User talk:Doug Weller

User:Doug Weller	User talk:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Workshop	Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Userboxes	Special:Contributions/Doug Weller	Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.

---

Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic. If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place. If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, you can report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. If you need a page to be protected from editing, try Requests for page protection. If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is, well, that way... :) If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, you can: Make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards. Ask another administrator for help. Here is a complete List of Wikipedia Administrators. If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.

Did I delete your page, block you, or do something else that I should not have done?

First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, let me know, but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. Also, if you sign your post (by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - at the end of your message), I will respond faster, and I will tend to be in a better mood, because unsigned comments are one of my pet peeves. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked.) I watch the talk pages of everyone I block, so I will almost definitely see you make your request. If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Doug Weller) and I do not answer your request soon, or you cannot edit your talk page for some reason, you can try sending me an email. Please note, however, that I rarely check my email more than a few times a day, so it may be a couple of hours before I respond. Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future.

Talk archives:
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/February
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/March
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/April
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/May

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

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)

Olsson "Editors"

Hey Doug, I would like your help again. Paul Smith and another editor 'Loremaster' have repeatedly harrassed Olsson at Wikipedia. Time after time they have removed all positive references and sources from her Wiki page. I cannot continue to deal with these people. Is there someone I can turn to for mediation? Thank You. Alexis

Sorry

I grew up in school with BC and I'm just not used to BCE yet. I'm not doing this for religious reasons. But sorry for the edit. AaronPaige (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (EST)

The Israelite conquest

The Israelite conquest of Canaan is no more disputed than the wandering. Why didn't you change the subtitle to "Alleged wandering years and the alleged conquest of Canaan"? Why not change section 9 to "Alleged origins of the alleged United Monarchy"?

The fact is, if you want to dispute the historicity of these things, you can do so in the article, giving sources. But adding "alleged" in the title like that is what Wikipedia calls using "weasel words". -LisaLiel (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, 'alleged' is specifically not a weasel word if you have a source, in this case the Bible.--Doug Weller (talk) 09

19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Israelite" conquest of Canaan is just as disputed as the wandering. Archaeologists have combed the Sinai and the Negev thoroughly searching for signs of 400,000+ people wandering around that area, including use of radar photographs taken from space such as the kind that revealed the Arabian peninsula to have once been a lush paradise with huge flowing rivers, and have found nothing. The earliest mention of Israel, as "Ishri", show them to be a nomadic Canaanite tribe among the cities in Canaan (Canaan, by the way, the is name of the Phoenicians for themselves) in the north; between 1200 and 722 BCE, archaeological evidence demonstrates that the southern part of Palestine was virtually deserted, except for that area later known as Philistia. Nor is there evidence of any "conquest"; for example, archaeological evidence demonstrates that at the time the Exodus and Conquest allegedly occured, Jericho was deserted. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 'just as'. I agree with you. Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Midewiwin

I see now that that was an unproductive edit. My apologies. ClovisPt (talk)

John Michell

My removal of content from the Talk:John Michell (writer) page was wrong-headed, and I apologise for it. There have just been so many instances of dishonest alteration of my contributions by SageMab, and removals of my contributions, including when he has repeatedly tried to remove an RFC that I posted, that in exasperation I reverted to the state of the article before about six of his edits. I should not have done this, but so far I have been the only person trying to counter this guy's attempt to turn the article into a piece of hero-worship in which any mention of John Michell's relationship to the fascist ideology of Julius Evola is wiped clean off the slate.

I have now added back (to the Talk page) my original section on this, and also the RFC that I posted (to which I have also appended comments, but making it crystal clear what is the neutrally phrased RFC and what are my comments). If these - or indeed any other bits - get removed, as they are very likely to at the hands of SageMab, please could you carry out your threat and issue a temp block - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I will try to keep an eye on it. I don't agree with SageMab's actions. I wish I could find a reliable source on Michell and Evola, all I can find is blogs. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug, this fellow is not telling the truth about my edits. Other editors on his talk page (he blanked it) and on the discussion page of John Michell edited out his edits and warned him against vandalism and flame warring. I did not. After reading other editors edits of him I did edit out his name calling. I did tell him his conclusions were not based on fact and I was not convinced of the verifiability of his statements. he used imflammaory words about this author like follower and colleague and fascist without having Wiki facts to back it up. I have read the two books he is referring to and he is incorrect. I neuralized some of his inflammatory words about this author. read HIstory of the John Michell Talk page. This user is the one threatening me and the one tring to start a flame war. he posted threats that he had no authority to do so on my user page. Clearly, he does not know Wiki policy and is attempting to strong arm this article to reflect his opinion. Note the word opinion please. This user does not sign his name and often does not sign is anon ISP in an attempted to circumvent "undo". His entire account is the John Michell pages. I will assume good faith on your part and I thank you for your comments. By no stretch of the imagination is John Michell a fascist. On the contrary. His lenthy career is telling. I have no vested interest in this author nor "hero-worship" which is a nasty term the previous editor is throwing out. I do enjoy reading this author and I have read many of his books. It is a fact that if a author receives many laudatory notices about his work from reliable and scholarly sources it does not make the Wikipedia editor who includes those facts a fan. SageMab (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller, in all good faith I'd like to remind you of no personal attacks. I don't agree with DougWeller's actions, to paraphrase your non specific comment to me above. SageMab (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this an echo of my comment to you warning you that by virtually calling another editor a liar, and calling yet another editor's summary venomous, plus a few other comments on editors, you were breaching WP:CIVIL? Doug Weller (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment to Dieter Bachmann was between him and me. He is quite capable of defending himself. You have no idea what this referred to in the past when you jumped and slung the word "liar" around. This did not concern you; mind your own business and you have been breaching WIKI:CIVIL to me for some time time now as well as following me all over Wiki I am sure you do not want to be seen as stirring things up. SageMab (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's getting to the point where we ask an admin to look at SageMab's behaviour. What do you think, as you are more experienced than I. All the best.Verbal chat 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ps: your achieve archive link at the top is red; Quelle horreur!

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the archive link. As for SageMab, there we have an editor who seems to lack insight and seems to think that all of the problems he/she is experiencing are the fault of others. I made a genuine offer of help on his talk page about explaining NPOV, which he doesn't understand, and was rebuked for it. He's already made a reference to a cabal, and I think any Admin action would be seen as part of some cabal/plot. And of course he's engaging with a couple of Admins already. I almost wish he would make a formal complaint instead of allegations,etc, although from my experience complaints with no real basis are often just ignored instead of rejected. You have to admit he's enthusiastic -- who knows, he claims to be an academic (maybe in a field such as engineering which would explain his problems with references and reliable sources in such a different field), maybe if he was willing to be adopted by a mentor he might even become a good editor. At the moment though, he's only going to frustrate himself and others with his behaviour and his editing problems. Something to think about though. Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me going to Sage over your head, but I thought he might think we were conspiring if I discussed it further, and that as I had only recently become involved it might be taken as intended. I hope everyone can get along :) but then I have edited the constantly NPOV (apparently) homeopathy, so I know that's unlikely :) Verbal chat 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The deuce, I've been de-deuced! It's a fair cop, I'm a sucker for debunking fringecruft. I'll postpone my defence to such a time as when I'll be accused of something more grievous than dedication to upholding Wikipedia policy :op --dab (��) 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

You may be interested in the discussion going on here. The DMOZ links in some articles have been reverted, while others have not. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know whether to wait for other editors or act now. Doug Weller (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not going to revert. I do have the feeling that certain users are perhaps... feeling proprietary over that particular guideline, though. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Long time no talk, so my first question is how come Dougy is the first one that reverts my edits when I edit something, (BIGBROTHER)! Just kidding, my truce with you lasts to this day, but if you CLICK on the notes section, where I put the link to the CNN site that I got the info from it is not a hoax, there is even a pipes of china article on Wikipedia, which I found. Baigong Pipes. So I might just put the info there next time, so check out my link to know the truth, bye. Personally, I'm not going to revert. I do have the feeling that certain users are perhaps... feeling proprietary over that particular guideline, though.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist and I've done quite a bit of work on it. The 2002 'expedition' never took place or at least wasn't reported it seems. As for a pyramid, although there is a mention of a 50 foot pyramid shaped structure with 3 caves in it, I've never heard of a cave in a pyramid. Other stories talk about the pipes being at the foot of the mountain and the caves being in the mountain, so I don't think this belongs in the Chinese pyramids article at all. Doug Weller (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you undid edits by someone on my network. He sourced his edits and seems to know he's talking about. Please fix this so it's not deemed an edit war. (Hindu evolution) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He wrote "he gives the logic and science as to why followers of Darwin's theory are rascals who talk nonsense". That's not at all acceptable in an encyclopedia. If he continues to post that, he'll get blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IF you're edit was an honest one you would have edited that one line, though sourced, and not deleted the other ok parts. I'll fix it so everyone's happy, though I shouldn't have to because...

PLUS that IS what the ISKCON founder was quoting said, and it was sourced. I checked, did you? The issue isn't science or religion, but elaborating on what a founder of an org said. If I say Bill Orielly attempted to explain why LudaChris is child like and a negative influence, if I source it with a clip from Bill's website, it must remain. I don't like Bill, heck I've always believed in natural selection and half-life dating methods as true, but you can't delete those sourced edits now can you, that's and edit war.

By the way if you're that bias to not allow any evidence against Darwinian evolution, be it Vedic evolution or not, I understand why you didn't read the talk in the sourced link. It said logical things that I can't deny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Temple in Jerusalem"

The article treats Biblical accounts as if they are hard fact and contains statements on other matters of questionable veracity. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I can see it says 'according to the Bible' several times, including the first three sentences. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddy request

Please if you could look at the Battle of Hyrba, and Battle of the Median Border, and see if they are well written, the Motives and Battle section CANNOT be changed they come directly from the book, but other sections could be reworded better, its mixed up in the other sections, varying direct words and made up words by me, I only do this to shorten something LONG FROM THE BOOK, but I keep the idea a certian book is trying to say without putting in my original research in it. So, if you could Mostly look at median border one not Hyrba, Hyrba was almost nominated as a GA article so JUst watchlist median border, I deeply appreciate and THANK YA!--Ariobarza (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ok, may take a couple of days or a bit more, real life gets in the way at times! Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlil

Okay, So! Under "origins" a recent editor placed a controversial theory about how the word "En" in "enlil" became various semetic deities. Controversial because actual links between a couple of the deities isn't directly supported by evidence.

However, this is irrelevant to the article; it is not a section for the Origins OF LATER SEMETIC DEITIES, it is a section on the Origin of the diety "Enlil", which appeared in Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian mythology. Why, exactly, a section for the origins of the subject of the article has been made into something completely different, I do not know. Why it's mentioned in the Enlil article at all? I don't know. Why are details about those deities are present- such as the bit on Jesus's sayings, necessary to the article? Should I add in several more paragraphs on how pickaxes were used because it's mentioned in the article.

The Enlil story was changed and details such as Ninlil's rape (rape being defined as "an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent" were changed to "slept with" completely distorting the truth of the story to seem more, perhaps, PG.

However, in the ETCSL database, the occurance was clearly rape:

"The king said to her, "I want to have sex with you!", but he could not make her let him. Enlil said to her, "I want to kiss you!", but he could not make her let him. "My vagina is small, it does not know pregnancy. My lips are young, they do not know kissing. If my mother learns of it, she will slap my hand! If my father learns of it, he will lay hands on me! But right now, no one will stop me from telling this to my girl friend!"

35-53. Enlil spoke to his minister Nuska: "Nuska, my minister!" "At your service! What do you wish?" "Master builder of the E-kur!" "At your service, my lord!" "Has anyone had intercourse with, has anyone kissed a maiden so beautiful, so radiant -- Ninlil, so beautiful, so radiant?" The minister brought his master across by boat, bringing him over with the rope of a small boat, bringing him over in a big boat. The lord, floating downstream to ...... -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- Father Enlil, floating downstream to ...... -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- he grasped hold of her whom he was seeking -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- so as to lie with her on a small bank ....... He actually had intercourse with her, he actually kissed her. At this one intercourse, at this one kissing he poured the seed of Suen-Acimbabbar into her womb."

And the story is later distorted to cast Enlil's descent to the underworld as a choice, rather than a punishment by the Anunna gods. It completely fudges the meaning of the original document.

So if it's alright with you, I'll revert some of it in a few days. Thanks for your time!

NJMauthor (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for yours! I've reverted my revert. Doug Weller (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments about your editing of the Bryant Wood page

Greetings from Chronic2 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On my user page, you have placed a warning about not entering unreferenced comments. The first "unreferenced" comment you deleted was the following footnote:

"This is of course the point that Bietak makes and which is succintly expressed in the Science article cited above. The argument is just as germane to Jericho and Levantine sites as it is to the sites that Bietak has investigated in Egypt. Bietak, of course, is not willing to make such and adjustment."

I hope you understand that I thought that referring to the Science article already quoted was a suitable reference to an internationally recognized scientific journal. I have read the Wikipedia policies on this matter, and perhaps this is just a matter of interpretation in the present case. If so, I am perfectly willing to abide by your decision that this footnote should be left out. If, however, you have some more explanation so that I won't make the same mistake in the future, I would be glad for you to supply it. The Science journal was, I thought, a respected source to cite.

In your next edit, you deleted everything that was said about C-14 dating. This was, I believe, properly cited. It was my opinion that it was very relevant to the question of whether Wood's dates for Jericho are to be preferred; see the reasons for this on the Discussion page for the Bryant Wood article. Even PiCo thought so, and his entries have all been slanted against Wood's credibility.

What seems strange to me is that you then went back to PiCo's entries of September 2007, even including his erroneous statement, "In the early 1930s John Garstang found a destruction layer at Jericho corresponding to the termination of City IV which he identified with the biblical story of Joshua and accordingly dated to c. 1400 BC." This was an undocumented statement, to which I supplied with a fairly succint, documented statement, from the writings of Garstang himself, showing it was not true. You have, of course, erased my properly documented statement, replacing it with PiCo's undocumented and erroneous statement that was rather obviously designed to bias the reader against Garstang's scholarship (and hence, by inference, against Wood's).

You have further put in place PiCo's initial entry which was pasted in from the website of Gerald Aardsma, and which, without giving any proper citation, said that "not one of [Wood's] arguments can stand up to scrutiny." Not only is there no proper citation for this, thus violating Wikipeda standards (or is there something I need to read between the lines to understand why this is not such a violation?), but it also does not tell why none of Wood's four arguments stand up to scrutiny. You have therefore approved this entry, using it to replace comments that were properly documented, just as you did with the properly cited correction to PiCo's attempt to bias the reader against Garstang.

I understand that you have not finished your editing, and so I'm waiting to see if I can expect a level playing field in making changes. I have tried to offer citations; the only exception was when I stated in a closing paragraph that it would seem best to leave the C-14 question alone, given the unsettled state of the controversy, and refer instead just to the stratigraphic and pottery concerns. I thought this was pretty much in keeping with what is obviously the policy in all the Wikipedia pages dealing with the many pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom, and so should not have been controversial. If you look at the pages for these kings, you will find that those who make entries there do not even consider the C-14 arguments. That was what I was contending for, and so you can perhaps see that, although this can with validity be ruled out as an OR, it nevertheless was not meant to offer anything controversial, but just to state a fact that was obvious from a multitude of Wikipedia entries regarding all the Egyptian pharaohs.

I currently stand rebuked as offering a biased viewpoint. Have you read my statements in the discussions that everything PiCo entered was biased against Wood, and against Garstang whose dates are the same as Wood? And that these statements have been shown to have never had a proper citation? Yet the way you leave it now, we have reverted to PiCo's original text, with the (proper) exception of deleting his "devastating" clause. And regarding PiCo's treatment of anyone who tried to correct his biased views, including his last statement in the Discussion page that once again tries to slur the character of Bryant Wood? As of the present, PiCo has not responded to the charge that none of his entires had a proper citation, including this last slur in the Discussion page against Wood.

Thanks for explaining that you're not finished with your editing of the Bryant Wood page. Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see if Wikipedia stacks the cards against honest scholarship and in favor of the PiCo style,

Chronic2 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that the article should be about Wood, not Jericho, and it looks as though you've missed that. Your footnote "This is of course the point that Bietak makes and which is succintly expressed in the Science article cited above. The argument is just as germane to Jericho and Levantine sites as it is to the sites that Bietak has investigated in Egypt. Bietak, of course, is not willing to make such and adjustment." is your own comment, not a quote from Bietak, and as editors we aren't entitled to make such comments, it's called Original Research (also see WP:Synthesis. I haven't finished looking at that bit of the article, as you say above, and hopefully will get around to it after dinner, but I'm busy with other things as well. I'm not interested in your argument with Pico, only the article, and I realy don't see your edit to the talk page as appropriate -- far too much detail about another editor, there are better ways to handle such things. Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

THANKS

hi, thanks doug, for checking how good my articles are, I WILL, IN TWO DAYS, fix the TWO things in the Background OF Battle of Hyrba, so thank you again! Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Controversy over the Race of the Ancient Egyptians

Obviously, I never expressed, nor did my edits suggest, that the article in question is intended to discuss any matter other than the Controversy over the Race of the Ancient Egyptians. I offered "critique" as a less derogatory and concise stand-in for the skewed "attempted rewriting" and "splintered" as a less Point-of-View term for "devolved"; finally, I sought to correct what I read as a misapplication of the positions of George G.M. James, Martin Bernal, Cheikh Diop and the like by replacing James' bombastic, and out of context, "stole" with some variant of "appropriated via commerce and conquest".

In no way shape or form do the chronicled edits alter the subject matter at hand -- instead they afford a more encyclopedic tone to the entry. If that is the collective objective here, we can continue to discuss. If instead, the objective is to impose some adherence to a static perception of a particular proposition via the imposition of majority rules, then I have no argument for this conclave -- other than to wonder the very purpose of the encyclopedia entry itself.

Thanks for the reminder re: Edit Summaries. Duly noted.

sewot_fred (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European Religion

Just giving you a heads-up: you had listed a possible copyvio of Quiles' A Grammar of Modern Indo-European. The work itself is actually under the GFDL, so technically, there's no copyvio. I acted a little to hastily and put up a {{copypaste}} template, but later took it down. While it does need attribution (which I'm taking care of), it's not as bad of a copyvio as it could have been.

Thanks for catching it.--Limetom 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Exception to the rule

Hi Doug, firstly of course there are exception to every rule, even in law. A quick answer to your question on the Wandsworth Parks Police Service's discussion page. There are 40 odd Bye-laws applicable in certain parks and openspaces in Wandsworth. There are only certain Bye-laws we have full Police Powers to search a person or vehicle under section 1 of PACE 1984. We have of course the Police Power of search upon arrest, section 32 of PACE. Everybody can search under certain circumstances, under common law when making an any person arrest section 24a. We are and continue doing this and as we take our prisoners to a designated police station. I will copy this answer to the discussion page for the record. Please take time to look back at questions and answers on the discussion page as we have a lot of duplicated questions, thanks TopCat666 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet disruption

Adam233 has already been identified as a single purpose sock created for the purposes of trolling and general disruption. Akc2114 is clearly another sock created by the same puppetmaster. Now that they have explicitly violated policy by voting together on an AfD, we need to wait until the AfD is closed, then open an enquiry at WP:SSP, and follow up with WP:RFCU. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to know that we now making progress towards the resolution of this matter. Feel free to comment if you think it appropriate. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop

• I am not going to undo your edit to the article about me, because that would be a COI and promoting myself. However you should note that whoever put the 'influential' there was citing an article from a Trinity Mirror newspaper --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, still doesn't belong in the lead. You aren't as influential than a lot of much more prominent people who don't have that in the lead. Frankly, I think it made the article look silly. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thermopylae numbers

Hi Doug, I was just wondering if you think that the numbers I put for the Persians who FOUGHT, not thoughs who INVADED are VALID for the Battle of Thermopylae. Which I mean are referenced, and accurate according to what Ctesias tells us, which he is the only historian who gives us the numbers. And other them him, Herodotus says there where 2.5+ - 5.0+ million that INVADED, but he never says how many FOUGHT for Thermopylae, Ctesias says there were 800,000 who INVADED, but 80,000 FOUGHT in Thermopylae, which he breaks down the 80,000 of what it was composed of. So some users bug me about why the numbers are so low, because its surprising to them, but the users who edit Marathon and Artemisium, theorize the numbers by dividing them by 10, saying Herodotus may have plagirized, and for the naval battle ADD all the numbers of ships up to see what it was in total for a paticular side, so WHY do some users think that if I add up the numbers 10k, 20k, 50k, which are the numbers of Ctesias' breakdown, to equal 80k is violation of Wikipedia? When it is a normal thing to do for battles, and most, if not all users are doing them for other battles. I personally think 'they' are over protective of Thermopylae, and want to preserve the Spartans glory, so they have an agenda, though I admit this is just a theory. So, if you could just tell me if your FOR or AGAINST what I am doing, and if you could theorize on what these small number of ELITE users want from me, I would exceptionally appreciated.--Ariobarza (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Hi, sorry to take so long. I'm afraid I wouldn't trust anyone for sure about the numbers, and certainly not Ctesias. I've posted a quote from Bigwood on the article's talk page. Herodotus's numbers of course are ridiculous. They just don't make sense. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

King Tut

I removed inaccurate pictures because ...well they are inacurate. The arcticle itself says that it is impossible to determind King Tuts Skin color. But they have provided a picture of his skinn color. They posted JUST research did by National Geographics which is just bias & one opinion. Like I said before, THE ARTICLE ITSELF SAYS THAY ITs IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE SKIN COLOR!! SO WHY DO YOU ALLOW A PICTURE THAY IS NOT A FACTUAL PHOTO. kevarrisb —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you know from your recent edit, there are various attempt to reconstruct the face. If we only had in the article things that were 100% certain it would be only a couple of sentences long. The important thing is to have reliable, verifiable sources. What you removed was one of them, even if it is only educated speculation. Could you try to find a better source with more information for your Discovery Channel edit? Doug Weller (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As you know, there was a team of three independent researchers who reconstructed the face of Tut. The US researchers were not told whose skull it was, precisely because of concerns that they would be biassed by fear that they would be vilified by Afrocentrists if they made him look too "Caucasian". They all came to the conclusion, based on the shape of the nasal ridge, that he had a narrow nose. This is unsurprising, since East Africans of the area, including dark skinned Sudanese and Ethiopians to the south, typically have narrow noses. The Discovery Channel, which has a commercial rather than purely scholarly interest in the matter, then chose to wholly ignore these findings by generating a "reconstruction" the face with a wide nose, while also choosing darkish skin. This has little scientific value because it is heavily influenced by commercial and ideological pressure. Paul B (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I've created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dougweller. It's not live yet, so spend as long as you want answering the questions. Moreschi (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Aram (Biblical region)

Hi thanks for the message, I've responded on User talk:Til Eulenspiegel. Brando130 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adam's Bridge

No, keep reverting. The 3rr does not apply when you are reverting vandalism. If he does it again, file a report at WP:AIV. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WPP

Hi Doug, you edit the article to remove UNISON has warned me (a member of UNISON) not to use my Baton. Which is a threat and I will not have to report 91. Which is a fact and is less then what he done to me to as many Wikipedians he can get to. Thanks TopCat666 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA. Have a nice day -- Tinu Cherian - 08:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Craniofacial anthropometry

Hi Doug,

One of these sentences no verb!

I can make one up, but "to welcome" or "to condemn" makes quite a difference.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, was supposed to be 'to reject'. I hope you think this is an improvement on the old version. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

More complete

You are absolutely wrong. Facts by definition cannot be negative. Negativity is a matter of subjectivity. You cannot prove negativity in the article when all facts are true. The truth is always the best defense against defamation and I have not provided any information which is defamatory. I suggest you do your own research and come to your own conclusion. The coroner's report said she died from injuries three hours after her other injuries. You are putting up false information by saying everybody was killed in the crash. I can get you the articles from established sources magazines, video. What is your problem. Vince Foster's files were shredded; that is a fact. Stop acting like Big Brother and stop trying to erase history. The air traffic controller was mysteriously killed several days later which corresponds with the allegations of the death of Ron Brown story as was published by the respected journal, Wall Street Underground. There is currently a sandbox article about Nicholas A. Guarino. Look it up. You guys are assuming and silencing information rather than providing the service of providing it. They have the photos of the x-rays and expert testimony. Thank God somebody took photos of the X-rays because they disappeared as well. In no way have I libeled anybody. Anybody in politics needs to be able to stand it. The truth is that the Clinton administration was scandal plagued and many people very close to them died under mysterious circumstances. That is the truth. The truth cannot always be positive. Why put out anything at all when what you are putting up is not true. That would make all of the criticism of wikipedia valid if you silence the truth and put out falsehoods. That is what you are doing. Not everybody died in the flight. It was published in a real newspaper. Put the truth out there and let other people connect the dots. The Clintons are currently being sued. Look up Paul vs. Clinton and you will find the same kind of behavior that is implicated by these facts in this article which is well referenced. Due to the evidence in the case, which you can look up if you weren't so lazy, you will find that they have already been fined 40,000 dollars for fraud. They were desperate to make it to the presidency to avoid charges. If anything happens to Barrack Obama, I want you to feel in part responsible for helping to silence the truth and to shut down information before examining the sources.Thrutheseasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrutheseasons (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Something you might want to look into

Hi there. After seeing your RfA, I had a look at your contributions and such, and just thought you should be made aware of two things. Firstly, the picture for the Email link on your userpage doesn't show up for me in IE7 or FF3, and Worth Hamilton Weller has superfluous bullet points in the "References" and "Publications" sections in IE7 (but not in FF3) for me. I didn't see any actual blank lines with just "*" in them in the WikiMarkup, though, so I'm not sure what the issue is there - you might want to bring it up at WP:VPT, for instance. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I never have figured out why the email picture doesn't work, I gave up trying but must get back to it, maybe a completely new menu. And I'll take up your suggestion about WP:VPT as there doesn't seem to be any reason for the IE problem. Doug Weller (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Right-o. Let's hope that bullet point problem gets fixed soon. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs and RfA

Hi Dougweller. Thanks for the reply to my question at your RfA. I have responded with my support, not because the response was one I wanted to hear (it wasn't), but because you seem capable of learning the right answer on the job. So I should (briefly) respond.. AIV is for listing vandals who need to be stopped by administrators (ergo you would have blocked it). The IP was used twice - once in April and once in August. It was undoubtedly used by a different user on each occasion (you should learn about dynamic IP addresses and shared IP addresses, especially before making any IP blocks). The second user would therefore have never seen any warnings, requests to stop testing, or links to the sandbox. You say, "being blocked might have spurred them into finding out about their talk page". Uggh. This is what talk page warnings and the orange message bar are for. With good faith testing newbies, such as the second editor, it almost always works. Anyway, feel free to drop by for any advice, and Happy Admining. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support and these comments. I thought I knew a bit about dynamic IP addresses and shared ones, but I'm confused about the idea that the 2nd user wouldn't have seen the warnings, as they are all on the same talk page. You may well be right about them being different users of course, but I thought there was a connection with the Lahore edits in April and the List of caliphs (where text was deleted, not clearly a test edit) and Five Pillars of Islam but clearly I could be and quite likely was wrong. What I have forgotten about is the orange bar. Here [1] I just found this: "this matter of 'was the block-triggering edit made after the editor saw the warning' is a point that gets missed sometimes (I think you or Geogre made the same argument that Geogre was busy writing a talk page message instead of resetting a certain block). The sequence should be: warning, sees warning, edit, block. Sometimes it is: warning, edit (half a minute later), block, "hey, I didn't see the warning!". It can also be (when the admin gets very confused, or spends a long time writing the warning): edit, warning, block (cue red faces all round). Or even: warning, edit (before seeing warning), responds to warning, block, "I was about to revert and apologise!". Anyway, just some things to think about, I suppose, and I still think the point should be made very forcefully that people should post warnings to user talk pages (for the orange bar) and ensure that enough time has passed for the orange bar to alert the editor. Sometimes, when writing long posts (like this one!), the orange bar doesn't alert an editor until many minutes after the warning was issued. Sometimes even longer if an edit window gets left open."

That's very helpful. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Clossal stones

Your name has shown up on several pages involving colossal stones. I thought you might be interested in 2 lesser known ones that may be among the biggest ones ever moved assuming they weren't carved in situ. Neither of these have much if any information posted on wikipedia.

One is the Statue of Jain Saint Gomateswara. This was mentioned in Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Ancient India: Land Of Mystery (1994) This is a reputable source but provides little information. The following provide more information but I'm less familar with them. One of these sites estimates the shoulders as 26 feet wide. This is probably high I'm guessing 23 feet wide. Rough estimate on weight of this is 3-6 hundred tons

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000326/spectrum/main5.htm http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/jain/monu.htm

One is the Masuda-no-Iwafune in Japan. the following sources provided some limited information on this.

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=18824 http://www2.gol.com/users/stever/asukas.htm http://www.asukanet.gr.jp/asukahome/ASUKA2/ASUKAISI/iwafune.html http://grahamhancock.thd-web.jp/e7962.html

Judging by the pictures the 11x8x4.7 meter estimate might be lightly exagerated but not much. This probably weighs 2-5 hundred tons.

Even if they are carved in situ they deserve more attention but would like additional information and source checks before writing an article. It wouldn't be unprecidented as you know since larger stones were moved in Baalbek and Egypt but it would indicate that large stones were moved around in other parts of the world.

Any comments will be welcome but if your busy as you seem to be don't worry about it

Zacherystaylor (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm busy but will try to look into these. Doug Weller (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits

This guy is still doing strange stuff. Claiming to be bypassing redirects but only pointing them to the new redirect he made, as well as continuing to edit other users sandboxes. I'm not exactly sure what to do with him. We've had 3 people tell him to come and discuss it and he doesn't seem to care to. While this behaviour could be seen as mildly disruptive, it isn't normally something we'd block for (i suppose unless a user is doing just this a lot), but I'm leery about someone who refuses to discuss things even after many people tell him to discuss things and revert him.--Crossmr (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He'll have to be blocked if he goes on this way without discussion. I'm not an Admin (although I'm going through the RfA process right now) so I can't do that. Whoever sees him vandalise next can report him to AIV (making sure it is really vandalism, not all his stuff is, which is confusing). Doug Weller (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tejas

Yeah that makes sense. I had never heard of the place, I just saw that it was removed so I googled it, found it was a real restaurant and then linked it. I was definitely not trying to advertise! Cnota (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: icon etc.

I fixed the icon, you missed an equals sign in your /Menu page.

As far as stale reports go, you just have to do what seems approprate. Generally, is someone vandalizes again after a level 3 warning (the first one that threatens them with blocking), they will vandalize after a level four warning. As a gross generalization, after 60-90 minutes have passed since their last edit, they're not going to vandalize any more, at least not right then, so I remove the report so it doesn't clog up AIV. Since Huggle (the only popular fully automatic revert-and-warn tool) considers a warning to be "active" for 72 hours, if the vandal is playing around, and he vandalizes again after waiting, say, 2 or 3 hours after his final warning, Huggle will re-generate an AIV report for him, as will any human who visits his talk page to warn him after reverting. I'm pretty sure that the anti-vandal bots behave similarly.

tl;dr version: Just do what seems to work well, generally after 60-90 minutes with no vandalism, it should be safe to remove the report.

BTW, I'd like to offer my early congratulations on your RfA, since it is all but certain that it will pass. Have fun with the mop! Just don't do this.... ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I took so long writing this that you wrote me back in the meantime! No problem at all. I've learned to look for that sort of thing by hard experience. Once, I was working on an XML document to create a custom theme for my PS3, and I spent two and a half hours fighting with it only to discover that I had missed a closing quotation mark...

oppose rfa

I oppose you becoming an admin, and I listed the reasons at your rfa. No hard feelings --Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, all you can find is stuff from my very first edit and a couple from my first 6 edits, all over 2 years ago, and you think that justifies a strong oppose? And nothing to do with differing viewpoints as to whether the so-called Bosnian pyramids are a hoax or not, of course. If you were serious about wanting to become even an editor, you'd know better than to start off this way. Doug Weller (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

UUYES

ON THE FIRST THING CHRIS IS right about vandalism, I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF EDITING IT TO INCLUDE REFERENCES, and what does HE IS RIGHT YOU KNOW M E A N??? Lets continue the conversation on the talk page of BATTLE OF OPIS, and THY DEMAND THAT YOU EXPLAIN YOURSELF YOUNG LADDY!--Ariobarza (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

opis

YOU know, he is wrong too, he does not adress the newer translation and further supports the old translation with OUTDATED referinfo, and is ONESIDED. Second, if you know who Zecharia Sitchin is, and his theories about the 12th planet, he has been proven almost wrong by NEW translation of certian inscriptions, so he is now considers by scholars as OUTDATED, why as I KNOW its not up to us but why accept outdated TRanslation refuted by a better scholar, and why does CHRISO STILL keeps the onesided article and improve his article. PLEASE READ my response on the talk page, and study it carefully, mines and Larno.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I have responded. Sitchin was never able to translate Sumerian properly, no one serious ever considered him a Sumerian scholar, he was a journalist by trade and training. You aren't qualified to judge who is the better scholar or right in this issue, it's up to the experts in the field to discuss this. Doug Weller (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

The admins' T-shirt.

Congratulations on your RfA passing! Here are some useful links for you:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
• Wikipedia:New admin school

If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line and I (or another experienced admin) will be more than happy to help you out.

Congrats again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now do I send out RfA thank you spam? I guess I should, although I've noted that not everyone appreciates it! Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, and NO! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stick a thank-you note on the top of your talk page? It's been done by some people, although I can't remember who exactly. I'm sorry I didn't support your deservedly successful RfA - asleep at the wheel - but congratulations all the same and the best of luck to you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey! the thank spam is the only reason I ever express any opinion in RfAs. :-) Congratulations and good luck with the mop! You'll do fine! henrik•talk 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bad person to ask; I never got around to doing my RfB spam, despite writing something up and everything... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's your t-shirt - congrats!  Frank  |  talk  20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

—§unday {Q} 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA. Best wishes again -- Tinu Cherian - 04:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Many congratulations! Sorry I didn't get round to voting on your RfA in time, but you didn't need my help anyway. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Book

Since you asked about "How Wikipedia Works"... it's for sale in the UK now :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And hopefully will be delivered today or tomorrow! Doug Weller (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

DOUG I GOT YOUR EVIDENCE, GO TO TALK PAGE OF OPIS AND READ 'MY FELLOW WIKIPE...., THANKS

Ya.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Re: YOU THIEF!!!!one!!

HOW DARE YOU STEAL MY STUFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...not really. Feel free to steal anything you want. If you have an idea of something you would like changed/added/created, let me know and I'll see if I can fix/add/create it for you. I like making complicated stuff, but I rarely have any good reason to do it....

As far as admin-ing goes, it will be a little overwhelming for maybe 2 or 3 weeks, and then the "OMG!!! I'm an admin!!!!" will start to wear off, and you'll kind of get used to being able to do all the stuff yourself rather than going to AIV, RFPP, UAA, or CSD. The best part for me when I first became an admin was realizing that I can delete attack pages myself. I still get a boost to my happiness meter whenever I do that. Blocking vandals harassing good users feels good, too. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I usually block schools until September of the next year. If they don't have a long block log, try 2 weeks. After that, escalate to either 3 or six months. Anything in their log longer than 3 weeks usually gets a year from me, but just do what seems to right. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck

Excellent result at RFA - WP:100, no less. That can feel like a daunting burden - "damn, all these people trust me that much" - but it's really not such a big deal. Good luck with the tools. If you take it slowly to start with, as you work out what buttons go where, there shouldn't be any problems. Ping me if you ever want any advice or pointers or anything. You'll find the swing of things soon enough :) Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. RfA can't be all that broken after all, it would seem. And now please sit down and fix the 'pedia! :o) --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

REquest

Doug, I was just wondering if the last huge paragraph I wrote in the background of the Battle of Hyrba article, as it involves Cyrus mysterious backgrounds, should it be part of that article and make no change to it and improve it, or should be PART of the Cyrus the Great article itself, or that it is just INVALID.

Click on new classification when your finished reading it, and look for new classification as a valid thing in Original research, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

THIS BELOW IS WHAT IS GOING ON, THEN READ MY RESPONSE TO CHRISO MAKING A PAGE ABOUT ME WITH ALL MISTAKES MAKING FUN OF ME AND TWO OTHERS!

[ snip]

To say the least, I'm very offended at this labeling of three users (which includes me of course) that just recently got of the deep end because ANOTHER three users (which includes ChrisO) are taking a simple issue to the extremes. which in turn, is making me think of making a page with all the misconduct of lets say... Chris/Dbachmann/Dweller stored on ONE PAGE, and accusing them of being nationalists, and using sources from ignorant or not recently informed historians (who say propaganda all the time) and also add them as users that should be taken off Wikipedia for getting a little mad that (me and others) are accusing them of violating their own agreement. As you know like not showing a neutral point of view and driving CrazySuit into so much madness, that he decides to put a protective label on the Battle of Opis, thus not letting other users edit it to make the grammer better.

I hope you guys understood that paragraph above.

But, of course if you did not understand what ANOTHER three users means (it is ChrisO/Dbachmann/Dweller), which have violated their own agreement because they refuse to discuss the matter straight forwardly, and come up with a consensus, and as you look on the talk page of Opis, I AM CERTAINLY OPEN TO TALKS. But you have taken this WAY TO FAR, and certainly please do not think that I am unable to make such page about you, citing all your mistakes on ONE PAGE, and letting the world see it. But I assure you (the certian users) if you continue to take this too far, I will have talk to administraters, and as of now I am not willing to take ALL of options of the table. You have been warned. Please do not think that I want to personally offend you, (which you have done to me, and others I suspect) I want you (mostly ChrisO) to not go back on your own word, and comment on my page on a real solution to this problem, me being goofy at times with my caps lock, does not mean I am a raving mad man with ferver, I am short on time, and when I want to make certian points, I do it swiftly. So all the original research that I was in the middle of fixing when you deleted it, was an attempt to solve this mystery, as I like mysteries. (INSTRUCTIONS) I politly ask you to go to the Opis talk page, and click on the link in my most recent message, when you get to the 'nationlistic' site that is supported by verifiable histiography, scroll to the near end of the page, and read the WHITE PAPER PART, and which is titled Assyriologio Antiquetes Lingiusti... I don't remember what it is exactly called, but you will know what I mean, and that paper explains the mix up of texts, and letter by letter translation that proves the older one was WRONG. Before you ignore me, I hope that you might have some wisdom still in you to do this task, which If you do not, I will lose all hope in your integrity as an Wikipedian user, thank you very much for reading, and goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

THIS WAS COPYPASTED FROM THE TALK PAGE OF THIS ARTICLE Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ariobarza,_CreazySuit,_Larno_Man,

the page itself is full of streched truth, and ridiculus accusations.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

there

There you go. Talk:Sub-Roman_Britain#poor_editing. Alun (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)