Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dotoree (talk | contribs) at 11:57, 28 February 2013 (→Cosmology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
home
Talk Page
Workshop
Site Map
Userboxes
Edits
Email

Notice 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.



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.

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

Our favorite page...

How many new editors have miraculously shown up in the last month or so? I've lost count... I'm beginning to think this isn't a coincidence either. Perhaps there's some conversation going on one of those forums that obsess over topics like this about how to change the page to their liking...--Yalens (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, lost track. I couldn't find anything but you may well be right. Meanwhile, look out for [1] being used as a source - it is self-published.[2]. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Cosmology page reversions

Hi, Several people, including you, have been reverting the description of Biblical Cosmology to one that is just completely fraudulent and doesn't have hardly a thing to do with the Bible's actual description of the cosmos. It's nearly a carbon copy of the Babylonian one and not accurate at all in terms of what the Bible says (which is why I included Bible references in my revision). Describing Bible cosmology as similar to Babylonian is about as accurate as calling America a communist nation. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be accurate?

All who have reverted it simply do not seem to care about accuracy. They may have good intentions, but their description is not accurate at all. I have MUCH more documentation of this I can add if you wish, even by agnostic scientists. I'm also a professor myself and have done quite a bit of study into the Bible as well as science and history. Wikipedia is very good in many places..but there is unfortunately a bias against historical facts in some areas, sometimes in Christian areas, but not limited to that by any means. I use wikipedia a lot...but we need to make sure it is accurate, not just supporting a prejudiced agenda.

Sorry I haven't contacted others about this..I just figured out how to use the talk pages just now.

Bryan

Dotoree (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmology

Hello again Doug, Long time since we last spoke. Can I please ask you to look again at the Cosmology article. There have been a load of reverts, by either IP addresses or unregistered names. These reverts seem to be quoting the Bible as historical fact. I have ask for reasons, but they seem to be intent on pushing their own points without using the appropiate Talk Page. One has used my personal Talk Page, without signing their contribution and also shouting. I would be grateful for your action/advice. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Remember you are free to delete anything on your talk page. It looks to me as though this is under control. I've warned the editor that he must get agreement on the article talk pages now as he is at 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, Many thanks for your help. Best regards,David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmology

Hello again Doug, Long time since we last spoke. Can I please ask you to look again at the Cosmology article. There have been a load of reverts, by either IP addresses or unregistered names. These reverts seem to be quoting the Bible as historical fact. I have ask for reasons, but they seem to be intent on pushing their own points without using the appropiate Talk Page. One has used my personal Talk Page, without signing their contribution and also shouting. I would be grateful for your action/advice. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Remember you are free to delete anything on your talk page. It looks to me as though this is under control. I've warned the editor that he must get agreement on the article talk pages now as he is at 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, Many thanks for your help. Best regards,David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[post from Dotoree deleted, I'm not having my talk page used for this]Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to define your world views. It is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTWEBHOSTHeiro 18:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doug, Reference the contribution from Dotoree above, I think the time is fast approaching for further action. I and other editors have offered to help Dotoree and have been rewarded by being called "amateurs" and a good deal of "shouting" in his replies. It is obivious that he is trying to push his agenda against Wikipedia guidelines and will not listen to help and advice. As I have stated, should we all consider further action? With best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[and again]. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here so you can publish THE TRUTHTM, you do not have a right to express your "freedom of speech" here as this is a private website where volunteers edit and must abide by the rules. Not letting you run roughshod over the rules here is not "intellectual human rights abuse". Nor is this the place for you to "debate and discuss how true each cosmology is based on evidence of different types and things like that". Read up on WP:What Wikipedia is not. And knock it off with the "perpetrating fraud", "intentionally deceptive", and "people who hate and are prejudiced" crap, it is seriously bordering on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to constantly hurl that out at everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with your biblical outlook. Heiro 07:30, 23

February 2013 (UTC)

      • You aren't following rules consistently at all Heiro. You have one set of rules for things you like and a completely different set for things you don't like. The whole point of wikipedia is to be a place where facts, pros and cons can be listed and people can make their own judgement of where the weight of evidence leads. Your approach is sabotaging the whole reason that wikipedia was set up in the first place by banning facts about what the Bible says about itself from the page, in stark contrast to every other cosmology listed on the page. Wikipedia is not a place here YOUR understanding of the "TRUTH" should allow you to eradicate historical facts from a page. Yet, that is precisely what you are doing. This has nothing to do with differing opinions. There is widespread agreement both from Christians and from skeptics on the views I have listed. There are a few people who don't care about facts at all who go inventing fiction that has no biblical support. But, with the tactics you are using, I could describe democracy as if it were communism and pretend that was legitimate. That is no different from the kind of falsehoods you are perpetrating and protecting. Your position is completely against everything wikipedia was set up to do and in flagrant violation of multiple rules. Dotoree (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon

The ANI report is up at WP:ANI#Colon-el-Nuevo. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon

In December 212 the page User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon was deleted as "Abandoned userfied article, editor hasn't edited for 18 months." Actually i log in very frequently. I know that to you i am "just andother red shirt" but i have made it clear that most, if not all, of my editing is done from my IP address, and i have actually given detailed written explanations as to why i chose this method of work.

In short, i have chosen to function as what in the retail world is called a "mystery shopper," a term that refers to a supposedly "random customer" who samples the customer service skills of the store. In Wikipedia terms, i am the "random editor" who contributes data in areas of personal interest and expertise. I note how many times my work is reverted by bots, unjustly. I note how many times i receive dire warning texts for simply adding a sentence to an article on a well-known and easily-researched topic. I am happy to say that the number of unpleasant personal encounters -- unwarranted rudeness to an unknown IP editor -- has decreased greatly over the past few years, but the bot problem remains.

My former IP was 64.142.90.33

My current IP is 70.36.137.192

I have had other IP addresses as well -- this is up to my isp, of course.

As far as i know, there is no time-limit on username log-ins at Wikipedia as there once was at Dmoz, where i also edited for many years. If there is, and you would like to advise me of the time-frame, i will cheerfully comply and log in promptly in my name and make a courtesy-edit within any time-frime you or your superior officers desire or require -- be it daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.

On the whole, however, i prefer to contribute to Wikipedia as an IP rather than as a username -- it is quicker and more convenient than logging in (i can edit on the fly while on my job, which is writing books) and i enjoy the variety of responses to the IP-editor.

So can i please have my Carroll Runyon page back again? It is not "abandoned." It was actually the casualty of an anti-occultism deletionist edit-war of long ago, and i have hopes to reinstate it. The subject of the biography is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, in my opinion.

Cordially,

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi cat - no problems with timelimits on accounts. But June 2 2009, your last edit with a 64. IP address, is a long time ago, almost four years, so it does certainly seem abandoned. And worse, it has no sources at all. How about starting a short version in your userspace (with the userdraft template please, that was missing from the deleted version so it was showing up on Google) adding some references to show notability? That would both show that you really are working on it and make it more likely it can be restored to Wikipedia. I'm not the one who deleted it and I'm loathe to restore it as it is now. Start some work and reference it and I would probably feel differently. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, Yes, indeed, my last edit with the "Ol 64" IP (64.142.90.33 ) was four years ago. My isp changed my IP when i signed on for a DSL account with them. I have been using the IP 70.36.137.192 since then and clearly stated that in my letter above. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.36.137.192 and you will see that i edit here often and that you made an error by checking the wrong IP.
Additionally, you have created a Catch-22. You say that i can have the Carroll Runyon page back if i start to edit and source it, but since the page is being held as unavailable, i can't edit it or source it since i don't know what information it contains. cat 70.36.137.192 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to your last edit anywhere, just your last edit on the deleted page. I didn't suggest that you start to edit and source it, but that you "Start some work and reference it and I would probably feel differently." In other words, start some sort of new draft with some reliable sources. If you recall, the userfied copy was not to be restored, it was the original that was to be restored if appropriate. It would be easier to do that if you could produce some sort of draft that clearly shows notability, then it would be possible to undelete the original and for you to add your new work to that. I'm not even suggesting a full article draft, just material with reliable sources that will show notability. You don't need the original to do that as I'm just effectively asking for notes. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Dougweller.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Artifacts

I have been offline since I wrote the edits to Tucson artifacts. I had watched the American Unearthed episode on the H2 History Channel and decided to look at the Wikipedia article and anything else I might find online. I watch that show for amusement. Obviously, and unfortunately, it is skewed toward accepting the fringe theories on pre-Columbian discoveries of America. Nonetheless, some information gets through. If one is not very careful about listening to what is said and what is and is not covered, one can be taken in by these theories, however. I saw that the article was incomplete and poorly written. Worse, someone had added that the articles were most recently proved genuine, based on the History Channel show, and there was some additional nonsense about the Templars. Even while watching the show I noted that any mention of Templar predecessors was ridiculous because they had no predecessors from 300 years prior to their organization.

I am interested in history and in fringe theories for amusement. I don't rule out a few pre-Columbian visitors. We know the Vikings made it. By the way, the show, if you have not watched it, has also dealt with Roanoke Island. No pre-Columbian connection there at all.

It is a shame that Professor Covey, a scholar at a big time university, appears to have been taken in by this hoax - but perhaps his conclusion was actually to debunk the whole story. We don't really know based on the brief insert about his book. I hope he did not actually support this theory. This was before the Payn and Burgess articles but the University of Arizona report rejecting the articles as a hoax rather clearly sets out the problems with the artifacts.

I am also interested in the credibility of wikipedia since I have written 85 articles and intend to do many more. The article had 2,920 visitors yesterday. It would have been very bad for the project for people to have seen that article with the genuineness assertion and mention of the Templars. Also, it was poorly written and very incomplete. I read the lengthy Burgess journal article which covers the history and the arguments in great detail and used that to put some key points into the article that would refute the major few points from the show. I felt I had to do a triage job quickly because the show would likely cause an influx of readers to that article. Over the next several days I may try to improve the article and to look at the others you mention. I do like to drift into other areas of history than the ones I usually work on. I have been doing recent changes patrol for the most part over the past few months, but I am about to cut back on that and do more content creation and editing. Donner60 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your work there. I've afraid Cyclone Covey buys into 'they all visited America'. He's also written for Ancient American, owned by an LDS adherent and once edited by Frank Joseph with a collection of articles edited by Joseph and Zechariah Sitchin. He got stung there when they changed his wording in a major way. His book on the Tucson artefacts is "Calalus:a Roman Jewish colony in America from the time of Charlemagne through Alfred the Great". He also wrote "Algonquins, Egyptians, and Uto-Aztecs". He once wrote "‘‘The clinching evidence of a possible Solutrean connection trans-Atlantic is pre-Indo-European Pleistocene speech persisting in the earliest dialects (th, n, and y) of Algonquin Cree, cognate with West-European Euskera before its Indo-Europeanization as modern Basque’’." (the last bit being nonsense, and to quote Alice Kehoe, "It's highly unlikely that Pleistocene speech features can be recognized in Cree recorded ten millennia later." He recently wrote an intro for a book arguing that the Cherokee come from the Middle East. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's disappointing. The "truth was out there." Perhaps the sources that Payn and Burgess were able to dig out were not easy to find, being limited to university and museum archives and a few private copies. Still, it is a baseless, if not nutty, proposition. As near as I can tell, nothing but these "artifacts" has been found to support this wild idea. They do not stand scrutiny as ancient. The supposition that Europeans from the Middle Ages, with primitive weapons, and able to bring only limited supplies on any kind of journey, would travel to one of the most inhospitable places in North America to settle, nearly across the continent - that they would be able to even make it there, much less become established - is nonsensical. And they left no other traces. Improbable events have occurred in history, but not that improbable. The explanations that a high school boy created the artifacts for amusement and pitched them away or that a few of the principals, at least one of whom was fired by the University of Arizona, created them as a hoax seem to cover the realistic possibilities. Covey seems to have dealt in fringe theories too extensively to let him off the hook for this one. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data Science addition of a commercial symposium advertisement

At the Data science article I have reverted the addition of an external link to a commercial Chief Data Scientist Summit. The Big Data and Data Science conferences are plentiful these days, and selecting one of them to publish in a Data Science article is not representative and seems to fall under Non adverising policy. The link may belong to a page describing conferences on the subject, but then it would violate the Not a collection of links policy. Vlad Didenko 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Very good point, I agree. I was trying to clean up the article and it occurred to me I could use that link as an EL rather than just delete it, but I'm very happy with what you've done - it's basically in line with my edits. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check: is someone perhaps starting a sock farm?

Take a look at the history of Regina Maris (schooner). There's a whole bunch of accounts which show up in January/February and do nothing but do one or two edits to this article. And now [one of them] goes on to participate in a bunch of AFDs, including one in the Sarkarverse which like a lot of guru-centric articles has people popping out of the woodwork to oppose deletions or mergers. Am I off-base to be paranoid about this? Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Looks like some school class or something (in Norway?) who decided or were asked to improve the boat article. One has decided to continue, which is more than most such efforts result in. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of something like that too. I'll keep an eye on them for a bit anyway. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Known Fact; Cyrus Cylinder is corroborated by Nabonidus Chronicle + Cyrus Panegyric + Historians' Accounts + Religious Texts

Dougweller,

This is a known fact that Cyrus Cylinder is historically correlated by Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus Panegyric, and historians account such as Herodotus and Xenophon. Plus, it corroborates with various instances in the Bible, i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. The first two sources are Historical and Archaeological accounts at once, you cannot argue their veracity, the Bible is religious, yet you cannot reject what is written in it; it basically calls 'Cyrus the Great', a 'Messiah'; this is by all means the utmost reverence for a human being by at least 3 world religions, who consider the Bible a sacred text.

Also please try and understand the semantics here, there is difference between a 'biography' and a book called "The Ancient World: 'Dictionary' of World Biography" (which is also used as a source in various Wiki articles such as, 'Ancient Greece', 'Ashurbanipal', 'Damnatio ad bestias, etc.). In any case, 'Biographies' may also be used as references in Wikipedia, FYI, and there is no problem in that. Nevertheless we are not citing any 'biography' or 'world biography' here, but a 'Dictionary', and you cannot cancel the reliability of this book, just because its title contains the phrase 'world biography'. Thanks. Armaiti (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eilat Mazar page update

Hey Dougweller, I wanted to thank you for your feedback on the Eilat Mazar wiki page I put up yesterday. Perhaps "overhaul" was not the right word in describing the updates - what Eilat really wanted me to put up was a more complete list of her publications and a more accurate description of her excavations and committees she belongs to - e.g. she is not a "senior fellow" for the Shalem Center, as the older article states. Since the original article was put up, many excavations have taken place at the Ophel, and Eilat wanted a description of them on the site, along with the earlier Achziv excavations. As you mentioned, the references to "Dr." and "Prof." have now been changed. But perhaps the biggest thing you mentioned was with the bias of the article - I apologize for that. I have gone back into the old page and reinserted all of the counter-comments from other archaeologists. I do not mean to start any conflict of interest battles on this page, merely just to provide an updated biography of Eilat and her excavation activities. My thanks again for your assistance, please let me know if anything else may be done to improve the article. C.k.eames http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.k.eames (talk • contribs) 12:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nalanda article

Hello, This is in response to your reversal of my edit to the Nalanda page. I understand that measures must be in place to prevent WP being used for promotional purposes. However, I'd like to draw attention to the changing landscape of the publishing (in fact, any content production) world today. The whole idea of the Internet is to be able to evaluate material democratically and ensure that the power to produce is not held by a closely guarded elite monopoly. I believe that sites like Google and Wikipedia should support those who strike out a path against major companies. Wikipedia should base its decisions on the reception of creative works amongst the public, such as in reviews and other online sources. I have seen a good many books published by reputed publishers (Penguin for instance) to compare poorly to some indie titles. This is a time when indie authors are trying to make it on their own, refusing to tread the groove and accept the terms of the big houses. The Internet should do what it can to support them.

Trying to impose an arbitrary clamp on self-produced content, just because it is self-produced, is bad. Material should be evaluated for its status amongst peers as evidenced by online reviews and its reception. Not allowing a citation of a self-published work with good reviews while allowing a citation from a Random House book with poor reviews is like Google refusing to index Wikipedia because it was not endorsed by Brittanica. Surely, we've come a long way from those dark days?

The book I cited from is available at reputed libraries (http://www.worldcat.org/title/i-am-not-a-buddhist/oclc/809387576). I'd be happy to create a page for the book at some point in the future.

Thanks.

GvH

Actually we do what you say we should do. See WP:SPS, WP:USERG and WP:BK. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's ok to undo the reversal then? Ironically it was because of the book that I was motivated to look up Nalanda in Wikipedia!

Gvonhousen (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still say no, unless she's clearly an expert on translation - I'm also not sure that we can quote a whole poem in any case - copyright issues. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dating conventions

Hello Dougweller: Thanks for your note concerning the revert of my recent edit. I have recently been editing a number of articles related to ancient Rome, and had not seen this particular emphasis on Common Era dating to any great degree. Certainly not the forced attempt at common era dating evident at this particular article. In a brief, and incomplete, review of past edits, it appears that most of these changes took place (roughly) 9 months ago. At that time, the section header "Early Christian Era" was changed to "Common Era" and so forth. If there is a WP:ERA violation, it may have taken place at that time. But I certainly won't know that until I do more reading, and review the Talk page comments. I got sidetracked from that effort when I noticed the dangling reference to monsoons. That, in turn, had me reading up on the Aksumite Kingdom (which the Roman traders had to pass through) and their effective use of monsoon winds in these trade routes. So forgive my sloppy half edit to the dating issue, and my incomplete response to your kind note. I'll try to complete the review of past edits, to see if I or someone else come up short with the WP:ERA oversight. Gulbenk (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked in depth. Funny, I've been working on the Aksum article - where I've had a bit of a problem with an editor who doesn't like anything that looks like Western research. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There we go...great minds running in the same ditch! Hope your Aksum editor doesn't look too closely at the roman trade article, as well. I probably won't be researching the Aksumite Empire to the same depth, but if I run into anything interesting (in some obscure corner), I would be most happy to share. Gulbenk (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Donald Panther-Yates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Panther-Yates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Panther-Yates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&oldid=541222373"