am I supposed to do reference it as Channel Four documentary? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are caves and tunnels under Jerusalem, eg see here [7] but it's the name 'King Solomon's Caves' that's confusing me. They're in Australia. Maybe just refer to caves and tunnels under Jerusalem?Doug Weller (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well change it to caves underneath Jerusalem -that link you provided yes thats them. King David-I was sure it was King Solomon. Do whatever you feel appropriate ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found a great link to the Nova program which in turn has other links, so I replaced the forum link with that. As I said in my edit summary, forum links are not allowed (there may be some exceptions but I haven't found any yet).Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Pyramids of Guimar

Yeah, I like how that was the one part of the article that jumped out at him as needing verification. ClovisPt (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelitek

I got it speedied for copyright issues. I'm not certain that it's an A7 criteria or a G11, but it definitely needs some cleanup. I'd suggest waiting to see what happens on this speedy deletion. If it's deleted you should place a level 3 warning for creating inappropriate pages and if they try again you can report them to AIV as a spam account and have them blocked.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sodom and Gomorrah

The reason I posted the change, I wanted to see how long conservative truth lasts on the Wikipedia page of a controversial subject and what kind of PC police force Wikipedia has, if any at all. Unbelievable! That revision lasted only minutes!

What I'd said was truth exposed, and that cannot be bigotry.

When you'd said that I'd removed "existing text." So, what's your point? That's what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia encourages people on this site to add, subtract and edit content with wreckless abandon, and you have to know that already. You've made it sound like nobody can touch this page, because it's set in stone. Well, let me give you the same advice that was given to me on this site. You don't own the "Sodom and Gomorrah" page. But, obviously, the page has people watching the site so closely that it not only doesn't pay to try to edit this page, it's shown itself to be of no value to anyone seeking conservative scholarship, if I'd have chosen to include some of that on that page.

However, I have to add that in order for me to have been really legit, I did need to cite sources. If I would've added sources to my comment, then what you did would've been really wrong, because all you seem to be about is slandering, marginalizing and eventually silencing the conservative voice. Canihaveacookie (talk)

AN/I Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

Hello, Doug Weller. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy. Sorry for the delay, initially posted in error to User talk:DougWeller. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Custom Watchlists

I've replied to your comment here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

stones stones and more stones

Good call on a needed merger, but I'm not sure I can be much help - I know very little about the subject, and was mostly editing the article Newark Decalogue Stone to remove obvious speculation. I wasn't even aware of the other article. ClovisPt (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Troy Newman

Replied on my talk! Pedro :  Chat  08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Kadesh

Basically I'm against the current version of the battle section, for a number of reasons I already stated in the talk page (specially because I believe it's a personal point of view as there aren't other references that depict the battle that way). This is the older version of the battle, the one I think it's the best, compare it with the current one, and with your sources and books, and see which one you think it's the best. Ramesses, now facing a desperate fight for his life, summoned up his courage, called upon his god Amun, and fought valiantly to save himself. He personally led several charges into the Hittite ranks. Ramesses, together with his personal guard and some of the chariots recovered from the broken divisions of Amon and Re,[24] attacked the Hittite forces and, with the superior maneuverability of their chariots, wheeled about in successive attacks on the slower forces of the Hittites. The result was that the Egyptians began to pick off the overextended Hittite chariotry. The Hittites, who understandably believed their enemies to be totally routed, had stopped to loot the Egyptian camp, and in doing so were easy targets. This counterattack was successful, driving the Hittites back across the Orontes.

Although suffering a significant reversal, Muwatalli still had his reserve chariotry and infantry. He ordered another thousand chariots to attack, consisting of the high nobles who surrounded the king. As the Hittite forces approached the Egyptian camp, the Ne'arin troop contingent from Amurru suddenly arrived, surprising the Hittites. This enabled Ramesses to extend his advantage further. He closed with the enemy and used the terrain to his benefit in order to slow the Hittite chariotry before they could reach great speeds. Hittite chariots had to cross the Orontes and mount the riverbank to reach the plain where the Egyptians were. Also, by fighting them close to the river, he kept the Hittites from making a formation. That protected his own flanks and allowed him to fight only a small part of the Hittite force at one time. PS. If you can add those summaries you mentioned earlier. Super Knuckles (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug, per your request, I've started to write a summary about three times now, from three different perspectives. There are so many individual items under dispute that you probably wouldn't consider discussing each one a "summary". I think perhaps the best approach I could take is to outline what I believe the different perspectives of the disputants to be, and then provide an example or two of each. I think these are the underlying cause of the numerous differences in the particulars. (This is excluding what are clearly factual errors that keep getting put back in.) If this is the sort of summary that would help you, please let me know. Regards. Publik (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea of yours to add the differences in that kind of copy of the article. I know I asked about the battle section in particular, but of course we need to work in the rest of the article, if you see any mistake just tell what it is in the talk page. Don't worry about the year of the battle, because as it is stated in the article it is based on Ramesses' commonly accepted accession date in 1279 BC. Super Knuckles (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've seen your work on the experimental page and I must tell you good work, once you finish with it tell us, so we can see what should be added to the article and what should be taken. I also noticed you took away a large part of the battle section, however in the main article it should be added more info as that one is too small and lacks detail. I acquired today Warrior pharaoh: Ramesses and Battle of Kadesh, so when you finish tell me so I can compare and add if necessary some content to the article. So far I think the book is a great source because of the sources the author, Mark Healy, used. Also, why did you take away the tags in the article? Super Knuckles (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

These ones per example "Hyksos 15th dynasty". We can add that info but with other words, I did that in "my" battle version, we could use it but without the historynet references. I just took a look at the book, but I noticed he says that are various versions, like: who were the Nearin, how many chariots did the first Hittites attack had, etc. Super Knuckles (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The tags, this [[ ]], like Egypt and Egypt, the second one has tags, and you removed lots of tags from the article. However I'm adding them again, and I might add some small info to the battle section. Super Knuckles (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the name was tags, sorry there. Don't worry I'm adding the ones necessary, and I'm not repeating them. I will also add some content you previously removed but I will add the reference to my book later. Super Knuckles (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed a bit the article, I will try to add the references as soon as possible. Super Knuckles (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug; for the sake of my own mental health, I decided to stay away from this article this weekend. After a great deal of teeth grinding (or rather, not. As I was intentionally not thinking about it.), I came to the short conclusion that the difference is how close you want to stick to the primary sources and peer reviewed publications, and getting rid of verbatim quotes from dubious web sources. I have not read your new version yet, but judging by your comments at least, it seems as if you are heading in the same direction I was. I won't spend a lot of time on this article anymore, as it's likely just to put me off my meds, but I'll drop a couple lines about some points. Publik (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia works in terms of "new messages", but for the sake of making sure you know I replied, I've added some comments to my own discussion page. Publik (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I get messages, and I think I answered them, so why did you say that? Super Knuckles (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I know why, it was because of Publik, forget about it. Super Knuckles (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus as Myth Theory

You have a bias against the Jesus as Myth Theory because you believe that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus Christ. Those who accept the Jesus as Myth theory do not themselves regard it as "unproven". Only those who disagree with it, like yourself.Wfgh66 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom

Yes, I've asked him to take all potential removals of British Isles to the relevant Talk page before proceeding. I hope he'll agree to this. I won't comment on him directly because it causes problems, even with some admins. Thanks for picking up on this difficult issue. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Ring of Brodgar. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to give this some context, what I wrote was "As some of are aware, Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia. In some circumstances remvoval of the term is justified, but not in all circumstances. It seems appropriate here". That's all. What Bardcom wrote last night to another user on Talk:Augustus John was Is your motive to insert the term "British Isles" into articles where it is clearly incorrect?. I was trying to be simply factual, and my comments are not ad hominem. His comment to another user might be considered such.Doug Weller (talk) 06

47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my comment/warning as being over the top for this instance. But I object strongly to any editor that describes my edits as "Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia". I am not, and it is getting very tiring to have to put up with this gross generalization and suggestion of ulterior motives. It is not fair, does not assume good faith, and has resulted in me spending more time that I care to count jusifying edits. Given that you had also taken part in earlier reverts, at the time I felt that this comment was tongue in cheek, but that you were still attacking the editor by suggesting a motive rather than addressing the content. But in this case Doug, I accept that you were being sincere. I offer a sincere apology. --Bardcom (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User Egyptzo

Hi, you forgot to sign your post on AN/I. I also blocked user Egyptzo for repeated copyright violations. I saw you already got a lod of the violations. I also saw some and will check if there are more. Likely there are. Garion96 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just to let you know that when you removed Egyptzo's edits, you deleted some info. which I provided on the Battle of Kadesh by Joyce Tyldesley. I just it back. I am not Egyptzo--though I know him. I provided the sourced info from Healy's book on the famous battle from my alma mater, UBC. Cheers from Canada, Leoboudv (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. Tyldesley is a good 'story teller' but she is not a scholar on the level of her husband Mr. Snape or KA Kitchen. She doesn't provide the exact source for the quote about the second set of spies since her book is written for the general reader. I just rechecked my copy of her book. If it was Kitchen, he would have given the exact source: however, Kitchen's bio. on Ramses II was written in 1982 and lacks many of the more recent discoveries on KV5--his son's tomb, etc. That was one reason I decided to chose to buy her book over Kitchen's. However, I know the info. about the second set of spies is true because I recall reading it in other books on the Battle. Whatever Tyldesley writes is true--it just isn't immaculately footnoted. As for Healy's book 'Armies of the Pharaohs', I remember it was well written and balanced. Superknuckles has another book by Healy as you can see from this message from him to me: [8] You can ask him about Healy's other book--the one specifically on Kadesh. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw some more and deleted some. Just so that you know, copyright violations can be speedy deleted by adding the {{db-copyvio}} tag or, in case of mixture between copyvio and non-copyvio, articles can be listed at wikipedia:Copyright problems. Garion96 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A tip: Dear Doug? (if that is your real name) I don't know if you are a member of the EEF forum but if you aren't, there is a link recently given for an excellent article on Hittite-Egyptian relations and chronology. It suggests that the chronology of Horemheb is not secure...but there is lots more here. I can't disagree with anything the author says. Its free right now. Just click on 'View PDF article' and save it to your computer ASAP: [9]. If you wait several months later, the serial might move on to the next issue and you won't be able to access it. The source is Jared L. Miller, "Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text", in: Altorientalische Forschungen Volume: 34, Issue: 2 (December 2007), pp. 252-293. PDF (207 K) And yes, all his sources are well documented. Personally, I haven't read a better article on Hittite-Egyptian relations for a long time. It is even better than Trevor Bryce's 1998 book on the identification of Niphururiya and the Amarna letters.

As for Tyldesley, she does commit some obvious 'slip ups' but overall I am quite sure the information from the latter 2 Bedouin spies comes from a primary source from one of Ramesses II's many inscriptions on Kadesh. The late Miriam Lichtheim on p.57 of her book 'Ancient Egyptian Literature: Vol 2' also indirectly mentions the capture of the 2 later 'spies'. It seems that they were actually not spies but forward Hittite scouts. The source was apparently either the Poem or the Bulletin: [10] Well I hope you save a copy of Miller's paper for future reference as I have done. It would not be free unless the publisher wished to allow the public to access it. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed Doug, and a member of the EEF, and have been following that thread but that particular email is one that Aayko said got bounced, and I never got it. I've saved the article now. Thanks very much for the tip. You are probably right about the spies (but as you know I don't like calling them Bedouin).Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

egyptian pyramids

my mistake...the image was showing up as dead, however upon checking again, that seems to be due to my crappy connection today. thanks for restoring the image. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Egyptzo article

I remember giving the Kitchen's references for Siamun here [11]--the ones showing Siamun holding a unique battle axe. The Siege of Gezer article is related to an unidentified Egyptian king and Kitchen's evidence does suggest Siamun did conduct some kind of campaign in Canaan. The article itself looks OK--from my perspective. As for taking the Bible literally, basically the Bible is the only historical source we have for the Egyptian sack of Gezer. Kitchen defends its basic historicity and I think it is generally reliable--except for certain portions such as the fall of the walls of Jericho which Kenyon argued was uninhabited at the time of the Ancient Israelites conquest of Canaan. Some parts of the Book of Judges may be mythology (Samson & Delilah, etc) but I don't think, personally, that adding a tag on the Bible's historicity for the Battle of Gezer is really needed. But, its your call. Leoboudv (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to 'rehabilitate' Iuput II and slim down its size down to remove the copyright violations. I think its salvageable. Egyptzo even copied the wrong web link: Iuput II was never attested in Wadi Gasus; he was just a minor 'petty' Lower Egyptian king. Leoboudv (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Provided 3 sourced info. from Beckerath and Grimal's books. This is the last time I will try to rehabilitate a work by Egyptzo. I think Iuput II can pass muster now. I got involved becasue I want to keep that image of Iuput II and had some relevant info here. Regards from a very tired Leoboudv (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I hope you have the time to read through Miller's paper. I thought it was balanced overall and of the highest scholarship anyone could expect. Anyway, I have provided a total of 7 footnotes for the article on Iuput II including this final edit [12] which features 3 sourced info. from Kitchen's TIPE book. I have his 3rd edition 1996 TIPE publication. I trust that the quality of the Iuput II article is...acceptable? The image of the Brooklyn museum plague of the king refers to him and would be a good reference point for this otherwise obscure king. This is my final edit on Iuput II or any other Egyptzo created article. Thank you, Leoboudv (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced message

You left the following message on my user talk page:

I've never spammed in my life. In my opinion, the only way you can make a mention of Mullis commenting on the Urantia book NPOV is to make it clear what some of his other opinions are (I withheld from pointing out that he's wrong about his statements on the Urantia book). Exactly what is spam about what I wrote? He's not a reliable source, so either it needs to be pointed out or removed if it is going to look as though he might be.Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to this edit, so the person you should have left that message for is User:Majeston, who made that edit, and not myself, especially as I am not in agreement with Majeston. I think it is very clear that the reason he is saying "rev blatant spam pov" is not because your edits reflect in any way a "spam pov", whatever the hell a "spam pov" is, but simply because he knows that marking his edits honestly as "restoring to the article a bias towards my own views" will be more likely to attract correction. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarkar on Atlantis

Please explain your claim of non-notability. Sarkar was a giant of thought and his insights quite amazing, ranging from dynamics of human society to dark matter in the universe to Atlantis, often decades ahead of his time.Odin 85th gen (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you read this first, it's his views on Atlantis that aren't notable (plus you added your opinions).--Doug Weller (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but simple claims are no substitute for an explanation. Allow me to add that the late P.R. Sarkar made his caim about Atlantis having been an island off the coast of the Netherlands several decades before the Doggerland discoveries. And, yes, that is a direct confirmation of his claim, which is also notable and not my OR. The way he arrived at this insight is also notable, but his psychic powers are well documented. If Edgar Casey is notable in this regard, so is Sarkar. The fact that Sarkar made the claim with reference to the Netherlands, and not the UK, may be purposeful. The British discoverers link the find to Britain. It is possible life on Atlantis had a closer link with the mainland than the British isles. In any event, I think this information should be reinserted in the article.Odin 85th gen (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, show us some sources that talk about Sarkar's claims about Atlantis, that might help show that they are notable. Also show us some sources about Doggerland that say Sarkar was right. If you can't, that makes it your opinion/original research. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try to locate Sarkar's book where the statment was published that Atlantis had been off the coast of the Netherlands. It's been over two decades since I read it. It's mention in the article is warranted as it is notable. I have not seen a published reference to Sarkars' statement and the Doggerland discovery. That part of the entry can therefore be dropped as you suggest. People can draw their own conclusions. Odin 85th gen (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for corrections...

Dear Mr. Dougweller:

Thank you for correcting that link to the theories of Plato's Atlantis Iberian-Mauretanean, and Gibraltar, was written in Spanish. In fact, within the site had a link that showed numerous articles in English. Anyway, I placed a link to my Official Website that everything is written in English (although it has some defects logical translation, because we are Hispanic) ... Once again, I sincerely thank your help.

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please could better explain....

Dear Mr. Dougweller:

You said: "we really can't have one author coming on and removing another author's website. Talk about COI!"

I do not understand what it says... Please could better explain why you do not want to admit any link to my theories, when my theories have always been imperfect for years?

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanations...

Dear Mr Dougweller:

I have never removed any link to a site of another author. I think someone made a mistake. Please check yourself my contributions, or my number ip, and you will see that I never removed any link from another author, or another website.

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sri Yukteswar Giri

Yes, he does discuss precession in the context of the dual, and I believe the Binary Institute mentions this in their writings (though that doesn't necessarily justify adding their links to the article). ~ priyanath talk 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and thanks ...

Dear Dougweller:

Please, I am absolutely honest: I have never removed! (not even for a simple error or carelessness) any link to another website from another author, or another theory. Please, it's easy to check my contributions and editions, and anyone can confirm that I have never! removed any link to another website.

I am very grateful because you have decided to allow the link to my Official Website.

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahmose I

Hi Doug, Actually, that particular footnote contained this message "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Gordon_297 ref " The in-text citation did not name the precise resource given for the book by 'Gordon' on Ahmose I; this was stated at the very bottom of the page (where the footnotes are located) So, I thought it was problematic. Personally, no Egyptologist today accept the theory of a co-regency between Ahmose I with Amenhotep. The co-regency theory seems to have gone out of fashion in the 1990's--even the article by Miller I gave you states that it was based on an assumption of NO coregency between Amenhotep III with Akhenaten. Murnane long ago rejected a formal coregency between Seti I and Ramesses II in Ancient Egyptian coregencies (1977). Academic citations are fine. Anyway, I'll fix that lack of enough precise citation text on the Ahmose I article permanently and give Gordon's exact source.

FYI, I suspect most objects which associate a ruling king with his predecessor were probably an attempt to honor the memory of a recently deceased king in the reign of his son. Cheers, Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, now I understand a lot. I'm reading the article right now. --Doug Weller (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, You do a lot of monitoring on the Wikipedia pages--like an Admin--and yet you don't seem to be an Admin. Perhaps a promotion is in order? Thank you very much for your approval of the new remodelled Iuput II article. If it wasn't for the image of the plague of Iuput II, I wouldn't have bothered to preserve it. Personally, I didn't even know that an image of him existed on Wikicommons...until now. BTW, I've created many articles on Wikipedia but this is one of the best in my opinion: Neferneferuaten. Its properly referenced and of the highest quality. She is one of the most recent New Kingdom pharaohs to be attested and most people don't know about her. And yes, Ayko does a good job on EEF. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Pasebakhaenniut (what a mouthful!) is Psusennes II's true Egyptian name--the name he was called in his lifetime. I'll see if I can find a source. The problem Doug is some of the pharaohs names come down to us through Manetho who wrote in the Ptolemaic Greek era--or his work was excerpted in Greek. Thus, the founder of Dynasty 21 is called Smendes to us--which I freely accept to clear up any confusion--(the Greek form of his name) rather than Nesbanebdjed, which was his real Egyptian name. It is mentioned in the Smendes article. We have so little reliable info on Dynasty 21 sadly that Egyptologists are today arguing whether Herihor preceded Piankh or Piankh preceded Herihor! Thanks for your comments on Tutankhamun. The late Amarna era is another veritable minefield now that we have 2 separate Amarna era kings who ruled between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun (the male king Smenkhkare who is attested by a Year 1 graffito with his wife Meritaten) and now the female pharaoh Neferneferuaten who is well known from a Year 3 graffito and Manetho's rather crystal clear comment that a king's daughter Akenkeres ruled at this time. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a short but clear commentary on 'Psusennes' I by University College London. [13] The name of the king is similar to Psusennes II and the High Priest Psusennes III. As I said, Psusennes was the Greek translation of the Egyptian name Pasebakhenniut. Since Psusennes II and the HP Psusennes III have the same form of name, it follows the Egyptian form of their name is roughly ugh! Pasebakhaenniut. Personally, I'm very happy that Egyptologists use the easier Greek form of Psusennes' name but the Egyptian form should be noted. I wouldn't want to type in Nesbanebdjed for Smendes's name either, believe me, but it is rightly offered as a legitimate variant for Smendes' nomen. Leoboudv (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is my edit with the reference for the connection between the HP Psusennes III with king Psusennes II; the name Pasebakhenniut is clearly stated (for Psusennes) in the Abydos graffito [14] I have to concentrate on my job now in the 'real world.' I hope my contribution was productive. Cheers, Leoboudv (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Madoc

Just in case you're curious! - 58.8.5.244 (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice you commented previously on Talk:List of people who have disappeared#Change to the lead: "Currently the list seems to be getting pretty aimless." Just curious - do you think Madoc should be included or not? 58.8.10.69 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "not" - thanks for you help! Cheers. 58.8.10.69 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Grobnik field

Before you simply go deleting things that are not copyvio, inform yousref - grob is a croatian word for grave, and grub or okrutan means brutal. Egyptzo (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was your responsibility as editor to explain that. When you aren't just committing copyright violations you need to provide more citations (and less personal opinion and OR).--Doug Weller (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Possible copyright infringement" tag on History of Africa

Hi. You tagged History of Africa as a copyvio. Note that both the Wikipedia and about.com [15] articles derive from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, sometimes called the 1911 Encyclopedia to avoid trademark problems. That encyclopedia is in the public domain, so it's not a violation. I'm not sure about the 2nd URL you listed though [16] as I can't see the violating text in the Wikipedia article. Thanks. Ha! (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians again

could you perhaps drop by Egyptians again? The patriots are now not only removing maintenance tags and indulging in blatant WP:OWN, they are blanking an entire section on Egyptian national identity I have compiled today. They prefer coatracking about the Bronze Age, of course. dab (𒁳) 16:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)