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 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.

Genetic history of Europe protection

Hi Dougweller,

I don't see the need for protecting the article. I don't think today's reversions were serious enough to warrant protection, there is an ip at User talk:67.128.30.103, which is possibly a proxy, who has made a few edits in what appears to be the first time. It is not clear whether the Ip will persist since he or she has not registered and has only recently edited the article. There has been no opportunity for discussion either. I think it would have been appropriate to wait a little, if edit warring got out of hand, then protection would be most useful. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Stalking

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are aware that you are stalking me around Wikipedia, I would appreciate it if you would stop NOW!, it is against Wikipedia policy, even for Admins. Thank you Green Squares (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You can complain at ANI if you like, but I've replied on your talk page and explained that as WP:HOUND says, "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I'm clearly not trying to disrupt the project and although you don't believe it, I'm not trying to disrupt your enjoyment of editing. I notice a couple of warnings besides mine on your talk page about personal attacks, have you read WP:AGF? I'm quite happy to discuss any interventions I make that affect you, but please don't accuse me or anyone else of hounding you unless you feel absolutely sure thair actions meet the definition above. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are a good guy, may be a bit OCD, but you work hard. I agree, I should have discussed in on the Canis pugnax talk page, I didn't realize this obscure article was attracting so much attention. But then again, you are hounding me as you say. Take care. Green Squares (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I'm hounding you, I pointed out that I am clearly not hounding you and the OCD bit is OTT. You knew the article had attention, there was an active discussion involving redirecting the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, Doug, you don't have to suffer, they have treatment for that now. :-P j/k. Batvette (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but due to my popularity I now have a waiting list for groupies. Please submit an application with your experience and qualifications and I'll add you to the list. Dougweller (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Witty comeback. :-) Batvette (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User: Four Freedoms blocking status

He posted this under User: Ice beer on the blcing page: "And no, I'm not the user who has been blocked; I'm the user who endorsed the block forced upon him by the people who are at this point in time banned from 9/11 articles themselves. I've never committed any crime but apparent 'though crime' and I've never broke any rules. And that is a rock solid fact. I felt the need to state it as it is, for those long-lasting editors and administrators to hear, and feel. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)"Martinlc (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked at 02:30, 11 June 2009 indefinitely. He is claiming not to be User:Tachyonbursts but CU confirmed that he almost certainly is, and he admits to being a sock here [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

No original

Hello, my edits in Feminism and Adam and Eve are not original research. Campbell himself is cited on the article a the subtitle feminism and neopaganism (I deleted the link to the WP article). The author explanis history when he says Adam came from the red clay and the etimology of Adam´s name is that: red earth or red blood. This is the link where Campbell is already cited concerning the very same issue, the Goddess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess#Feminism_and_Neopaganism. Jackiestud (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, I´d like you to read again Rhea´s article. She is named as a Goddess. As for Campbell, it´s a mere citation. It´s already posted in feminism and neopaganism. Campbell explains that Adam was created out of a red clay ((so is th eetimology of his name (where is the original research??!!) --it´s the etimology OF HIS NAME (no original). His book The powe of myth has presents this chaptre on Goddess roots whihc is traced as back as the Neolithic. It´s all written there. Jackiestud (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please respond on your talk page. I raised other issues as well, and if you mean 'passed', there's no such thing. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted, not passed. Sorry for the bad typing. Jackiestud (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I´ve posted in Women and teh Bible is because Campbell explains Adam´s etimology and God´s pre-historic roots --that is, the Moher Goddess and the intense cult of ochre linked to menstrual blood. Adam´s etimology, according to Campbell, explains that dam means blood or red earth. This is Bible and Campbell´s goal is to show that before the hebrews tehre was a huge culture/religion/art based on the Goddess and the red ochre. Jackiestud (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not all. It´s just a way for you to check Rhea´s etimology, which can be found in many other sites, and see for yourself that there is no original research. She is just an illustration of a mother goddess that linked earth, birth, fertility, flow and worship. Jackiestud (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

this is another author on the issue of a Mother Goddess and the hebrew monotheism. Jackiestud (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hebrew_Goddess Jackiestud (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, now get his book out of the library and read it. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. Jackiestud (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. Learn how to cite at WP:CITE and use it. Meanwhile, 'See also' sections should refer to articles that when the reader reads them will help them learn more about the original article. Someone reading Goddess will not learn more about Dolmen, and a website mentioning dolmen and witches, fairies, goddesses, etc. isn't a good reason to add it. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I´ll try to develop some content on dolmens and Goddess; but if dolmens are irrelvant to Goddess than churches are irrelevant to Christ... Jackiestud (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't use Dashu, you need published sources. Find some genuine archaeologists from the last at least half-century, preferably a lot more recent. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

External links - please stop adding this

Please read WP:EL. If you were Hawkins, it might (or might not) be ok to add it. But the fact that you have published something in a Renaissance Faire magazine doesn't mean the link is acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Response:

First of all, the Renaissance magazine covers a wide range of topics, including the history, archeology and the sciences of the Renaissance... not only contemporary fairs and shows. Much like Car and Driver might have an article on engine mods, but also, cover a car show. One does not detract from the other. I will copy below my entire post to Rjanag on the subject, below. But as for your particular objection, i.e., it being a link to a personal website, then most of the other links would have to go as well. This of course would be wrong, but I point them out for you below:

• Elements and substructures in the Voynich manuscript
• Dr Vladimir Sazonov's Voynich manuscript analysis site
• Jorge Stolfi's Voynich Manuscript stuff
• Voynich Central resources, gallery and personal research websites
• Connections between the Voynich Manuscript and the Necronomicon
• List of owners of the Voynich Manuscript

The above are all valid sites, all personal sites, and all stating personal opinions and selective choices for inclusion and exclusion of theories, facts, links, and references. That is the state of Voynich research, and has been for some time. To somehow single out my link from the others on the basis of it being a personal website would be hypocritical, unless you removed all the above.

I think this is a case of the editors of a page not having a clear understanding of the subject, the history of the evolution of decipherment attempts, the distinction between what is known and what is hypothetical. But so that I don't have to make my other points again, here is my post to Rjanag:

Rjanag: I've returned my link to the article on the Voynich Manuscript (with slight shortening of description):

• Voynich New Atlantis Theory The Voynich manuscript and The New Atlantis.

For one thing, my optical theory (proposing that the some of the Voynich cylinders are optical devices, such as microscopes) is not "self-published". My theory first appeared in Renaissance Magazine (Issue #53, March 2007). The website is an addendum to that, including further research and implications on the subject.

In addition, my theory appears in two other published books, the Claudio Foti book, "Codice Voynich", and "Fiona: Mysteries & Curiousities of Literary Fraud & Folly", Volume I, edited by W.J. Elvin (ISBN 978-1440461552). By contrast, many of the links which are left (and which I think should be left, I am not arguing against their being there) are references to self-published books, and stand-alone websites. One of the major books on the subject, a very valuable resource, with a very controversial theory, is completely self-published at the author's expense. This is common in this particular field, I only point it out, again, because mine is one of the few theories in the last few years which is not self-published.

As for "pseudo-science", well by that standard, "we" all are. Experts in the fields of botany, astronomy, history, and on and on, all disagree with one another. They cite countless arguments, each backed up by "solid science", which absolutely shoot down the other theories. They cannot all be correct, they cannot all be correct science. The trouble is, we do not know which "science" to trust, or which known sciences or histories do apply to the Voynich problem. I do not, they do not. But the basis of my theory are sound, whether or not it turns out they apply in this case. The history of optics in the early 17th century, for one thing. The fascination with ancient mysterious cipher works, hermetic works, the Utopian societies, are all well established in the time frame I propose, by the people I propose influenced it. And there are precedents and co-incidents to my theory, in the time I propose. My theory is completely based on known sciences and histories, nothing had to be imagined or invented, except, as for everyone else's theory, the Voynich's possible place in it.

Don't be fooled by the momentum of the status-quo of Voynich research. It has been wrong twice longer than I have been alive... the answer has been sought in this traditional research, and the purveyors of these traditional views have not come one inch closer to any hope of an answer. The field needs other input, mine and others, to open new areas of possibilities. Yes, as long as they are based on what is known... and what is scientific and reasonable. Remember, all we know is that it is on vellum, and appeared to history about 1622. Everything else, and everyone else, is in the same boat as I am.

Anyway, I've looked carefully over the WP:EL rules since Dreamguy removed my link a few weeks ago, and I feel that I meet all the criteria. If you have a specific point on that list, we can argue it in the appropriate forum... I'm sorry I do not know all the procedures, this whole area of wikipedia is somewhat unfamiliar to me... but we can both make our case before the appropriate authorities, if you still disagree. If not, please leave the link there. I not only feel it strictly follows the rules, it actually follows them better than most of the links remaining (which nonetheless, should remain). Thanks for your time, Rich SantaColoma. 173.2.4.192 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are mentioned in two self-published books. Your website is your personal website and given how few the GHits are it is hard not to think that you are hoping to give it publicity by adding it here. Please stop. All you've done is made me dubious is about including anything that mentions you in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14

00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doug: It may be that the two books are self-published, but the point is that the criteria my link reaches is greater than others. And I would argue that those others should remain. I am absolutely convinced that if you knew what I know about this field, you would realize that most of what is taken as the "truth of the matter" is really just speculation, as my work is. No one knows one tenth of what they state as truth, and what gets promoted as truth, and what gets believed as factual... by you, and many others. I understand your concerns and prejudices... I really do. You do not have much to base your choices on... you must look for other's pre-judgement of related ideas before judging them, yourself... and use the litmus tests of "self-published", private or public websites, and so on. I would urge you, instead, to read the Renaissance article, and my webpage, and my blog... learn what it is exactly I am proposing, before judging the thoeries value to the Voynich community. By leaving out alternate positions on the subject... mine, or the Lovecraft guy, or any of the views dissenting from the "accepted" mainstream, you will only be left with the mainstream. And in case you have not notice by now... they do not know a thing about the Voynich. No more than I or you. So how can repeating these theories, unproven and speculative, just as mine, move forward the research one iota? Sticking with the status quo, as you and others are doing here, will inarguably carry with it the status quo's absolute inability to figure this mystery out. Don't help it... help find an answer, as I am trying to do... It is not "publicity" I am after here, as you suggest. It is a desire to offer a promising new area for a very frozen mystery. I will email the article to you, let me know what you think. 173.2.4.192 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, if you think you are a WP:RS for the article, raise it as WP:RSN. You say you've read WP:EL, it clearly says " you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines." If you are suggesting there is junk in the article, I'm not going to argue with you. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to offer the world a promising new theory, 173.2.4.192, try to get it published in a real journal. Wikipedia is not a place to publish new theories. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

pictures

you are pissing me off. 1. i have asked permission to the copyright holder. that is clickdharan.com u can go check forum if not contact him at clickdharan@yahoo.com 2. gurkha map is not copyright. - bigen182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigen182 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's copyvio, once again. You must stop this. If you think you're annoyed, how annoyed do you think the people are who have to deal with your copyright violations? If they want to donate the copyright, which is what they'd have to do, delete it until they make an agreement through the right channels. As for the Gurkha map, how do I know it's not copyright? And it's watermarked, which is against guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Message

Hi, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DNA Spread Theory

you posted a delete commentary

The phrase "DNA Spread Theory" exists so far as I can see only in this article and in the autobiographical article of its author W. Lawrence Lipton. Fails our notability criteria and is original research WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a response to the objections on the Delete discussion page. However, I wanted to point out that the article is a work-in-progress which includes reference to a relevant PNAS article which was only published 6 months ago. Also, the article mentions the term is newly coined and so hasn't hand the chance to be used, or appear on a Google search -- especially since independent searches of the connection between language/astro-archaeology/mythology & DNA will doubtless fail to return a viable connection. DNA might appear in a result linked to any of the other terms, but they will doubtless NOT be contextually linked as referring to common find. For now, the DNA Spread Theory article is the only place inviting (or making) the direct correlation between Human DNA and the transfer of a cultural artifact such as technology, language, or mythology -- the connection is even missing within existing Wikipedia articles. It might be a shame to lose the opportunity to make a connection now which will eventually be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreknangst (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia presenting what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject. Please read (you've been asked before) WP:RS, WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:OR. Without other sources meeting our criteria mentioning the subject the article does not belong in an encyclopedia - do you really think the Britannica or the World Book would print it? As for 'work in progress', that really means nothing in terms of how Wikipedia works, it's a courtesy phrase and could apply to almost every article here. It isn't a reason to leave it alone. And please note, we expect our sources to generally actually mention the subject. For obvious reasons they don't, because the only person that has done research into a subject by this name is you. Before you started to write this article, which of our guidelines and policies did you read? Did you look at our Manual of Style (at WP:MOS. Do you know what we expect from a lead? See WP:LEAD. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:

• Limited geography model
• Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
• Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Request: Please review Km_(hieroglyph) and Discussion: problems with the article noted

Could you and other Wikipedia administrators review this article again, and in particular my comments for the removal of the specific section concerning glyph X5, which has been added since I revised the article last evening? Many thanks. (Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Wow!

Thanks Doug. I've replied and reverted but it's late here so I'll probably have to contend with more of this tomorrow! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC) (formerly psychostevouk)

The hilarity continues at Talk:Amesbury Archer. I appreciate you probably can't do anything as you're involved so to speak, but could you possibly point me in the right direction to flag this with someone who can look into it? Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the BBC cite for comprehension before you worry about flagging anything66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the place if this guy continues, considering the look of his talk page. If I had come across his talk page and hadn't been editing this article, I'd have blocked him. Someone else will if he continues. Fortunately he is not typical of Americans, we aren't all that bad! Dougweller (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Doug. BTW, I don't suppose you got to see the recent Time Team program about the Riverside Project in the States did you? If not, there's a weblink [here], but I don't know if it'll work in the US (it doesn't seem to work for me anyway....). Apparently there should be a NOVA equivalent soon. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

mirror

Hello, where are the mirror soucres on ochre? Is this a better one for you: http://books.google.com.br/books?id=DRSLTS2Qbo8C&pg=PA13&vq=pbuh&dq=adam+was+created+out+of+a+red+clay&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0 Jackiestud (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It´s an encycloedia, and a better source than any other....Jackiestud (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the Encyclopedia???? You don´t accept thsi source as well? Jackiestud (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tripatlas and AbsoluteAstronomy are mirror sites, see at the bottom where they mention Wikipedia. The name Adam is related to the Hebrew word from Adam, it doesn't come from it - the source for that claim is Josephus. Adam doesn't mean 'red clay', although if you look for sources that claim that you will find them, as you have. Our article does a pretty passable job on it and makes it clear it is only related to the word for red - see the talk page also. In any case, no matter what, the Biblical character Adam has no place in the article on Ochre. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ochre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Jackiestud (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't make 3 reverts within 24 hours then, eh? Not a good idea not to check before you post such warnings. I warned you because you actually had made 3 reverts within 24 hours. Now 4 I see. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

yeha, you mad some 5 or six, might be some 6RR....Jackiestud (talk) 18

27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read WP:3RR before making such accusations. Consecutive edits count as one edit. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud AN3

I merged your AN3 report into mine (see [2]; looks like I got it in one minute before you did). I've also been closely observing, as well, as she has been edit-warring before. MuZemike 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe she is used to editing on a Wikipdia that doesn't care about sources, etc.? Glad to see you've been watching. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of Europe

I am not saying you should unblock the article yet or not, but hopefully you are not going to forget that you blocked it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for a week, until around 9:30pm the 17th. It will automatically become unprotected then - if there is consensus on the talk page to unprotect I'll do it tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I tried to place the teplate help on my talk page, but you can definitely better help me here, I just wanna know why sometimes I place a file (image) from another language in English encyclopedia then, the file appears to not exist ? what to do to apply a file in both commons of all languages ? thanks It Was Once In A Lifetime (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not something I know about, but I've asked your question here: [3] which is the best place for such questions. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Systemizer

Thanks for the update. I've blocked Systemizer for 48 hours. Best, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not optimistic about his future given his record so far. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for your advice

Given your expertise on archaeological issues, do you suppose you could possibly have a look at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Cyrus cylinder and let me know what you think? I'd be very grateful for any advice you can offer. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)