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.

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.

Burial places of founders of world religions

I noticed you reverted my changes regarding Ahmadiyya Movement considering that they call themselves Muslims. And presented an argument that Mormons consider themselves as Christians and hence you enlist them under the category of Christians. Now, I'm going to put Joseph Smith's burial location in that article as a sub-section of Christianity section. I think it was missing there, since the founder of a movement which is followed by approximately 7 million people, which is a part of Christianity because 'they call themselves as Christians'. I understand that Wikipedia is a neutral community and hence I believe that the burial location of Mormonism's founder is also supposed to be listed there, under the very same section of Christianity.

Sock?

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

Sorry to take so long to reply. They are the same person, I'm sure, but not editing simultaneously - see WP:Sock puppet. RTPking has been blocked for edit warring 3 times. Make sure you don't get blocked, it's not worth it. 3RR isn't an entitlement by the way, I try to stick at 2. RfC is request for comment. This can be used on talk pages. See WP:RfC. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take care; I'm well aware that a block is not good for someone's Wiki-reputation. He's got a way of editing which can be really inflaming; totally unaware of what he's removing with his reverts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Free Imperial City of Cologne

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

Sorry, thought I'd replied. Dealt with all the redirects, that won't happen again. As for the other 2, we can template the talk pages or merge. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. We just have to make sure that those articles are indeed internal copyvios (for example they could be copypasted from a copyright free version of Encyclopædia Britannica). Otherwise, it may not be necessary to merge them. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Page review

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

Eh no worries. I think the content of the article is good and well-sourced, but what else can be done to improve it quality wise? I'd love to have it be a GA. Should I put in some in-line citations, perhaps, so that people can refer back to sources with the ease of exact page numbers? What about Further Reading? I've also asked Eric Cline to release about eight photos for use by Wikimedia. He should be sending them an email later today. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 30 Kislev 5774 10:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric Cline? That's brilliant. Do you know him? I listened to his lectures on the Trojan War on my iPod. I see he has a new book out. He does take the Bible as history a bit more than I do though. The GA criteria are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. You need a few more sources, definitely in the etymology section, probably in the palatial section. I'm not sure what you mean by in-line citations as you already have them. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, for five years now. Do you mean the Trojan War book or the 1177 one? The latter is one that everyone I know is looking forward to (Sea Peoples!!!). He likes to keep things balanced, what you call a biblical centrist. Thankfully likes to let the evidence do the talking, brilliant professor and dig director. Both he and Assaf are very much aware of Wikipedia editing policies, by the way. To my knowledge there's only about two - maybe three, but I've got to find it - sources for the naming of Kabri itself. Palatial thankfully has more, but I didn't keep an eye on the references when I was editing that section. Massive overhaul, you see. By in-line ones, I mean like (Kempinski 2002; 175), ones that point to individual pages rather than the whole work. I figure it's better for fact-checking then. Is there any way to combine those footnoted ones I have right now and the Harvard-style in-line ones? Also, can you think of any other sections that could be added? I was thinking Excavation methods under the Archaeology section. Thankfully people are always required to talk about them. I'm going to try and expand the Kempinski section, by the way, because I now have Kempinski's site reports (his prelim ones aren't as easy to find as ours).

Speaking of 1177, why is Bronze Age Collapse one article solely dealing with the LBA Collapse? There's two collapses, the EBA and LBA. How many sources would I need to justify moving that article to Late Bronze Age Collapse? I don't even get how it got that name, because I've never seen anyone call that the Bronze Age Collapse prior to that article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 30 Kislev 5774 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I listened to the Trojan War book, want to get 1177. Start a discussion at the BAC talk page and let me know, I'll join in. Citations to books should almost always include page numbers, by the way. See the section at WP:CITE on page numbers. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna try and find a way to get it early. The next one he's working on is even more awesome though. I started one actually, but it's dead quiet. Ah, I think I'll make another user space version of the article and switch it over to footnoted references then. I did take the one I'd been working on live. Hopefully there aren't too many changes between now and then or it'll be a pain to reconcile the differences. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Tevet 5774 00:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

new sources for al jazari article

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

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

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

Why not place this on the talk page of the Al-Jazari article?

AND,

http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.html, appears to be a blog(which are not a reliable source, the section being written by Burcu Afrin(who ever that is).

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari, appears to be two links to Wikipedia, as such is not a reliable source.

http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/, appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia,as such is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Just because you want them to be reliable source(s) does not make them reliable. As for the "paper";

Steven R. Ness, is a Phd candidate in Music Information Retrieval - Machine Learning - Distributed Cognition [1]

Shawn Trail, is associated with the Dept. of Computer Science, University of Victoria [2]

Peter Driessen, is professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering [3]

Andrew Schloss, is a professor in Electronic & Computer Music, Musical Acoustics, Ethnomusicology [4]

George Tzanetakis, is a professor Associate Professor in the Computer Analysis of Audio and Music [5]

Therefore, this "paper" has been written by academics that have no specialization in the time period or area in question. As such this is not a reliable source in regards to ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I have completed a search concerning the sources for Arab ethnicity. I have posted said result on the Al-Jazari talk page and given a suggestion. What would have helped(this being directed at Cobanas) is for all editors to use the talk page, then this issue would have been resolved more efficiently. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

al jazari article

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

the place that he was borned

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

another reference

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

assyrians in iran

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

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

new source for only 20000 assyrian in iran !

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

Concerned about your latest edit to Liberty University

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

Brahmin

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

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

Your warning was ignored

Just an FYI, Wikitout has ignored your warning.[6] He hasn't actually supplied a single citation for anything he has added, or any claim that he has made in an edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet again

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

• Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who

• Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia

• Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more

• News and notes: One decade of Wikisource; FDC recommendations raise serious questions

• WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie

• Featured content: F*&!

• Arbitration report: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case opens; New discretionary sanctions draft proposal available for review

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Liberty University RFC

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

Oh, goody. So if I comment in the discussion then you'll leave similar encouragement on my talk page? Even though I'd likely !vote to omit? Doesn't involvement in the discussion make this sort of canvassing truly unnecessary? - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is canvassing of the time that should be avoided. Obviously I know about the RfC and will comment in the survey if I wish. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

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

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

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

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

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

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

Who is Joanne Conman ?!!

Hi,

This is my answer about :

In the chapter:

[[7]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

Your answer :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

what badly source ?

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

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

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

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

You are getting very confused. Here are the three edits you made that I reverted[8] - you didn't add a source at all, you made number changes with no source or explanation creating a smaller number before the revolution than after a large number left post-revolution - in fact there are sources for more than 20,000 after the revolution. You did add a source to a number in the infobox leaving the infobox contradicting the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Chechnya

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

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

Nichols is without doubt a reliable source, but without knowing what she actually said I don't think that belongs there. That whole section reads very strangely. Ok, maybe we can use the handbook, but Amjad Jaimoukha is a really bad article. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Weller, I will give you the words from Dr. Johanna Nichols' website about the situation you are getting yourself into by listening to certain "anti-nationalistic" people above and deleting the referenced material of Georgian, American, Russian, German scientists and historians. "I have been doing linguistic field work on the Chechen and Ingush languages for many years. Though I am not an ethnographer or historian, I have tried to bring together here some general information about the people and their languages in order to increase public awareness of their situation and to put a human face on two peoples of great dignity, refinement, and courage who have paid heavily for their resistance to conquest and assimilation. This is based on an article on the Chechen circulated in January 1995 when the recent war began ... Perhaps because the golden age of Russian literature, which romanticized the Caucasian war, coincided with the conquest of the Chechen, or perhaps because the Chechen were the most numerous lowlands group, or perhaps because of their fierce and prolonged resistance, the Chechen came to epitomize imperial Russian disdain for "Asiatics" and have been vilified and demonized in Russian literature, popular media, and political discourse to the present day." Of course you can continue deleting, banning, vandalizing the webpages and we will continue to write the truth which will always stay the same despite geopolitical agendas. P.S. I would believe that you made a typo but letter Q and letter G are not near Kavkas (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not write the bit with the typo. Your comments make it clear you have an agenda. I have no horse in this race and trying to make sure we have reliable sources is usually not considered vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And this is now at WP:RSN#Are these reliable sources for the origins of an ethnic population?. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

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

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

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

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

Don't be rude

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

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

2.102.187.14

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

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

Alhazen and user:Rarevogel

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

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Enfield poltergeist=

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