User talk:Doug Weller: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
LavaBaron (talk | contribs)
→‎RfC: new section
Line 173: Line 173:


By process of elimination, who else could it be? Furthermore, this statement: <b><i>"Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity of Anzick-1 with European sources (see the "Solutrean hypothesis"). The DNA of the Anzick-1 sample showed strong affinities with sampled Native American populations,.."</b></i> is flawed because it doesn't actually rule out the 'Solutrean hypothesis' as it could be easily explained away by either: 1) the DNA could have been from a mixed-race individual (Native-Solutrean); or 2) the Clovis artifacts may have been booty that was taken after a battle in which the Soutreans were defeated. Its similar to claiming that because Christian relics were found buried in Sweden with a Viking skeleton that they we produced by the Vikings, but we know they were taken by the Vikings during raids of monasteries in Britain. If you can delete my reference because it doesn't say Solutrean, then I should be able to delete the 3rd paragraph because the reference can't disprove my 2 plausible explanations about the DNA. Please reinstate my edit. Thanks [[User:Albertoarmstrong|Albertoarmstrong]] ([[User talk:Albertoarmstrong|talk]]) 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
By process of elimination, who else could it be? Furthermore, this statement: <b><i>"Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity of Anzick-1 with European sources (see the "Solutrean hypothesis"). The DNA of the Anzick-1 sample showed strong affinities with sampled Native American populations,.."</b></i> is flawed because it doesn't actually rule out the 'Solutrean hypothesis' as it could be easily explained away by either: 1) the DNA could have been from a mixed-race individual (Native-Solutrean); or 2) the Clovis artifacts may have been booty that was taken after a battle in which the Soutreans were defeated. Its similar to claiming that because Christian relics were found buried in Sweden with a Viking skeleton that they we produced by the Vikings, but we know they were taken by the Vikings during raids of monasteries in Britain. If you can delete my reference because it doesn't say Solutrean, then I should be able to delete the 3rd paragraph because the reference can't disprove my 2 plausible explanations about the DNA. Please reinstate my edit. Thanks [[User:Albertoarmstrong|Albertoarmstrong]] ([[User talk:Albertoarmstrong|talk]]) 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In your initial post you wrote: <b><i>"The article is embarrassing in any case .."</b></i> but I'm not so sure about that as there were many contributors to the article and they all have credible backgrounds (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/5/e1600375.article-info). [[User:Albertoarmstrong|Albertoarmstrong]] ([[User talk:Albertoarmstrong|talk]]) 08:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


== RfC ==
== RfC ==

Revision as of 08:57, 19 May 2016

The current date and time is 11 May 2024 T 07:27 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

Re: Jesus - Section on alleged violence

Hi Doug,

I would like to add the following section to the Wikipedia article 'Jesus'. It is, of course, a sensitive subject and what I would like to add will not be to the liking of the majority of readers, even though it is historically correct. The article is quite understandably auto-protected, so I may not be able to get pas that anyway. Do you, and other members on this talk page, think this addition will be warranted?

Apologies/but can you review?

Apologies about the potential 3RR violation. I certainly got a little carried away. But that's because I am confident that this edit is not an improvement to the article. Could you please review it? This edit removes what the family is most notable for. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't gotten around to it. Although I agree with the earlier version I'm not sure what the sources say, and we need to follow the sources. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of Sarrazin

Would it may be possible to recover the ancestry table of Sarrazin. Sorry, it was mine unready work in progress. The sources I will add. I was so happy to find them and it was so difficult. Sarrazin gives attention to heritage questions e. g. he speaks about genetics in a genealogical way. Nevertheless his ancestry is quite interesting and will connect other wikipedia articles too (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttkamer and perhaps also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mocatta which I prove right now. I would even like to add much more ancestry tables to other notable figures which are not of royal or noble background because it is wonderfully possible in wikipedia to show many connections in so many ways. In some biographical ressources it is usual to give genealogical informations too. So this is a huge and so nice topic for wikipedia. --Citrustree (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the history, I can copy it to a subpage of your user page. I removed some unsourced material from Mocatta about living people. The discussion about whether this should be in the article really belongs on the talk page of his article. I'd say not unless independent sources show it to be significant. Doug Weller talk 17:29,
12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback, Doug. So is it okay with you that I replace this ancestry table with the sources in a little while but not now? Do you accept, that I wish to do much more of this ancestry tables also to nonroyal but knowtable people? Not only to show the significance of this person via his ancestors but to show connections with regions, societies etc. E.g. former Bundesbank Boss Sarrazin explains some crude yewish gen theory and that his grandmother might be Italian, but forthermore she is from this finance magnatic Mocatta family. And his Puttkamer ancestors are related to the Bismarck family. But even if a person has none important ancestors it is good for explaining history questions of biography, continuity or (social) changes of a world family called human being. Wikipedia is not only a site of knowledge but of showing connections between people too. Just to show only the royal ancestry is somehow very oldstylish. It conserves an understanding of history and classes from the Ancienne Régime. --Citrustree (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
watchful eyes
... you were recipient
no. 484 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Drew

I noticed that the Moorish Temple's biography of Drew Ali introduces him as "​The Most Noble, Prophet Drew Ali". I think this means that they used the term 'Noble' as an honorific. I'll keep researching to make sure more than one source agrees, but for now I'll keep Noble removed from the page (if you are okay with that). Thanks! Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martin Van Ballin good catch, I'd say if they use it you were right in the first place, and other sources are probably also using it as an honorific. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lurker here. Every source I've read includes "Noble" as part of his (newly taken) name, not merely as an honorific; e.g., I just checked the Evanzz biography of Elijah Muhammad, which introduces him as "a strangely dressed man by the name of Noble Drew Ali." It's probably a bit like the case of "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" -- the honorific has effectively been absorbed into the name so that the two are essentially indistinguishable. Practically nobody uses a proper given name when referring to "Maharishi" (literally, "great sage"). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have always heard him called (in talks and in books) as Noble Drew Ali. I don't think it would be difficult to find sources for this. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, User:Liz, I think I'm the one responsible for the 'Noble' bit used in the way it has been recently, and that would have been on the basis of the sources I read. So I retract my original comment and agree it should stay. You might want to comment on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Laucke article nominated for FA status

@Checkingfax: Hi Doug Weller...been a while; I trust you are well! I'm delighted that the GA article on Michael Laucke, is nominated for FA status. Checkingfax and myself are the main contributors.. If you'd like to share your viewpoint and help us advance, it's right here. Please feel free to leave comments as you please, if time permits. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 22:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Commissioner Peshawar article scheduale for deleation

Dear Doug Weller!

Deputy Commissioner is public office in Indian subcontinent. The nomenclature may be changed in different parts of the world i.e District Collector and Mayor. In Pakistan Deputy Commissioner is head of District Administration. Wikipedia have many articles related to Mayor, Commissioners,County Heads, Shariff and District Collectors. I am collecting data and will soon complete the articles.I want to allow this article for wiki lovers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netasif2004 (talkcontribs) 11:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #209

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For tireless efforts reverting whitewashing of Frank Gaffney by a revolving door of IP editors and freshly minted accounts. LavaBaron (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lag B'Omer

Lag B'Omer is next Thursday (May 26). There has been quite a bit of vandalism recently, and this article has a history of vandalism in the week (or so) leading up each year. Would you mind semi-protecting for 14 days? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last year doesn't seem to bad. I've added it to my watchlist and will protect if there's a problem. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. TY for watching. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Islam

The Shia Islam article is suffering from some ongoing serious vandalism including inserting significant amounts of text from blogs. Could you please look at what is going on and put some level of protection on the article? Thank you. --Chewings72 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Chewings72 (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutreans (deleted post)

By process of elimination, who else could it be? Furthermore, this statement: "Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity of Anzick-1 with European sources (see the "Solutrean hypothesis"). The DNA of the Anzick-1 sample showed strong affinities with sampled Native American populations,.." is flawed because it doesn't actually rule out the 'Solutrean hypothesis' as it could be easily explained away by either: 1) the DNA could have been from a mixed-race individual (Native-Solutrean); or 2) the Clovis artifacts may have been booty that was taken after a battle in which the Soutreans were defeated. Its similar to claiming that because Christian relics were found buried in Sweden with a Viking skeleton that they we produced by the Vikings, but we know they were taken by the Vikings during raids of monasteries in Britain. If you can delete my reference because it doesn't say Solutrean, then I should be able to delete the 3rd paragraph because the reference can't disprove my 2 plausible explanations about the DNA. Please reinstate my edit. Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your initial post you wrote: "The article is embarrassing in any case .." but I'm not so sure about that as there were many contributors to the article and they all have credible backgrounds (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/5/e1600375.article-info). Albertoarmstrong (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

A RfC on an article in which you've been involved in has been opened here. This notice has been provided to the five most recent participants on the article Talk page as an WP:APPNOTE. LavaBaron (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]