Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 43) (bot
→‎Ketef Hinnom: new section
Line 84: Line 84:
:: You're on their list now! ;)--[[User:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome</small>]]<big>_</big>[[User talk:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor</small>]] 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
:: You're on their list now! ;)--[[User:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome</small>]]<big>_</big>[[User talk:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor</small>]] 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
::: IMO "we" is probably one person, a sockmaster.--[[User:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome</small>]]<big>_</big>[[User talk:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor</small>]] 21:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
::: IMO "we" is probably one person, a sockmaster.--[[User:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome</small>]]<big>_</big>[[User talk:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor</small>]] 21:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

== Ketef Hinnom ==

Did you even read the source ? Every scholar involved in analyzing, dating, preserving and translating the amulets has stated that they date from the First Temple period, and to the 7th century. This is why they are considered one of the greatest archaeological finds in modern times.

"Dr. James R. Davila has similarly pointed out that the idea that while the scrolls show that "some of the material found in the Five Books of Moses existed in the First Temple period".

Furthermore: "Based on our new analysis and reading of these texts, we can reaffirm with confidence that the late '''preexilic''' period is the proper chronological context for the artifacts". [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4150106?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents] [[User:ItaloCelt84|ItaloCelt84]] ([[User talk:ItaloCelt84|talk]]) 06:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:44, 5 December 2016

The current date and time is 15 September 2024 T 06:10 UTC.

User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller







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

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



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

University of Kansas "Ancient Central America" course assignment

This is just a heads-up to let you know that I'm once again having students create Wikipedia entries for a course this semester. I've posted the information for them here:

User_talk:Hoopes#Wikipedia_Assignments_for_.22Topics_in_Archaeology:_Ancient_Central_America.22_at_KU_.28Spring_2016.29

Dwapara Yuga / Yoekteshwar

Hi Doug, I'm Robert ( RobCZ ) and I think the last correction must have been five years ago on the particular year we are in according to this interpretation of Yoekteshwar. Swami Yoekteshwar wrote his Holy Science in 194 Dwapara ( 1894 ), thus currently we are in 316 Dwapara. Kind regards Robert, Amsterdam, Holland

Checkuser

Could you run a quick checkuser for me, please? I have a probable DUCK sock of an indef blocked user and I need to confirm. The sock is Sjick14, the indef-blocked user is CaptainHog. SPI at the far bottom will have the most current IP and account information, of course. Also, could you check for any sleepers while you are at it? Diannaa usually handles these, but she is offline at the moment. Much appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 13:06 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

I filed an SPI related to the above request. Just letting you know. - NeutralhomerTalk • 15:25 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! - NeutralhomerTalk • 16:09 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

"New Account" and archaeologist John Marshall

Hi Doug. This "new account", created a few days ago,[1] seems to be implying WP:OR and non-WP:RS synthesizes en masse, cross-article, and is using the findings of John Marshall, a British Archaeologist of some 100 years ago as the main "source" for these claims, e.g. [2][3][4]. I reverted some of his edits already, but I can't keep up with it I'm afraid. He's mass uploading images with OR captions as well on Wikimedia.[5]. Something should be done about this I believe. As you're often involved with such matters, I thought that this might interest you. Bests - LouisAragon (talk)

Mail

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

Verizon Cell phone IP block

Doug, ....a promotional username (Verizon cellular phone IP address 198.223.226.236). Nothing more or less. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A friends cellular phone IP address IS NOT a "promotional username" - to block it was wrong. Wikipedia rules allow edits from unregistered users. (Can you block every unregistered user who may make an edit you don't personally like?) Most Wikipedia editors LOVE to play TRUMP card, blocking users for the power and fun of it, who holds a different opinion on any given subject matter, or doe not share the same values. Instead I'd rather you apologize and go on your way, then to respond with vitriol. Dollyparton7 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)dollyparton7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyparton7 (talkcontribs)

Doug, I'm washing my hands of this guy. I believe it is very likely this is a sockpuppet account of the indef blocked Garnerted. If you wish to do anything further, you are welcome to do so. I'm not going to become further involved as I feel very biased against this editor at the moment. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Good idea. I'm not sure it's a sock, but that doesn't matter, we'll just go on behavior. I've got the article on my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 21:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not a sock, then a meatpuppet (likely a fellow parishioner or whatever they call it in the COG). Either way, I believe they are very closely connected even if they are not being operated by the same person. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you admit a personl BIAS and strong desire to block me, (or anyone) without cause or merit.

I am NOT a sock, or user Garnerted. To falsely label me such, to quell your admitted bias, will be investigated. You block, and bully and grasp at straws to justify blocking without cause. It is your behavior that merits a blocking of both your accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyparton7 (talkcontribs) 21:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Doug Weller (hopefully deleted by now), created by user Kpj78. Largoplazo (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: Lol. Thanks for letting me know. And I was nice to him by not blocking him for a hoax. I was just telling someone I AGF too much sometimes. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threats by Dollyparton7. Thank you. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you....

seen this?[6]--Monochrome_Monitor 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Monochrome Monitor: no, thanks. Pretty funny. Wonder who "we" is. Probably the group. Doug Weller talk 21:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're on their list now! ;)--Monochrome_Monitor 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO "we" is probably one person, a sockmaster.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ketef Hinnom

Did you even read the source ? Every scholar involved in analyzing, dating, preserving and translating the amulets has stated that they date from the First Temple period, and to the 7th century. This is why they are considered one of the greatest archaeological finds in modern times.

"Dr. James R. Davila has similarly pointed out that the idea that while the scrolls show that "some of the material found in the Five Books of Moses existed in the First Temple period".

Furthermore: "Based on our new analysis and reading of these texts, we can reaffirm with confidence that the late preexilic period is the proper chronological context for the artifacts". [7] ItaloCelt84 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]