User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 20


Bushcutter asks . . .

I observe that you commented on User talk:Akradecki on my humble case of being banned for a year and a half. Am I wrong to state my case in this way (as an IP)? There's no other way to state it since I've been totally banned, so I hope that I'm not being contentious. Remember that I was originally banned 1-1/2 years ago for suggesting that an admin was "demented", something that appears to happen from time to time, usually resulting in a 24-hour banishment. If you have any suggestions for pleading my case in another way, I'd be pleased to hear Bushcutter —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

References a Mess in Prehistoric Britain Wikipedia Article

Doug, I see you have looked in on "Prehistoric Britain" lately. I would like to take on the task of strengthening and standardized the cited references. However, as an American, I am not sure about some things, would like your advice: 1. Do you agree that "notes" and "references/bib" should be separated, with all citations in "notes" also fully laid out in the references/bib? 2. Which is preferred, "Bibliography" or "References" 3. What formatting style should be followed in the "references/bib"? Middle Fork (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with being an American (although as an American living in Britain I get very confused as to the differences). The important thing is that it follows WP:Layout and is consistent. The best place to discuss it would be on the article's talk page to make sure all interested editors agree. Dougweller (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

John Michell 1934-2009 Stonehenge Alternative Theories

Dear Doug Do you have any way of retrieving the deleted entry that I submitted today concerning the late John Michell's contribution to the field of understanding megalithic structures? I ask this because I wrote it not keeping a copy elsewhere and am hoping to use the text elsewhere since it has apparently been decided by this "democratic" body of knowledge that this information is not wanted here. I would also, in the spirit of open inquiry (a quality that John Michell exemplified in both his life and his work) ask that you take some time out of your undoubtedly busy schedule to elucidate to this puzzled contributor your exact reasons for determining that my post committed the unquestionable sin of "original research"? Although I would be humbled should you presume that I can do the feats of mathematical wizardry of which John Michell was effortlessly capable, I must protest that it is not so. I am merely a reporter. The truth is, I was shocked to see that his well-documented, widely published and eminently readable work, which has won millions of admirers the world over, was not mentioned on a page that saw fit to name check Erich Von Daniken and mention UFO theories. Surely the discovery of precise measurements, corresponding to astronomical observations and having parallels in sacred texts is no more fringe than the ideas you have chosen to include under the heading "alternative views". Being thus shocked at this surely accidental omission, I decided to rectify it by adding the brief explanation of his concepts and list of relevant books. What references exactly do you need? These are not unpublished works - on the contrary: they have been through numerous editions. I hope that I do not come off as too combative. As you may or may not know, John died recently at the age of 76. He was a wonderful man and a personal friend for many years, who taught me a great deal and shall be sorely missed. Perhaps I am taking this personally. But regardless of my feelings, he should definitely not be regarded as a fringe scholar, and I think if you read his works you will agree that they are not wild theoretical ravings but disciplined investigations into mathematics, proportion, mysticism, and astronomy. They deserve a mention. More. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that we can come to an agreement about how I am to provide satisfactory substantiation for the inclusion of John Michell's work in this category of Wikipedia. Does it go to a Tribunal? Do I need to get a petition going or what? I shan't let it rest. Since his death, and the incorrect things that have already been printed about him, I am more than determined than ever to see that he gets his proper respects paid and that his brilliant research is not brushed aside. This whole thing is starting to remind me of what happened to Tesla, Reich, Leary. I await your thoughtful response and appreciate your forthcoming honesty. In any event, I would appreciate a copy of the text of my “original research” if you have the ability to retrieve. If not, that’s OK. I guess I can just make it up all over again. Best wishes, Diana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianarosa (talkcontribs) 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this to Talk:Theories about Stonehenge - and please, don't put phone numbers and addresses on Wikipedia. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nice catches

On the salvation article. :) -Stevertigo 08:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will that be enough to save me? :-) Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Doug, Thank you for your kind words of welcome. The Wikipedia information available is a bit overwhelming in toto, but I have now looked at quite a few sections at any rate.

I notice my entry has now been deleted. Could you let me know why that has occurred? I was particularly concerned that this might merely be by someone who was opposed to the entry appearing due to that person’s membership of a certain group. Which I don’t feel is reasonable, in that case.

Personally, I myself would never presume to censor any other ideas in this area, whatever I thought of them. For example I think that the paragraph preceding mine contains some gross historical distortions and is, in an important sense, misleading; yet I did not presume to touch it in any way, except to alter the spelling of Aksum to Axum to conform to the main entry on that city (I don’t regard either spelling as more valid, & would not object to all being changed to Aksum, I just thought that stylistically speaking it is better to have a uniform spelling, at least in the one entry).

My essential point is that this is an area where in a sense all information is speculative, and all hypotheses potentially significant or nonsense, due to the paucity of verification possible. I’m not sure why my entry should be singled out for deletion? Would be glad if you can confirm whether this was a genuine editorial policy decision, which is your perfect right of course, or on the contrary an anonymous act by some opposed individual?

Thanks, Rasselas379 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch with the spelling, you are right. Did you read WP:SPS? It's part of our core content policy, at the heart of the encyclopedia. "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (from WP:Reliable which you should also read). Which is one reason why I deleted the edits in question. To go a bit further, I probably would have deleted it if it had been professionally published and well-known, as it is, after all, a novel, and thus not a reliable source (please note this is Wikipedia jargon and you need to understand its meaning here, not in general). If you think there are problems with the preceding paragraph, why not note them on the talk page?
Two other points -- never put an initial space when you start typing, and use section headings, on talk page there should be a tab at the top for a new section which adds a section heading automatically. Let me know if you still have questions. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Axum - More

Thanks Doug. I won’t get into a big fight with the author of the preceding entry as it would involve a very lengthy discussion with many pages of submissions from a whole variety of sources, such as the Budge translation of the Kebra Negast, the Liber Auxumea obtained by James Bruce, and various documents and sources going back to the twelfth century and before. Obviously this is not the forum to do that.

Can I ask you then, rather than fight with the previous author of that section & seeing that his/her entry is to remain, is it acceptable as a strictly factual reference for me to prepare an original entry under ‘Lion and the Covenant’ to mention that book in relation to the specific claims it makes in this area, obviously in a neutral tone?

Thanks for your time. ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasselas379 (talkcontribs) 05:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many people edited that paragraph, but it doesn't belong to anyone. You'd use a Budge translation? But again, there's no way we could use a novel that way, let alone a self-published one. It would be highly unusual to have an article for a self-published book unless it was by a well known author and even then there might be problems. See WP:BK for the criteria for articles about books (caveat, you might find some articles that don't meet those criteria but they probably are good candidates for deletion). Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Bloomex indicates that they do not accept complaints from BBB. See BBB Link. It is clearly said"Also, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the BBB due to its decision to not accept or respond to complaints from the BBB"

Bloomex did not answered any complainst from BBB for the last 18 months —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerman11 (talkcontribs) 12:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Actually there are a list of reasons for the unsatisfactory rating:

Reasons for this rating include: Number of complaints filed against business. Failure to respond to complaints filed against business. Number of complaints filed against business that were not resolved. Overall complaint history with BBB. Length of time business has taken to resolve complaint(s). Business has failed to resolve underlying cause(s) of a pattern of complaints


Indianwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indeed a problem; there is quite a consistent pattern, that I believe amounts to a form of vandalism: persistent introduction of unsourced facts or unrealiable sources (namely in a huge number of "battle" articles), addition of reduntant words (like "men" after a number of troops, or "killed" after a number of casualties, or "Christian" after the identity of a non Muslim beligerant, and, I seem to recall, usage of "Arabs" instead of "men" when refering to Islamic tropps, etc.), non-usage of edit summaries, refusal to communicate, almost immediate removal of talk page warnings (trying to appear with a "clean slate"?), most probably using IPs to avoid 3RR, etc. But I'm at a lost as to what to do - the notice board discussion led nowhere, this doesn't seem a case for AIAV, only you and I seem to think this is a problem... What should one do? The Ogre (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of asking you. First, only warn when on firm ground, so that does'nt come back and bite. If you have diffs for the business about 'Christian' and 'Arabs', that might be useful. Did you see what he did with Servian Walls and Servian Wall? I was about to ask at EAR what was going on that gave us duplicate articles until I discovered he'd turned the redirect into a copy of the other. Anyway, if you have diffs, let me know. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to note some of his edits are constructive. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed.The Ogre (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Some diffs:

  • For the "Christian" thing:
  • For the "Arabs" thing (as opposed to "men"?):

Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

He is on a rampage... His last edits are also the "Christian" redundancy. The Ogre (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Doug, I've noticed that you've added a few posts to the COIN, could I ask if you do in future that you use the correct templates for users:{{userlinks|username}} and article: {{article|article name}}. Cheers Smartse (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I missed that, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


User:Raffaeleserafini is back with his radical Venetian/anti-Italian POV campaign... [1], [2], [3],... I reverted him, warned him and am trying to stop his sock User:Bibiki from adding his original research and factually wrong inventions to the article Carabinieri... any help in keeping this vandal at bay would be very much appreciated. thanks, --noclador (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, and User:Raffaeleserafini has been warned 3 times today to stop his attempts to erase Italy/Italian from artists pages, but after the warnings he continued his nutty behaviour: [4], [5], [6]. --noclador (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is harder to argue that infoboxes with "Nationality" fields should not say "Venetian" etc, which is why I reverted him on Tintoretto etc, but not there. There is a certain balance to be maintained. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at that, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - "there" meant Giorgione, to be clear. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Final warning given. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Doug. First off I have nothing to do with User:Raffaeleserafini. Second, my edits are non-POV and factual. Please take a look at the article Carabinieri as well as my talk page and you will see that both my minor edits have direct references to the official Carabinieri site and are also supported by the general information that is already in the article. They are not inventions at all. Please note that noclador, given that he is or was a member of the Italian armed forces, may not necessarily have a neutral point of view regarding such articles. I will be asking third parties to mediate and will continue to seek ways to have my edits accepted. For the time being I think both Noclador and I would appreciate it if you took a closer look at the latest version of my edits that he has reverted and gave us a first neutral un-biased opinion. Many thanks.Bibiki (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no evidence you two are the same. I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV, have you read it? It applies to articles and the way editors should edit, but not to editors themselves as everyone has a pov. And the two edits combined do seem to be making a point. As for using the official site, you can quote the official site but you can't interpret what it says, which is what you have been doing. I'll take a look at any recent changes. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. I still don't get why the first edit (regarding their resistance record before 1943) is POV, when it is obviously (based on references and rest of accepted page content) completely true, i.e. a fact. I do understand that my second edit (regarding their insignia) needs a better reference and I'm asking: if I was to provide a reference to a page that shows how pre-1943 and post-1943 insignia are the same, would you accept the edit? Bibiki (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to see it first. There are occasions when something blindingly obvious isn't considered original research. There are other issues involved, but one step at a time. I suggest this goes on the article talk page now though so other editors who might not know about this can see it and it is recorded there for the future. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will be starting a discussion on these issues on the Carabinieri's talk page. I have been collecting some further evidence about how the sight of Carabinieri in a uniform and appearance basically unchanged since WWII is offensive to people from certain countries that were occupied by Italians (and Carabinieri) during WWII. Let us know when you have taken a look at my latest edits that were reverted. Cheers.Bibiki (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added two sections at the end of the Carabinieri talk page in order to stimulate discussion and hopefully bring about editor concensus. Hope you visit us at Bibiki (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


All radio stations that have or have had an active license with the FCC are considered notable. This is a standard notablity that is given to all radio stations (AM, FM, and LP) and all television stations (TV, DT, CA, and LP). I would recommend you withdrawn these AfDs are unnecessary. - NeutralHomerTalk • 18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's cut and dried like that, why isn't it in the guidelines? Isn't that what they are for? And why does the essay people point me to suggest that a licence isn't enough, that radio stations "are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios."? Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what essay you are refering to, but I am refering to the continued precedent that numerous other AfDs have given to this notablity. License = Notablity. - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My Apologies I sincerly appologize for the misunderstanding and for my harsh words. Forgive me.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for being honorable with this. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I didn't just apologize to save face in anyway, I really mean it. Can you explain what you meant by "stike through" a comment? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think anything else. Put (HTML ...) around the comments you are striking through. One of those radio stations by the way (WLRY?) has a broken link to - what do you think that is? Mark what's his name seems pretty radical also (radical as in extreme). Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply Not sure. However I do know that the views and opinions expressed on the programs of WLRY are not neccesarily the views and opinions of The Full Armor of God Broadcast or The Full Armor of God Ministry. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

fyi koshvorlon

click here:

then check out the blatant hatred that he admits will probably get removed:

wow! so is this why he loves barbara so much?

XKV8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? Anyway, I've started a discussion on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Doug, the note on ANI is innapropriate. You should know that. You could have dropped a note on my page and asked about it.

Your answer is simple. First, you're correct. I AM using Lupin's tools. When I reverted the Dead Sea Scrolls, the edit I reverted had a link to a blogsite, which is not allowed. Regarding QuackGuru, yes, I and another use have been cleaning up his edits where he's describing Jim Wales as the "Co-founder" of wikipedia. The particular edit of Quack Guru you made mention of had a sultan with a rather odd nickname of "The Lame". (That's how it came up in Lupin's Tools). Let's not create more drama, I'm cleaning up vandalism, that's all. I have no agenda in the Dead Sea Scrolls page at all. In fact, the edit you refered to was the only edit I've had in there. In the future, if you have a problem with any of my edits, talk to me first before jumping to the ANI board. (I don't bite, you know ).
...By the way, I'll be the first to admitt I've made a few mistakes with these tools as I tend to speed read. In fact, look at my contributions and you'll see where I accidentally reverted someone's post on a talk page and it right back with an edit summary showing that it was a mistake.
Again, please talk to me first, and AGF.
Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
ps: who the heck's Barbara ?

The edit of mine you reverted without an edit summary - making it look as though you considered it vandalism, was about a link to Barbara Thiering's website. Why did I go to ANI? Because you didn't seem to accept that you were doing anything wrong, and the ANI discussion bears me out. You still don't seem to have said on ANI what you are going to do to stop this. I didn't want this to be a one on one discussion, as it would have been if I'd stayed on your talkpage. You are obviously a good vandal fighter but you aren't taking enough care, and I felt that other opinions were needed. I speed read also and know how easy it is to make mistakes, so I try to spend more time if there is any doubt at all. You mention QuackGuru's edits -- I would have put in an edit summary so that others understood what I was doing. The other thing I do, and I'm not sure you are doing it, is check the recent history to make sure I'm not restoring or going back to other vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I also check the vandal's edit summary to see if there is other vandalism still not removed or if they are on a spree. If there is quite a bit and no shared IP template I check to see if there should be one. A surprising number of schools are not identified as such. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
....and pray tell how did you assess that I was doing nothing wrong prior to actually talking to me ? Talking to me is the first step in dispute resolution, per WP:DR. Listen, I'm not looking to create more drama. Heck, if anything I need to be as drama free as possible if for no other reason than to clean up my reputation here (My reputation here is shit, and I take responsibility for that). That's primarily why I focus on reverting vandalism (I do use Lupin's tools). I can keep my trap shut and do something useful over here! Just a note about the edit summaries. In Lupin's tools, when vandalism is reverted, you have about 2 second where you could enter something. That's not enough time to enter anything in. Besides, I stick to obvious vandalism.

Yes, I make a mistake or two, and when I see it, I correct it ASAP. Sometimes, I don't catch my mistakes. That's all this was, a mistake. Please, talk to me first before going to ANI, it's proper dispute resolution.
Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion I saw between you and Acalamari ‎ suggested that you would not be responsive. DR is not the place to discuss rollback rights, and it certainly looked to me and others as though you had rollback. And finally, the ANI discussion [7] did not, to my mind, have a satisfactory conclusion. I don't see anything here or there to suggest you will be doing anything that will make it less likely for you to make these mistakes. Maybe you should change from Lupin's tools. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Doug, I'm dissapointed, DR is mandatory: PER DR [p]
This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus. Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first. 

[p] It's not a decision call whether to follow it or not. That and I actually don't have rollback. I use Lupin's tools. The "discussion " was FPAS trying to take my head off for a simple edit in good faith, him accusing me of trolling. Yeah, I don't blame you for not being satisfied with that discussion. Bottom line here is you didn't follow proper DR. It's mandatory, not a judgement call. Next time, do us both a favor and follow proper DR. This incident should never have gotten to the incident board.
Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 12:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, besides FPAS at least 4 other editors were not happy with your actions. The suggestion it was just FPAS is wrong. And you are the only one that seems to think I should have gone to DR instead. I've made several constructive suggestions that would improve, I think, your vandal fighting. I believe my suggestion that you might change from using Lupin's tools shows that I now know you are not using rollback. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

pov editing of Indus script entry

dab (Dbachmann) has continued his pov editing in the Indus script entry. For an example, please see my post at:

I am a new user but have been using wikipedia for years. The kind of biased pov editing by Dbachmann has no place in wikipedia. Avrosenfeld (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Avrosenfeld (talk · contribs) is obviously a throwaway sock. I have no idea why people even bother with such stunts. --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Futile, but they won't give up. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Edit

Oh come on Encyclopedia edits are so boring as long as its a true unbiased fact being stated from a neutral POV, who cares? I'm just putting some sugar on the whole wheat muffin. :D I found a more reliable source: The Islamic Conquests -- 635 AD Read the second paragraph.

Please reply and tell me if this is good enough. :) TY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetoril (talkcontribs) 18:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's just a church's site. Have you read WP:RDS? We really need academic sources - books or articles -- for this. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you watching...

Are you watching User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person? I'm wondering if an MfD is in order, or do we just wait for him to move it to mainspace and then take it to AfD? He clearly does not get the idea of WP:OR. LadyofShalott 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to ask him what he plans to do with it? Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


fresh attempts by User:Bibiki to further his POV-agenda at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases and Wikipedia:Third opinion... --noclador (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, so far he seems to be behaving properly though. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ransom Everglades

Believe it or not, Alex Fumero - Actor and writer, proud star of the toners and proponent of reggeton is a real person. I checked it out. See: GroveGuy (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done. I keep meaning to ring you. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll undo your revert. GroveGuy (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


The current article exposition- literary technique has me baffled. It was first brought to my attention by my son after school. His teacher had advised the class that the wikipedia entry was a good example of why wikipedia should never be relied on as a reference. I Googled Exposition and as a text technique the description I used to replace the highly inaccurate and basically simply wrong info in the current article was a genuine attempt to provide useful start for an authoritve artice and enhance wikipedias reputation. If in your wisdom you decide to keep the current misinformation then I can only agree with educators that wikipedia entires should be treated as unreliable.

A point of view is argued in an exposition. Expositions can be in the form of an essay or a letter to the editor. An exposition begins with a thesis. There is a statement of position and a preview of the arguments. Each argument to support your point of view is outlined. The thesis is reinforced in the final paragraph, the reiteration.

and here ...

theres many more but i find none supporting the wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer is to improve the article. What you did was remove all the text and that is not acceptable. Not only that, but your sources are simply not good enough and have too limited an explanation- a school's website and some sort of assignment. This requires academic references. Look at Modes of discourse: the local structure of texts by Carlota S. Smith who writes on p. 40 "Bain and Genung distinguished four forms of discourse: Argumentation, Exposition, Description, Narration." [8] or similar sources - do a Google books search on these words: exposition mode of discourse. Use academic references to improve the article if you want to improve it. If you do this seriously I hope you will reconsider your statement above. I'm sorry that your son's teacher has a limited view of exposition as a literary technique. Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that your response is unreasonable. Its quite clear, if YOU take the time to do research, that the information in the wikipedia article is at a minimum misleading. Its not about my sons teacher or someones assignment, its the fact that the article is verifiable nonsense. Its not up to me to do your work as an administrator and should you desire to bring wikipedia into disrepute thats your choice. I again suggest you Google Exposition and notice that wikipedia is almost alone in its representation of the subject. You can of course have the last word. I was attempting to help prevent misinformation but if you believe the article thats fine but informed educators will be saying otherwise. I'm happy to leave it for now knowing that eventually corrections will be applied by someone who cares more than i do, enough to make the effort to educate you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. What you were doing in blanking the article (and adding text to a page that is only supposd to be an index of articles) is just not acceptable. It is as much your responsibility as mine to try to improve the article. I've suggested you improve it, it clearly needs improvement which is why it is tagged for improvement. The first sentence in the lead, "Exposition is one of four rhetorical modes of discourse, along with argumentation, description, and narration." is clearly correct, you can find similar statements in almost any book that mentions exposition. Are you disagreeing with it? The rest needs improvement, discussion of the epistemological underpinnings of the distinctions in the lead, citations for everything that is claimed, etc. My work as an Administrator has nothing to do with improving the article, as I've said, you are as responsible for the article as I am, more so I'd say as you are particularly concerned with it while it is only one of probably thousands on my Watch list. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Exposition as used in terms of writing up a science project (as in the first cited source above) has nothing to do with exposition as a literary technique. Exposition is the 'exposure' of information and most certainly need not have a point of view. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate to disagree with someone's teacher, but their definition was too limited. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Timewave zero

I need to know, are we abandoning the merge now? This is getting very confusing. Serendipodous 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have to wait for the AfD to end. I've suggested a merge there. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

Hi, what are your intentions regarding what you have been developing at User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person? LadyofShalott 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I plan to submit it for consideration as an article again. I am proofing the references and making a few improvements but it is close to it's final form. --Drnhawkins (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got to love syllogisms like "If Joseph was Imhotep, then the Bible is vindicated by Egyptian history." --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Berber World" edit war

Okay. Could you please say the same thing to the one responsible for wiping out the article and redirecting it to a whole different article ?

--Amazigh Man (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BC - AD vs BCE - CE

I'm going to assume that you're referring to my explanation inside of User talk:Knobbishly. The guideline of WP:ERA seems to have failed miserably and shamefully in the article Jesus. Flamarande (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

re Phoenica

Apologies, but this is a redirect, not exactly sure what this is about? Cirt (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse you

you called me anti semitic becuase of my first two posting on wikipedia well for your infomation my grandmother is jewish and i love her very much so there for i am not anti semitic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsm7861 (talkcontribs) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "Hebrew people have alot of pubic hair and they eat alot of kosher they even put kosher on their droppings so their droppins can be blessed and go to israel" and "in the holocaust jews said shalom to be put in ovens " are meant to be complimentary? I note you carried in the same vein and another Administrator blocked you. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, does this edit [9] make you an equal-opportunity bigot? Seriously, don't bother emailing me again, don't do this again or you are likely to be indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

yah but i dont hate jewish people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsm7861 (talkcontribs) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

St. Helena article

Hello again Doug, we previously communicated in October of last year regarding the David Hatcher Childress article, where you did yeoman service in my opinion pertaining to helping an editor grasp the concept of "original research" versus the quoting and paraphrasing approach supported by reliable references required by our policies. I've run into a somewhat similar situation on the St. Helena article and I wonder if you could perhaps take a look at the article's talk page and offer a brief opinion. I will try to be as concise as I can. This disagreement stems from an editor removing a set of statistics from the article related to the current ethnic composition of the island of St. Helena. The statistics are supported by a citation to the online version of the CIA sponsored World Factbook, a source, which to the best of my knowledge is regarded as at least minimally authoritative here in the encyclopedia. The disputing editor, named "Shirebooks", has offered copious citations from apparently relevant historical sources which they believe validly refute the statistics on offer from the factbook source, the problem is, none of the information being offered explicitly and literally supports what Shirebooks is contending, the editor appears to be drawing inferences from a series of sources, which taken together they believe support their thesis. In my opinion, it's a clear case of 'synthesis', Shirebooks is insisting that what they're demonstrating is self evident. I've attempted to point out WP:OR and WP:VERIFY in several different ways, but they're having none of it. I feel bad that the editor has taken what appears to be a great deal of time garnering references in support of their thesis and that perhaps I've botched an attempt at explaining policy to them. If you have a chance could you perhaps offer comment. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Doug, hopefully I think it will work itself out. I'm currently involved in editing another article that I stumbled upon, The Farfarers: Before the Norse, where there was contention when I rejected the idea of the existence of mainstream archaeological evidence for the presence of "Albans" in medieval North America. thanks again Deconstructhis (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

i don't care

but FYI, WP:PRESERVE WP:policy is stronger than WP:MOS WP:guideline. (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You should still fix problems you cause. If I came across an old problem like that, I would have fixed it myself, but you restored the problem rather than fix it - apparently as part of an editwar with another editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
one revert is hardly an edit war. also, i didn't cause the problem but they did with deletion. anyhow, doesn't matter. (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. pseudo-skepticism indeed has no relevance to scientific skepticism ... whatever! (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe

I received your warning. Being an administrator, I understand that you would not be interested in the details of the dispute. But if you are, we would welcome contributions from independent editors. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone called out for Indiana Jones. I ain't him, but...

I can feel the struggle you must have had when faced with a conjectral article put together by someone and posted to Geocities. However, he "supposition" has a greater founding in historical texts. I did a bit of research to see if the article might be properly sourced and found a few things that may ease your mind somewhat... The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Rome and the friendly king, Queen Cleopatra, The Berbers, The lives of Cleopatra and Octavia, Cleopatras, Hellenistic queens, Roman Africa, The Reign of Cleopatra, Ancient coin collecting IV, Vassal-queens and some contemporary women in the Roman, Cleopatra VII, daughter of the Nile, Hellenistic queens, Two studies on women in antiquity, Cleopatra's daughter, the queen of Mauretania, Cleopatra: Ruling in the Shadow of Rome, Scota, Egyptian Queen of Scots, Birds in the ancient world from A to Z, Roman Historical Portraits, Cleopatra: a study in politics and propaganda, Cleopatra and Rome, The Cambridge ancient history, The Cambridge history of Africa, Historical Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, K2, quest of the gods, The divinity of the Roman emperor, and many more found at Google Books which make the geocities article pale by comparison... as they indeed state that Antony and Cleo had twin children and Cleo of Mauretania was one of them. This kinship is found, and the relationship of the rulers and their progeny, in the above sources in depth... and more. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What am I missing here? I think you've got the wrong Cleopatra - yours has her own article Cleopatra Selene II, the AfD is about an alleged daughter of hers (who is she ever existed either died young or was a complete non-entity). Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


In her blog is she is openly againts Bloomex and it is COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5alextheflorist (talkcontribs) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying she is editing our Bloomex article? Or that she works for a competitor? Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you removed my edition and reference to second reference from Toronto StarFloralexpert (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Could you explain to me why you deleted my page as SPAM? Our organization is a legitimate part of USAID which has an article on Wiki( as well as one of our fellow CRSPS ( I was asked by our contact at USAID to establish a wiki article for our organization after this article was published. They feel that the CRSPS should have a presence on Wiki for historical purposes as well as a reference for people looking for information about the USAID CRSP programs. Our intent is not to use this site for SPAM, we are a non-profit organization and would receive no benefit from trying to advertise our program. Any help you can offer in establishing a legitimate Wiki article for our organization would be appreciated.

Intsormil (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the two links explaining why I took the actions I did? I'm assuming you haven't read them yet, please do. As for the other articles, although I have no reason to think they won't meet our notability criteria, you need to read WP:ORG and not create an article without making sure you don't follow that guideline. You also need to read WP:COI as you have problems there. WP:FIRST gives a lot of guidance, but note that it says "Do not create pages about yourself, your company". Bottom line I think -- read all these links, then go to our Editor Assistance requests noticeboard at WP:EAR and ask what you should do. You also need to make it clear if your account is just for one individual. I'll copy this to your talk page. The other articles are pretty bad really - I'm not saying they should not exist, just that they are not encyclopedic - articles are expected mainly to report what other reliable sources say about the subject and they don't do that at all, for a start. You wouldn't expect to find such articles in an American encyclopedia, would you? Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

why you are keeping controversal quote from the blog and removing reference from Toronto Star?

please explain in logical way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floralexpert (talkcontribs) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Help

Hi, I read the link, why do you feel the book is not a reliable source? You can respond at the articles talk page, I think that would be best. Green Squares (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any members?

Could you please explain that question, your question found on AE911. Did you look into it? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Jones, Griffith?

Have you read Griffin's latest book or Jones' article 14 points of agreement? The article called 14 Points is short easy reading. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem editor

Doug, if you're around I've got problems with User:Babakexorramdin attacking my edits on Iranian history. He's insisting, against all the evidence, that Shah Abbas the Great should be put into the category "Iranian Georgians" (guess why?). There is no evidence this is the case (Abbas' mother was Iranian, his grandmother was Turcoman) but he's fished up some Georgian-language source from the 70s. See talk page of Shah Abbas I to see what I'm having to deal with. He's also got a bee in his bonnet about the Afghan invasion of Iran in the 18th century. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


It was tagged as a user request, so I deleted it- I know nothing about this editor jimfbleak (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Giwer

He's a notorious anti-Semite/kook on Usenet, and he knows he's going to be reverted if you look at a couple of the edits I've reverted, so just here to make some sort of point I presume. There's no way I can AGF with him I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I just happened to be passing! --Redaktor (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Doug, Long time no hassle.

I do agree I have not caught onto the style of Wikipedia. I have no problem with that. It does take time. Yes, I am certain there are a few which were clearly personal opinion. However, Herodotus does say what what he said and spelled it correctly, Palestine.

I have primarily edited articles which are little more than recitation of the bible stories and which also have a top note that the article contains no references.

My editing has mainly consisted of pointing out there is no source for the material other than the bible while reciting the obvious points such as no support from history or archaeology which is the main reason for the top note that the article contains no references. There simply are none.

Now people love to call me an antisemite which is a one smear fits all allegation. I do not believe Jesus was the son of god so I guess I am an antichristian too. Pencil in antimuslim for similar reasons. Whether I am pro or anti anything or anyone does not change reality. There is no evidence of an Old Testament prior to the Septuagint regardless of being anti or philo semitic.

Now to the point.

Any and all unreferenced recitation of bible stories as though they were fact are no more than personal opinion. They are no more than the same personal opinion I am being accused of entering.

I have no problem with these stories per se but as I am accused of disruptive editing for merely noting they are without evidence and come solely from the bible I have to object. Perhaps I have to agree I am a kettle to their pot. I am doing nothing that is not already in the posts I have edited.

People do not like the Darius edit? Fine. Reference the source which shows he did "free the Jews" from either the bible or a source outside the bible. But without a reference it is a fair edit to say this is only found in the bible and not in the real world. When a story is questionable why is it not qualified by a reference to the source?

If this is not the rule of wikipedia why is it not?

Also I have made more than a few points along these lines in other articles. If anyone can produce references, not argumentation, which differs from what I have edited I welcome it. I have been at this seriously for only fifteen years. I may have missed something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Giwer (talkcontribs) 11:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

From my observations, most people, be they Christian, Jew, or like me, atheist, think you have (missed something). You can discuss this at ANI or appropriate talk pages. You clearly knew when you wrote "Look folks this is such total bullshit I cannot imagine Wikipedia ever let it be posted. I realize this is not a proper edit and I invite the wrath of the wiki gods upon me for entering this. And they know who I am as I am logged in. I hope this will be eliminated as soon as I figure out how to start a discussion group with addresses all of the bible based religion nonsense" that it wasn't just you not understanding the style of Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I now get a post I from some asshole claiming I have multiple login names.

And I really get tired of those libels from which do not have a single header and are therefore all lies. Is this a professional operation or not?

Also == I had a reasonable and long post to the ANI. It did not appear. So much for reasonable discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Giwer (talkcontribs) 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It didn't appear because you didn't save it is my guess. The edit history of ANI is here [10] and yours is here [11] - very clearly you only successfully made one post. And I don't see anything on your talk page or history about multiple login names, so I don't know what you are referring to.

Dark Forest page


I noted that you deleted the Dark Forest (band) page in December of 2008. On first view, the band may seem like just a hobby. However, the band is fairly well known, as far as black metal goes. Please refer to the following press links:

Metal Review - Global Domination - Metal Observer -

The bands website is also at:

Oh yeah, you can buy their album in the Itunes store!

Though black metal does not receive mainstream radio airplay, for obvious reasons, there is quite a cult following for the genre and this band. Please do reconsider the inclusion of this band in wikipedia.


Matthew Troxel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxell1 (talkcontribs) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


the ochre, is VER important for pre history and Cro-magnon. Why did you delete it from Cro Magnon article? Jackiestud (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was badly written for a start, we don't use bullet points like that. You copied and pasted with no attribution and that had to be removed. You showed no relevance of Blombos to Cro-Magnon, or in fact the Venus figurines. You ignored of course the Red 'Lady', and there's no point in talking about ochre in that ocntext otherwise. And, the name 'Cro-Magnon' is scientifically pretty obsolete now and any concrete discussions about ochre in prehistory belong elsewhere -- as does this conversation as it should be on the article talk page. I'll also point out, not about this article, that if you are going to quote authors we expect you to give a full reference including page numbers so that the quote can be verified (this applies of course to paraphrases, etc). Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
And you didn't leave an edit summary. Nor apparently did you read mine. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you seel the sources? A GBS source and linked. Jackiestud (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Cro Magnon, art and religion are but one thing. And bessdes I could change a bit the text in order no to copy/paste but as you also might have noticed that this source is on the external links subtitle. So if the artciel offrs thi ssource so it must be important. It deals with the history and orgins and the human abstract concept of the color, how they used in art and relgion and to worshipd the goddess. Jackiestud (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you talking about Blombos? If you are, please quote Blombos where he mentions Cro-Magnon. Have you even read the source you are copying? What does Adam have to do with Cro-Magnon? Why have you replaced your edit despite my making clear you are breaking the GFDL licence? People get blocked for persisting in this. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ariobarza

FYI, Ariobarza tagged User talk:Ariobarza for speedy deletion. Should the talk page be deleted per CAT:TEMP if not under WP:RTV? Cunard (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I knew. See [12] and his user page, and also my discussion here [13]. I was unaware of cat:temp, which does look as though users not in good standing can have their pages deleted. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the page either qualifies under CAT:TEMP, or if the user has a long history of sockpuppetry, the page should be tagged with Category:Blocked historical users. I'll be interested in what the admin reviewing this CSD will decide to do. Best, Cunard (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, certainly Ariobarza has asked me several times, including by email, to delete his pages. I don't particularly care, as they won't vanish entirely. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pugnaces Britanniae

Hi Doug Not sure if you care about such things, but Green Squares will be over 3rr if he returns the statement about Arrian one more time... (and if you think about the intent of 3rr and not the letter of the policy, he is well over). I will shoot him a warning. I am thinking that he needs a wake up call. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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:, 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)

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 [14]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs)

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: 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) 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)


you are pissing me off. 1. i have asked permission to the copyright holder. that is u can go check forum if not contact him at 2. gurkha map is not copyright. - bigen182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigen182 (talkcontribs) 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)


Information.svg 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)

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 (talkcontribs) 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:

--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))


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)


Hello, where are the mirror soucres on ochre? Is this a better one for you: 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

Nuvola apps important.svg 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 [15]; 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)


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)

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)


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:

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):

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. (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. (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)
Doug-I've let the matter drop for now, I'm not going to get into an edit war (or whatever you guys call it) over this. I only want to add that I don't like your posting my real name in your explanation for the edit on the article history page. Putting my real name there was really uncalled for. If there is a way to get it removed I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Rich SantaColoma (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to offer the world a promising new theory,, 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)


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: [16] which is the best place for such questions. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Before you devote too much time to helping this seemingly new user, you should visit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historian19 and then Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historian19/Archive. (I got drawn in once myself too.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I was being trolled, eh? I see the editor has been blocked, but thanks for the warning. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I've come across you in a few contentious articles over the course of time, and just want to express appreciation for the even-handed and un-loaded approach you take. Regards, Priyanath talk 00:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, compliments like that are always appreciated! I'll have to remember to ask your advice when I get involved in articles where you have expertise. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: My talk page.

You're quite welcome. UntilItSleeps Public PC 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Squares

Strikes me a somewhat similar to User:SirIsaacBrock. Is he being tremendously disruptive in articles about animals fighting things and nazis? Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am almost positive they are the same, eg interest in accounting, dogs, fish, Nazi stuff, animal baiting, & at least one of the articles he's been disputing on. Well spotted. I can see no doubt, do we need to do anything other than give him an indef block?
Umm, is this the same Hipocrite that got caught with the sock puppet account User:Hpuppet ? Green Squares (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't know, but you are an editor who was subject to both a community ban and an indefinite block and who has been acting disruptively and abusively recently. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: You've warned someone today who was removing vandalism

Thanks for fixing that up and pointing it out to me - usually I realise I've reverted a corrective edit and revert my reversion, but this time I missed it. Cheers. SMC (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. I was hoping someone would do this, I'd spoken with that editor about that link before and this time, was waiting for input from others. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's his own personal web page, so I told him (on his talk page) he should not be adding it and in any case it fails WP:RS and WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On the article the link to the original youtube user who contacted MI5 is other users have re-uploaded the video and have then deleted it. --Poshrax (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has PROD'd it. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


It's not what Zecharia Sitchin thinks, it's what has been written in the age old sumerian tablets. Please do not remove the text again, as it does contribute to the article. Otherwise, please explain who EXACTLY was puma punku used for...!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Sitchin's level of understanding of Sumerian doesn't equal that of a sophomore student of Sumerian, I'm assured by a real expert who teaches Sumerian. Sumerian gods weren't real, and it wasn't built until after your tablets. It was a temple complex. No one has to explain EXACTLY what it was used for. I don't think you've quite got the hang of Wikipedia. Our articles report what reliable sources have to say about a subject - read WP:RS. Articles should also present all significant views, but Sitchin's views on this aren't significant in Wikipedia terms. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Flat Earth

Hi Doug, I think you're probably right about the religious motivation for the era change. Such changes, either way, are likely to be so. For my part, I'm a Christian and I favour BC/AD, but I will remove AD if there's an issue because in most cases a year in the Christian/Common Era will be Ok without era notation. I use BC, and possibly AD in my writing, but never CE/BCE. As far as Wikipedia goes, if I see CE/BCE usage I tend to check the edit history to see if it's been changed from AD/BC; more often than not it has. I must admit that I tend not to check when I see AD/BC. Just thought I'd let you know where I stand. Cheers. LevenBoy (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Some Christian scholars use CE/BCE, did you know that? My guess, and it is only my guess, is that there are more attempts to change from BCE/CE to BC/AD then the other way around, as I think that there's more passion (is that the word?) involved in that change. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Doug, I am looking around the edits of the user SOPHIAN, after a complaint. I notice you have warned them etc do you have a take on whether they are genuinely here to contribute or disrupt? I see a lot of disruption, but probably not enough to indef block the account yet. Do email me if you prefer. --BozMo talk 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

'all' but 3 not

  • You say :rv - they all have links to articles which should back up the dates
  • I showing you first three random. All of the 3 contradict your thesis. Could you show just 3 examples which may support your thesis ?

D=what to you reverted. B what the linked art back up have.

  • D 500,000 years ago: colonisation of Eurasia[citation needed] by Homo erectus
  • B Homo erectus out of Africa across Eurasia about a million years ago
  • D 300,000 years ago: Homo sapiens separated[citation needed] from Homo erectus (Middle Paleolithic)
in homo sapiens 3 x word "split"
  • B which have taken place since the split between the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.
  • B The human life span can be split into a number of stages: infancy, childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, adulthood and old age.
  • B Chororapithecus abyssinicus Possible human-orangutan split 20 million years ago.
in Homo erectus zero occurrences of word split
  • D 250,000 years ago: appearance[citation needed] of Homo neanderthalensis
  • B The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago.[2] Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped to another cladistic 'species', Homo heidelbergensis, or a migrant form, Homo rhodesiensis. By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the word 'should'. No thesis involved. Take it to the talk page of the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
so is it OK to revert your revert ? (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've said take it to the talk page. I don't understand why you are being selective, and it seems to me that you have the ability to find sources, which is probably the best thing to do for these. On the other hand, if you wish to challenge them, you definitely should take it to the talk page first. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the reasons I hate these lists. Either everything should be cited, or the articles should match. And what do you do when there is a debate? Lists make things too cut and dried. Probably a problem with most if not all of the entries on the list. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b, Haplogroup DE, etc

Thank you for your posting on my talkpage. I appear to be under attack from a tag team with an agenda who are trying to take advantage of the recent blocking of User:Wapondaponda to create as many edits as possible which question the African origins of many different genetic haplogroups, no matter what the published literature really says. See the edit patterns of these two users: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Andrew has just copy and pasted select portions of a rather heated conversation he and I were having on the haplogroup DE article's talk page onto the haplogroup E1b1b article's talk page where a separate, unrelated conversation was talking place. On the haplogroup DE talk page, he wrote a nasty edit (the one dated 18:10, 22 June 2009) to which I naturally responded in kind (my post dated 18:37, 22 June 2009), but he then opportunistically only quoted on the haplogroup E1b1b talk page my response to his unprovoked personal attack as well as a deceptively "angelic" follow up to that on his part to try and make himself look as innocent as possible. And when I tried to expose what he was doing on the haplogroup E1b1b talk page, he reverted my edit there as well! The man is truly on a rampage! Causteau (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with templating someone as a vandal when it is clearly a content dispute. On the other hand, I see the edit of yours he reverted was you calling him a liar. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I called him a liar and I know it was wrong and I apologize. However, that wasn't why he reverted my edit. In his edit summary, he claimed he was "reverting attempt to censor references to relevant previous discussion" when, in fact, I was just trying to remove his unfair attempt at trying to make me look like a bad guy by selectively posting my most vituperative post from another heated talk page discussion on another unrelated article while omitting his own earlier post that inspired that post of mine to begin with. Instead, he added some disceptively tranquil response to make himself look as angelic as possible! Please tell me how am I supposed to discuss much less resolve this issue with this person if he just reverts my talk page posts? Causteau (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The section of conversation I copied to another article talkpage was entirely about that other article (E1b1b). What it says about the editing of the E1b1b article is quite important for explaining the otherwise inexplicable deletes and reverts all aimed at keeping a deliberately ambiguous implication that a published author has doubts about something they do not have doubts about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Causteau, I'll give you the same advice I gave Andrew, read WP:NPA. And both (all 3 actually) remember to WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Doug, if I may ask clarification on a couple of points:

1. Concerning User:SOPHIAN who wrongly me tagged me as a vandal, why does his user page display an icon suggesting that he has rollback privileges? How can that be possible for someone who is still apparently getting the hang of the basics?

2. You specifically suggest leaving personal attacks on the talk page. Maybe I misunderstand. Did I delete anything from talkpages? If you are saying that we should leave them off the article talkpages, then of course that would be great. It would be good to see Causteau one day consistently address a questions of wording as questions of wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A neutral and experienced Wikipedian may be able to help in this discussion: which is at the centre of much personal comment. I say the discussion should be about a simple choice of words. Causteau is saying it is all about Wikipedia Original Research rules. Is it really? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello? I continue to be worried. Please look at User:SOPHIAN and let us average Joes understand what is going on? His latest edits continue to be highly unusual. To be fully correct I should perhaps say that I have also mentioned this to User:William M. Connolley. Thing is I am unsure how to handle this situation as I seem to be dealing with a person doing reverts who seems to feel he has special bullet proof editing rights? What he is doing as far as edits are concerned should get pretty serious warnings?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask for an opinion on these accusations being made?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

OK.....I didn't realise you were an administrator. I remembered your concerns with the Etruscan articles and am having problems with the article (articles actually) Greek love (this is the current article I am attempting fixes on per consensus from an AFD nomination) so if you can give me some advice as a member or as an admin....either way.

A call for help against vandalism on Platonic love was posted on the LGBT project talk page. I went to the page and reverted the deletion but after looking at the references, (actually I was showing the reference to the editor that reverted) I discovered that the reference did not support the claim being made and in fact the deleting editor was right about the inappropriate use of "man-boy" in the claim. Neither author said that. When I discovered this I made my way to other articles Pederasty in Ancient Greece and Greek love.

The Greek love article was horrible. It was not an encyclopedic article. It was an essay article filled with POV, OR, weasel words, peacock terms, quotes with no context, images with no context simply decorative and the most convoluted use of over blown wording I have seen on Wiki. Worse than all that....the entire article was slanted to boost and encourage pederasty by two editors. One, whom states clearly on his user page that his agenda is the pederast articles on wiki. So, while agenda driven editing is not against policy and individual editors are encouraged to fix problems on their own, I knew the articles subject was far too complicated to simply do a bold rewrite on the spot. I attempted fixes and changes but became overwhelmed and determined that the article was harmful and required to much time to fix at that time so I nominated it for deletion. Consensus was gained and I withdrew the nomination. As the article was written it was really about 19th century writings and contemporary author comments (actually an entire section devoted to quotes with no references other than the book the quote came from with no prose to explain the relevance.

I have spent the better part of a week researching this subject, and copy editing the Greek love article with full references, neutral prose and historical context as well as explaining that the term is a modern perception of Greek sexuality, a philosophy after the fact and seen through the eyes of the revival and rediscovery of Greek text.

Too much weight was being put on the works of Byron and Shelly and several other poets, but no explanation to the origins of the term, that no ancient source refers to these words and far worse was the booster-ism and hard sell push to define Greek love as only pederasty.

My prose and claims are referenced but I am getting really sick of the accusations on the talk page after clear consensus was made on the AFD discussion. Reverts and insults over the talk page to the point that I have simply told both that my discussion with both is over. They are working in bad faith and are now contributing nonconstructive edits, reverts of deletions of incorrect information inappropriately cited.

One editor has been attempting to rally support individually by making slanderous claims against me on user talk pages. The member continues to claim ownership of the article's "direction" and a threat to wait until I tire and leave the page to revert back to the version that was nearly unanimously decide needed Major work to remove POV, OR ect.

I will not stop making the appropriate edits and reverts but.......this is getting old.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Is a source acceptable if they rely partly on other peoples work, which they cite in addition to their own work? I ask because this seems to be an objection I am running into. I have never faced this objection before. Thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd need an example. Is it from the article they say should be merged with School violence? Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have read at least half a dozen sources that agree on most of the basics and this is being cited as bad sources. What I'm writing isn't radical or anything it is the basics that many people take for granted and fail to say or think about. The media also does this and some of the most obvious facts are being ignored. When I put the results of research that is agreed on by many experts it is being interpretted as opinion that some people seem to put on a par with TV commentators.Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty busy for the next day or so, I'll see what I can do. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC moved

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


It may not be accepted as a common term, but it is a synonymous. Jackiestud (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In which case we should not have an article for it, shall I change Thealogy into a redirect?

Article on The Exodus

I challenge your reversion to original of the date section of the Exodus.

As written it gives the impression to readers that the Hyksos were merely a blip in Egyptian history and that their stay in Egypt was no more than a hundred years.

Do you have any reason to believe this is true?

The Hyksos do bear a remarkable resemblance to the Israelites described in the Torah's account of the Exodus. Do you intend to deprive readers of this? Or perhaps was your reversion to original just ill conceived?

Jerry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrywickey (talkcontribs) 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OR? And I guess given the tone of your comments WP:AGF. Take it to the talk page, the cycle WP:BRD covers this. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your prompt response.

I didn't read the Wikipedia article on opinions and no original research. I have only just read them; and I am sure they make a lot of sense. I would be glad to discuss this edit.

Do you think you could identify just which of my 19 statements are my opinion or my original research? Because I am having trouble doing so. All 19 are numbered below. I give reasons and justifications for each one. Can you find a single one you disagree with my reasoning?

It was my 17th statement that prompted my edit in the first place. The original article content contradicts itself on accepted research regarding the dates of the Hyksos presence in Egypt. Early in the fifteenth dynasty is clearly the first Hyksos ruler which is concurrent with the Santorini eruption, while the original content poses that "This date [Santorini eruption] does not, however, coincide with the period of the Hyksos." The misstatement is so blatant that it suggests bias on the part of the author.

The author of the original content may have meant to conjecture that because Hyksos kings are recored after the Santorini eruption, the Exodus could not have been concurrent with the eruption. He did not state this however. If this was his intention, the statement is very ambiguous, suggesting instead that "the period of the Hyksos" does not "coincide" with the Sandorina eruption.

Only my statements 3 and 10 pose anything that could be construed as conjecture, but they do so with full disclosure of that fact and I state them only so that the reader may understand why some identify the Exodus with the Hyksos.

If my statements are indeed inappropriate, you have a lot of other editing to do. Read the other articles on the Hyksos and the dates and their activities reported there.

If on the other hand, you feel that the dates and activites of the Hyksos as reported by other articles in Wikipedia are appropriate, perhaps I could reword a few sentences to eradicate the appearance of posing new inferences and then post the edit.

Let me know what you think.

--Jerrywickey (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Various "early" Exodus dates have also been proposed, notably those which equate the Exodus story with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt c.1540 BCE.

(from the original)

2) While many archeologists and historians dispute the authenticity of the Torah account of the Exodus entirely,

(undisputed statement of fact)

3) the Egyption record of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt does coincide with many of the facts told in the Torah story.

(arguably my opinion based on the facts below. I would be glad to concede this statement. )

4) There is evidence for the earliest appearance of the Hyksos by peaceful migration [1] in the Eleventh dynasty of Egypt, and their departure under adverse circumstances in the end of the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt.

(undisputed re statement of accepted research)

5) This matches the span of time and conditions recorded in the Torah for Joseph's arrival in Egypt and his descendant's departure in the Exodus.

(the content of the Hebrew scriptures are not contested regarding the circumstances of Joseph's arrival and his descendant's departure from Egypt)

6) The Hyksos rise to power seems to have taken place about the Thirteenth dynasty of Egypt.

(undisputed re statement of accepted research. Although, I could clarify that while Satkir-Har was the first Hyksos ruler, accepted research shows, their ascent to power was slow and preceded him by many years. )

7) These dates also coincide comfortably with the Torah account of the extreme favor of Joseph's clan with a local Egyptian ruler, and then his clan gaining in numbers until finally by the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt,

(the content of the Hebrew scriptures are not contested regarding the circumstances of Joseph's arrival and his descendant's departure from Egypt)

8) under its last ruler Kamose, the Hyksos fell out of favor with the Egyptians.

(undisputed re statement of accepted research. This could be more clear regarding the distinction between the information derived from the Torah and that of accepted research. However, doing so would expand the space given to the Hyksos hypotheses far beyond the space alloted to the other hypothesis, possibly suggesting favor.)

9) One account of this change in Egyptian attitude is found in the Carnarvon Tablet I, which relates the misgivings of the Theban ruler’s council of advisors when Kamose proposed moving against the Hyksos.

(undisputed re statement of accepted research)

10) If Kamose was ill intended against the Hyksos but prevented from acting by other Egyptian factions, a theoretical scenario could easily be constructed which suggests factual circumstances consistent with both the Torah passages describing the Egyptian change to a harsh attitude toward the Israelites and the Egyptian record showing growing animosity between the Egyptian's and the Hyksos.

(conclusion drawn from the above facts to clarify to the reader the reason some identify the Hyksos with the Israelites. Arguably, this could labeled as the opinion of myself and others, but if this is disallowed, the reader is left wondering why the position is plausible to some. Explaining different points and presenting accepted research regarding those points of view is exactly Wikipedia's charter)

11) Modern scholarship usually assumes that the Hyksos were mostly Semites who came from Syria or Canaan and fled back after their departure from Egypt.

(undisputed re statement of accepted research)

12) If so, this would also match the Torah description of the Israelite's final destination after the Exodus and some time wondering in the wilderness.

(the content of the Hebrew scriptures are not contested regarding the circumstances of Joseph's arrival and his descendant's departure from Egypt)

13) An obvious difference between the Torah account and the Egyptian record is that the Torah claims the Israelites left of their own will, while the Egyptian records claim the Israelites were kicked out,

(undisputed re statement of fact for clarity)

14) however, this sort of duality is not uncommon in historical accounts written by opposite sides of the same conflict.

(undisputed re statement of fact for clarity)

15) Also, if the Hyksos were in fact the Israelites of the Exodus, this would leave approximately a 250-year gap before the first appearance of proto-Israelite artefacts in the archaeological record.

(undisputed re statement of accepted research)

16) Another alternative "late" date links the Exodus with the eruption of the Aegean volcano of Thera in c.1600 BCE, on the grounds that it could provide a natural explanation of the Biblical "Plagues of Egypt" and some of the incidents of the Exodus, notably the crossing of the Red Sea.

(from the original)

17) This date does coincide with the period of the Hyksos.

(opposite the original.

Accepted research places the Hyksos in Egypt between 1900BC and 1500BC, exactly agreeing with the Torah account. Although I did not advance that connection.

I, however, do not comment on the challenges that the timing of the Santorini eruption imposes given the later Hyksos rulers. Perhaps the Santorini theory should be given its own paragraph and that clearly explained. )

18) The dates of the Hyksos do not agree with many contemporary Christian reckonings for the date of the Exodus.

(undisputed re statement of fact. I think mentioning this is important, since the only people who are likely to read an article call "The Exodus" in involved in some way, for or against, a religious matter.)

19) However, some Christian academics are warming to the apparent similarities which offer a historical confirmation of the Biblical account.

(undisputed re statement of fact)

I've moved this to the article talk page and suggested you might be interested in WP:NPOV as well to give you an idea of the balance we expect in articles. We do need to cite even undisputed statements of fact (well, not 1+1=2 obviously). Don't forget to sign your edits to talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Region bias?

If you don't support the Socionics article and its sub articles, some people may think that you are susceptible to it. When a professional in a field says something, it should be notable on Wikipedia. I think most people would agree with that view. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, some people will say anything. And that includes some 'professionals'. I haven't voted, but so far as I can see there is a big distinction between keeping the main article and the sub-articles, and 'region bias' doesn't come into it. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Abu-Mansur Daqiqi

I know that he is Tajik, but Tajik is another word to call persian people. as you know persians always call themselves iranian but europeans call them Persian, arabs call them Ajam and turko-mongol people call them Tajikthat means non-turk but as we work in english wikipedia we should put word persian to call them , and we can put words iranian and tajik in persian wikipedia. Turcopole new (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If our article is correct, Tajiks are a Persian speaking people, but not all Persians are Tajiks, so it's wrong to remove 'Tajik' where a person was or is Tajik. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me !!!

Dear Sir,

Recently I add a talk "Advanced Electromagnetic Propulsion Craft with Fuly Invisible Stealth Technology" to your UFO page and you removed it - saying that is a promotion page !!! So, I am asking you : "To promote what ?". Maybe, to sell some UFOs to people? NO, Sir!!! I am a scientist {an Aerospace Engineer}, I am NOT a lunatic or a promoter of any kind of goods or services. When I add my comment to Wikipedia, I thought that you are a serious, wide-minded source of knowledge in the Internet, so some other scientists could find my work and read it {because my site is purely for scientists}. Feel free to visit my site and see for yourself if I sell anything! The thing that is been described in my site is a 100% scientific project, which is true and small-scale models flown successfuly, based on this theory. This project was rated by University Professors {which if you like I could give you a direct telephone line inside UN. of Southampton} as an A+++ project {they do not give such grade for craps - If you do not know, let me tell you that the above University is one of the top worldwide in Aerospace Engineering and in Artificial Intelligence}. Also this project had attracted Govermental interest. My major aspect was to simply demonstrate and prove that we have the technology to built such a craft - so nothing extraterrestial exists! Finally, this project was 100% my own idea and was been proposed by me to University. Anyway, I didn't had any bad intentions when I wrote my comment. My ONLY intention was to inform your readers and especially the scientists that something like UFO already exists and is feasible and borned by Earth science.

After I have clearly explain you my motive, I will let it up to you to decide, if you want this comment again active on to your site. Please,do not reply to me. I will see your decision in a few days, by visiting your site again. If your final decision is not to put it back, please delete also all my account, there is no mean for me to contribute anymore on to your site. I am enough old and mature to sustain such a censorship, in a Free World. Also, I am a man of honnor - I always keep my word.

Thank you and sorry if I was a little bit agressive, but I didn't expect such thing from you.

Yours Sincerely --Masselos (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Doug. An opera request for a change. Could you move Aria (musical term) back to Aria over the redirect? This is clearly the primary meaning in English and we shouldn't have to wait for a discussion on this. An editor (who I presume is called Aria in real life) moved it without consent so "Aria" is now a disambiguation page with the first link to an article on the Iranian name Aria. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: William Wallace

Thank you for the heads up. I did not know, but I suspected he was up to no good. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 12:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


I guess this is recent enough for me. I think he still has the bit but the point is still there. You forgot? You commented pretty early on here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I thought you meant more recently - but yes, I did forget. He doesn't seem to have changed, I see. Almost surprising he hasn't been in more trouble than he has. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi...sorry...just learning the dos and don'ts. I'll spend more time reading the guidelines. I only posted 3 edits I believe. Please roll them back. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaddul (talkcontribs) 21:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

socionics AN/I discussion

you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with IP

Please keep a look out for (talk · contribs) who keeps adding Georgian names to the opening sentences of articles on places which have little to do with Georgia. Proof we are dealing with a chauvinist comes from his edits to Kars, Turkey where he removed the Armenian name. --Folantin (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not something I know a lot about, of course, but it does seem pretty clear - he also edited your user page, which I reverted and warned him not to do it again. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, he simply translated my name into Georgian ("Polantin" - Georgian doesn't have a letter F). He's an obvious troll and I'm not sure any of his edits are good. He's adding Georgian names to practically every location in the Caucasus region, regardless of their historical links with Georgia. Ingushetia needs to be reverted (I'm on 3RR there). He also clearly has a grudge against Armenians (and Armenians have a lot more to do with the history of Kars than Georgians do). --Folantin (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. Looks like we pressed our buttons at around the same time. I moved my last warning up. Thanks again,  Cargoking  talk  11:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep 'em Stupid

Conflict of interest, you say? Well if it's LUCID vs LUDRICROUS, then I can see your point. Why have contributions by one of the best astrologers alive (LUCID) on astrological subjects like 2012, the Maya calendar and the Harmonic Convergence when you have SHIRLEY McCLAINE's astrological interpretations (Harmonic Convergence) and the shameless self-promoter John Major Jenkin's theory (LUDICROUS) which, by the way, is based on my original Galactic Alignment research. It's not my fault he doesn't understand it. I actually know what I'm talking about, but I concede to Einstein's theory about the infinitude of human stupidity. I quit, you win and Wiki readers lose. I do consider how I'm consistantly edited or blocked by Wiki ads and eds as HARASSMENT, fyi. (talk) RAYMOND MARDYKS <>

I am not sure that "Wiki readers lose" if we prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for authors to advertise their own work. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I was about to say something similar. Interesting concept there that applying our guidelines and policies is harassment. I guess if you believe that, you'll believe anything. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
1. "prevent authors from advertising" ... you're kidding right? benefit of the doubt response: you are doing a really, really shitty job considering John Major Jenkins.
2. Just in from a WikiWacker: 03:08, 1 July 2009 Senor Cuete (talk | contribs) (37,616 bytes) (Mardyks: you need to adjust your medication.) (undo) [17]

CASE CLOSED! Bye, bye losers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor Mardyks, blocked for a week by another Admin. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. Who was blocked, and are we meant to assume there is a COI problem at John Major Jenkins? --dab (𒁳) 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP above (Mardyks) got blocked earlier this evening. I haven't seen anything about COI with Jenkins (I presume on the 2012 and associated articles) but I'll look tomorrow to see if that's happening and what can or should be done about it. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

if i may assist ... JMJ is shamelessly using all avenues to promote his books, INCLUDING Wiki. I am currently working on documenting the sources from which he plagiarized his galactic alignment "theory". The problem with JMJ is that he got it wrong and so is misrepresenting the true value of the authentic galactic alignment. He is an easy target for academic ridicule because he isn't getting it anywhere close to correct. He is such a DISTRACTION from the genuine work being done to clarify the meaning of 2012. if you need anything else, please feel free to ask. Raymond Mardyks (feel free to Google) again. can we make this more fun, guys? block, block, block ... it's getting boring.  : D —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidently both IP addresses aren't blocked Senor Cuete (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

James DeVone

I found this nominated for speedy deletion and checked to make sure that it was indeed a copyright violation before deleting it. However, I did note what you had to say on the associated talk page; if you feel strongly about this, I would be happy to restore the article and take it to AfD (or something else, as you prefer). It didn't seem to me to be asserting any notability, but opinions differ and heaven knows I've been wrong before. Let me know what your wishes are. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that. I would have taken it to AfD otherwise, as I saw no notabiity, just some poor guy seeking notoriety. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

Hello Doug, I hope you're well. Would you, if you feel it is appropriate and you have opportunity, review Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)'s behaviour at the above linked article. It is increasingly disruptive, and I feel it has more to do with a feud with myself and Hrafn than improving wikipedia. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote change

Sorry about the quote change [18]; that was an accidental error on my part. Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought as much. No problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page

I am a newbie to Wikipedia and was only trying to correct information that was created by someone else that was incorrect(Distribution America July 2, 2009). I am still not sure why what I changed was unacceptable, but will go back and rewrite if you could give me some direction. Thanks for keeping this platform legitimate. Dusty2640Dusty2640 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why you've posted to me? But that doesn't really matter. I've given you a menu on your talk page. The article itself was deleted under what we call 'speedy delete' - see WP:Speedy because it didn't read like an encyclopedia article but like an ad, and did not show 'notability' -- see WP:Company to see what you have to do to show notability for a company. If you are really keen on recreating this article, I can show you how to create a draft in your user space, but it shouldn't be put into article space until it has met our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Any help would b emuch appreciated!!! Thank you Dusty2640 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, click here [19] and start writing. Make sure you don't plagiarise or copy anything that is copyright. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation

You have been accused of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November. Scared? Papa November (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You too? I hadn't noticed - this guy is, well, maybe he's just not right for wikipedia. Anyway, I came here to tell you that you didn't sign your post here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 4. Cheers, Verbal chat 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's closed but I've signed it anyway with an unsigned template. Frei Hans cannot, I think, cope with Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doug

Thanks so much for your post on my talk page and your link to WP:Style! I did not know that Wikipedia uses the "logical" quotation rule and not the normal "U.S. style" rule. I was completely unaware (shame on me!) so thank you. I will enjoy a good read on the WP:Style page. You have saved me from erroneously screwing up hundreds of more articles. Have a good day!  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian314 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Thank you.--Caspian blue 03:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

2012 guy

has shifted his account. It's time to block him methinks. Both ways. Serendipodous 23:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He's flooding my talk page. Please make him stop. Serendipodous 23:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
IP hopping, tricky. I've deleted everything he posted with that IP. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we discussing MARDYKS here fellas? At least two of my seven posts, you called and attacked as spam, have generated discussion. I'd much rather be called the 2013 guy. 2012 goes to JMJ. Can we get some agreement on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


The article's credibility is diminished by brazenly promoting poor works of pop scholarship. I have restored some dignity to the work, and removed it. Nisrani (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything cited in so many scholarly works is not pop scholarship. I knew nothing about this until you drew my attention to it, so I guess I should be thankful as I've managed to add to a couple of articles content I would not have added without you. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. However, it's wikipedia that's suffering from this sort of abuse. Also, self-reference does not equal "many scholarly works". Your layman's perspective does the article no favours. Nisrani (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That's funny, or sad, I'm not sure. I searched JSTOR, not just Google Scholar and Google Books, ignoring anything by the author, so no self-reference. But that's just my academic background coming through I guess. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Frei Hans and "Joe Job"

Actually, I think it was a frame-up "Joe Job." If a guy sees sockpuppets left and right, why give him a real one? That would just give him some justification. I think it might have just as easily been a sympathiser or just one of those troublemakers with a chaotic bent that tend to hang out on WR. Auntie E (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's some discussion on the talk page of the Rfc. Did you see what ChildofMidnight just did on Ancient Egyptian race controversy? Put back the version that the banned editors wanted. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Faux source

Hello, and yes, the pun is intentional. I did notice that you removed the Faux sourcing on a couple of statements I inserted into two articles. I can understand the reasoning, as Faux is not apparently a geneticist, which I would have preferred to cite. Perhaps I am mistaken -- as I'm no scientist nor expert -- but my reading of Capelli et al. was that the R1a1 was often assumed to have been carried into England by Scandinavian Vikings. Obviously, though, this was not always the case, as it likely arrived also with the Romans, and possibly others. If you are a geneticist, or perhaps a scientist, which I most assuredly am not, could you explain to me the current reasoning behind the arrival of R1a1? This is treacherous ground for those of us who are simply laymen. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I've emailed you about a mailing list. I've also enquired about it, as I'm not scientist either. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the email and the tips on the forum, which I desperately need. lol. I had friends in Branford but was in Morse myself, not long after the first class of women arrived. :-) How goes it in the UK? Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Noticed that nice addition to your page. Thought this might make you remember the good old days.... Handsome Dan MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)



If you're around, could you block a very naughty IP from this page (look at the history). Cheers, Verbal chat 08:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All done, false alarm, I should be more patient. Verbal chat 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I got there, looked around, started to block and found it had already been done. No problem though, good to alert me. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

magazine xian for expats-deletion? because of link?

hello there,

i am not the owner of new dynasty magazine xian but a happy reader. in good faith i added them because they are the only online magazine in this city for foreigners i know of. you know i live here. i know it. you do not live here. so reason enough for me, seems a valuable update! you should reconsider.

Jaherold09 (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Doug...Why Blocking from editing if disruptive editing ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAGEADDER (talkcontribs) 00:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


This user has requested unblock. Just letting you know as blocking admin. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted that at ANI, if he complies, please unblock him if I don't do it first. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
He has withdrawn his over-the-top comments. I will unblock him. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx for the info, Doug! However, does the "normal procedure" apply here?

Imho it would have been reasonable not to apply it in this case, because this noticeboard posting isn'T only about the convicted sockpuppet, but also about others who have been banned. And it's a fact that the deletion of "Waxman"'s comments makes the discussion a bit hard to follow. Also, I wonder about Ryulong implementing the deletions. He has been desysopped recently, and so has an obvious POV in discussions about "admins vs contributors". Imho it would have been better if he had abstained from making this deletions. That's why I asked for someone else to review this. However, thx for giving me the info! (uh, one more question: Why can't I add an edit summary to this comment?)Gray62 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call on Subman758

I caught him posting a photo I released (CC-by-SA) to Wikipedia and posting on Panaromio as his own (I found out because of Google Maps). I pointed it out on Panaromio and he replied with vile threats. Thankfully the staff at Panaromio were quick to rectify the situation. Then I discovered he had the exact same username here nad tapped him on the shoulder, and the comment (along with other warnings from his antics) immediately disappeared off his talk page. As an admin, I felt slightly conflicted over the situation --i.e. could I take action here for blatant, unrepentant theft over there-- and I decided to just keep his page on watch. --Bobak (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Subman758, I would be tempted to leave the indef in place, regardless of his answer about the legal threat. (The tone of his banter about the threat is very off-putting). Not sure how much data somebody should collect to justify that action. One idea is to make a list of all the problems he has created, and ask him to commit to fixing the situation. If there is no appropriate answer, then leave the indef in place. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Preventing school violence

I had previously asked you if sources that use other sources for part of their work are acceptable at wikipedia. Many of the sources in archaeology often do this but this is a different subject. Everything I do on the Preventing school violence page is being challenged even though it is all sourced by what seem like reliable sources to me. I have created a seperate unofficial article pending resolution of the dispute and am working on that for now. It is here: User:Zacherystaylor/preventing school violence. After noticing the closest thing to prevention on the school shooting page involved arming teachers and shooting students at the last minute I thought there could be something better so I created the Preventing school violence article to link to it and have had a hard time convincing people not to delete links or the article itself. If you can help on this it would be appreciated. If not I'm going to work on the unofficial version before going farther. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see some confusion and uncivil language on the talk page, and have posted about both. I haven't read it all in detail but I think you should take seriously Alaric's comment just above hthe new section I created. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock it to me

Haha, he missed that are indeed the same person! (<- that is a joke in case any idiots are reading). I'm sorry you were left out. Maybe you'll be included in the next one, 10/8/09. Verbal chat 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Akhenaten page

Did you get my email regarding the Akhenaten page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zululep (talkcontribs) 07:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and replied to it also, saying something like your edits had no edit summaries and did remove a lot of text, and you were editing without an account, and that combination always sets off alarm bells. I'm not sure why you removed so much text. We can of course show what reliable sources think - their opinions, if you will, and in fact we should so long as they are significant and we are representing current thought. If you'd made edit summaries explaining what you were doing, it's much less likely I wouldn't have reverted. Shall we discuss the article on its talk page? Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ransom Everglades

As you might have noted - some guy named TheFeds made BIG changes to the school's entry. I think the Comparable Schools section was useful and shouldn't be eliminated. I agree it needs a reference. I'm contacting the school to find such a reference. Also he replaced the table with an infobox school. I liked it the way it was. I think the infobox is more for religious schools and not college prep schools. Could you help with this ? GroveGuy (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SOPHIAN and maps

Hi, I noticed your warning to SOPHIAN on his talkpage has been deleted by him, but he has also started a programme of deleting other people's maps, some of which I think are OK. This subject has BTW been discussed a few times on WP:HGH. My understanding is that maps where the data is put together and mapped by a Wikipedian need to be looked at as potential OR, depending upon obviousness, while straight scans of maps risk being deleted as OR. However I understood that non-slavish reproductions of published maps, noting their sourcing, are OK. Trying to engage SOPHIAN on talkpages is not very easy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps also of interest to you: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You may also be interested as an admin who has been involved in SOPHIAN controversies: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A threat to vandalize

This is a new one to me--have you ever seen a threat to vandalize other articles if we don't allow an image with questionable copyright to be included in an article? I wonder if this is actually Rock5410, who you indefinitely blocked yesterday due to refusal to discuss copyright issues surrounding images. (Notice that his response to that block has been to delete attempts to discuss with him on his talk page.) Is one of the IP addresses associated with that account? I admit that I'm kind of at a loss here as to what to do, besides my response on that talk page. Suggestions? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is. I can't do a Check User but none is needed, this is clearly Rock5410 and I've blocked him -- 24 hours right now, we shall see what happens next. Let me know if you think you spot him again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


My guess would be that JamesLavoie (talk · contribs) is Disfasia (talk · contribs). The account's first article edit was to revert back to Difasia's prefered version of National Holiday (Quebec). I also wonder about Knightofmaat (talk · contribs), whose only contributions are on Difasia's talk page in support of Difasia's arguments. I don't know if that's enough for an SPI / CU or not. AthanasiusQuicumque vult 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Knightofmaat hasn't been active, so I don't see any need to take action yet. Are there any discussion pages still open, ie not archived, about Disfasia? If so, maybe a note there would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Block needed?

User Bottracker keeps uploading copyright images under false free licenses. Despite being warned they've continued to do so and just blank their talk page. I've just tagged a load for speedy deletion and don't really want them to have the opportunity to upload even more later on. Polly (Parrot) 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got to give a warning, which I've done, and the files are now deleted by another Admin. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
They do seem rather aggressive, those messages on User:Daisy1213 talk page were quite nasty and now she seems to have retired. Polly (Parrot) 19:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocking for past actions would be a bit like punishment, but deleting my warning means he is not willing to discuss the issues, so I've given him an indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and template warnings.

Please refer to: User talk:Jayron32#July 2009. I have made changes. Patchy1Talk To Me! 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I'll admit that it isn't hard to make mistakes like that when you are a busy editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge DAB pages?

Do we ever merge DAB pages? As long as I have been here, I have never heard of it being done, nor ever seen a merge proposal for two disambiguation pages. My question is not academic, either, I am actually asking because I believe the Day of the Dead (disambiguation) and Dia De Los Muertos (disambiguation) pages need to be merged. I see no justification for two pages on the same topic, especially considering the paucity of notable content on the latter page. How would I go about achieving this? Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I was going to say let's just redirect the latter, but I think we should ask Cuchullain (talk · contribs) who created it and is also an Administrator. I'll ask him to comment here.
Thanks very much. I am interested in seeing what he says. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Some links

This is interesting: The website to which it belongs has many more such articles. PiCo (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Book of Moses page

As I'm pretty new to editing on Wikipedia, I was unsure as to why the views of Jeffrey M. Bradshaw were removed, as they appear to be cited correctly and do correspond with other research from various subject matter experts (Margaret Barker, David Seely, S. Kent Brown, to name a few). Granted, the book mentioned isn't published (tho' many presentations have been given and articles written), and perhaps it's a bit lengthy, but with the backing of said experts, I don't know why it's necessary to disregard this research, especially as it gives background to an importance attributed to the book of Moses for those of LDS persuasion. To simply put aside the information there because it was written by a computer scientist seems a bit hasty to me. Could you explain your reasoning? ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to discuss it. Not being published yet is of course a big barrier. We just can't use an unpublished book as a source, nor can we call it critically acclaimed. Have you read WP:RS which described the sorts of things we consider reliable sources? If your other sources have said the same thing, then I suggest they be used. If you want to discuss whether something can be used as a reliable source, we have a noticeboard - WP:RSN where you can ask what other editors think. But Bradshaw's PhD is in computer science, he doesn't have works cited in scholarly sources, etc, so I can't see how he can be used as a reliable source -- according to our criteria, of course. You also need to be aware of WP:OR by the way. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Two other points. One, I've seen the comments on the website, but to use such comments we'd need to find them where they were originally published, and that needs to be independent of the author and publisher. I also wonder if publishing through Eborn is akin to self-publishing. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Understood. If I come across anything I'll update it, but for now I guess I'll leave it be. Thanks for your explanations. On a separate yet related vein, I was wondering if it could be explained as to why the book of Moses is not appropriate on the Creation according to Genesis page. The book of Moses is the Genesis creation story with a few extra verses and two extra chapters. Its origin is the book of Genesis, being a reinterpretation/translation directly pulled from Genesis. Is that not appropriate of mention at least on the Related Links section? It's not a big deal, but I'm just trying to figure out the ropes... ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

More Than Weird

Hi! I wrote a page about a young adult novel called more than weird. Here's the link: Could you edit it or clean it up or wikifying it? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can help directly. You might read WP:Tutor and also ask at the New Contributors help page at WP:NCH. I don't get involved with articles about fiction books very often, I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


It is unclear to me why you indef. blocked this user. Can you provide me the edit diferences, or dates, for the harassment of another user? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The net's working very badly for me right now, and looking for that will take too long. It's an indefinite block, so it can be lifted at any time if the user shows an understanding of why they were blocked and a willingness to follow our guidelines and policies. As I recall, and I may be remembering someone else, it was a combination of copyright violation accompanied by refusal to discuss, and harassing another editor - isn't this the one where another Admin blocked them from their talk page after other Admins had declined to unblock? Why are you interested - have you been involved with this editor? Or do you think I did something I should not have done? Sorry not to be of more help, but even managing to load my talk page and do this edit is for some reason very time consuming - it's not Wikipedia, it's my Internet connection, a problem I'm trying to solve. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone (I think a banned user) called this case to my attantion. Normally I am very wary of indef. blocks.... but I won't undo this block or any other without checking with the person who blocked them and its your name on the notice (I didn't check the block history). In your notice you list precisely the things you mention. These all sound to me like things that can be mentored but you are absolutely right the person needs to understand. But looking at the person's talk page and contributions since April I honestly don't see the cause for an indef. block. Clearly, copyright violation was part of it. it looks to me like this user just doesn't or didn't understant the rules, and just need to be educated. harassing another user is another issue ... but just going back a few weeks I don't see it in the user contributions. That is why I am asking you. You do not need to reply now if you are having nextowrk problems but if in the nexxt few days you could provide me with the edit difs or dates that you felt justified an indef block I would appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page, the damn net is up and down for me. I would have been very happy to see the user unblocked and mentored. What would you do if someone continued to commit copyright violations, didn't respond on their talk page to requests to discuss, etc? So far as I'm concerned, if I indef block that person, all they have to do is start entering into dialogue. What they can't do is just continue their copyright violations. This particular editor seems a very angry one unwilling to listen, which is why his unblock request was declined and another admin blocked his access to his talk page (which seems like endorsement of my actions). I'm going to watch tv now! Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. At this point I have no idea whether I would offer to mentor this guy or not. I think there is a huge problem at Wikipedia. It takes the appearance of racism or accusations against racism. I think it is really about something else: an overdetermination of very different communication styles, newbies who do not know the ropes, and encounters between people who are so primed to get defensive that something innocent can spark a wildly disproportionate and unacceptable response. I thinkw Wikipedians need to figure out a way to handle these situations, otherwise a disproporitonate number of blacks will be banned, for clear violations of policy, but the disproprotionate number (I admit it is a subjective guess) signals some problem about race that is NOT racism but has that effect ... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are saying, but it may not be race but nationality, or to be more specific the culture they grew up in, ie the way people from the same ethnic group behave may be shaped more by the culture they grew up in then by their ethnic group (seems obvious). Not an entirely different thing perhaps. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dia de los Muertos

Sorry, I missed you comment previously. I think I've solved the problem. Since there was only one remaining article on Dia De Los Muertos (disambiguation) (the other was deleted), there is no need for a separate disambig page. If in the future other articles of that title are created, I would suggest that the dab page be recreated, since they are actually in different languages.--Cúchullain t/c 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ricco Rodriguez

The information you reverted is untrue and how do I know? Because I'm Ricco's manager... Me and Ricco had a sit down and looked over his wiki and corrected information about him. What do we need to do to get the page up to date and blocked from editing? A lawyer? "Cited from a reliable source" isn't good enough because it's obviously wrong. I don't understand how a person cannot edit HIS OWN information..

Is there a contact number for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you make anything that looks like a legal threat you will be blocked until you withdraw it. You've been referred to WP:COI. There is no way you are going to get the page blocked from editing. You need to follow our WP:RS policy. If something is clearly wrong, you can discuss it at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - anything damaging and badly sourced should in fact not be there, but take it up at the noticeboard, don't just remove it. You'll get more sympathy if you do that then if you just continually remove text. As I said, don't mention lawyers. There's no phone number I'm afraid. The noticeboard is your best best, seriously. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wittenberg University


I have noticed that Wittenberg's page has been semi-protected for the past three months. I was wondering if it would at all be possible to remove that now? I think it is quite clear to the people editing the page that they must not be trying to "campaign" the school but rather put notable information.

Thank you!

(BHGJH (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

Done. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can spare the time...

Hello Dougweller. I created an article titled Holly Tucker witin the last few days and i have been running into problems with it. Shadowlynk has posted multiple warnings on the article ranging from speedy deletion to orphaned page (these debates can be found at his discussion page). I was wondering, since i am a newbie, if maybye you could take a look at the page and help me cleanup, make better use of the sources, and create an overall better page. Any help would be greatly appreciated, and if you cannot help, thank you anyway. Cheers! Akjgo94 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at Shadowlynk's talk page, and it appears he (or she) has been trying hard to help you. The problem is simply whether Holly Tucker meets our notability criteria, and to be honest I don't think she has yet. I've just listened to Take it like a man and she sounds pretty good - I'd guess she will meet our criteria in the not too distant future. If the article gets deleted, and that might happen, I can 'userfy' it, put it into your userspace for you to work on. It can't stay there indefinitely, but hopefully she'll get enough notice so that even if it is deleted now you'll be able to put it back once the sources appear. I've looked for more but no luck. Just out of curiousity, what led you to contact me? Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for the brutal honesty, and i dont mean that sarcastically. Because of these reaffiming words of advice, i will take the text and archive it in my external hard drive for later use. I greatly appreciate the thoughtful insight on my article. And to fulfill your curiosity, I needed a second opinion and i figured that i could trust someone that our fellow wikipedians had trusted with adminisrative rights. The userpage looked like that of a trustworthy individual. Cheers! Akjgo94 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do have an interest in music, particularly country music, I've done some minor work on Wikipedia country music articles (very minor). I did a bit of copyediting also. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Dougweller,

Thank you for your feedback.

Vasantdave (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller,

Thank you for your response concerning America's Stonehenge. Could you be more specific concerning which rules I violated? The current article states that the site was built in the 18th or 19th century, which is grossly untrue. It also includes several ad hominem attacks on the owners, the Stone family, and that does not settle well with me. All the information I put up is accurate, and has papers to back it up. If you notice, I used citations of the different laboratories,etc. that have done research on the site. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to stop by the site, and I'm sure the Stones would be happy to show you the neccesary facts for you to agree that the information I put up is 100% accurate.

Thank you for your time. Verbatim Veritas (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug:

Ok that's fine, we'll talk here. I'm still learning on how to get around this site and do the talking etc.

I read the section you pointed to and have to admit I'm a bit confused. It says Wiki wants and requires only "reliable sources" but that article you cited can't be considered reliable by any standard. What's with that? Anyway I don't mind that but the contradiction is confusing.

Also, it's not a big deal but I included a reference to the part of the Urantia Book that describes Eden, since that's the source of the "influence" on the Atlantis project, which is what the paragraph is talking about. Why would that be removed? What's the big deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the fact that Sarmast supplemented clues from Plato about Atlantis with info from the Urantia Book is not a secret. The following is from pages 194-195 of the book "Discovery of Atlantis" if that helps:

"A connection to be made in this regard, and one which supports the general thesis of this study, can be found in a somewhat unusual source known as the Urantia Book. Its account of the Garden of Eden—the way it appeared and how it was structured —contains a number of similarities to Plato’s account of Atlantis. Eden is described as a “long and narrow” peninsula stretching westward from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, with a 27-mile long neck attaching it to the eastern mainland. Also mentioned is a “great river” that went out from the peninsula onto the mainland, as well as a “central sector” in the middle of the Garden that was surrounded by four quadrants where the Adamites built universities, temples, administrative centers, and residential quarters. Although the general description is very similar to Plato’s Atlantis, the mention of the 27-mile neck and the location of the peninsula in the eastern Mediterranean vicinity is unique to the Urantia Book. It also reports that the peninsula sank beneath the sea in connection with natural processes resulting from the destruction of the Gibraltar dam. Proving the validity of the Urantia Book is beyond the scope of our investigation. It is mentioned here because its account is so highly correlative with our inferences and empirical data pointing to the eastern Mediterranean as the place to look for the lost civilization Plato described as Atlantis."

The Urantia Book was published in 1955, twenty years before the salinity crisis of the Mediterranean was "discovered" by science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

America's Stonehenge

I'm going on vacation soon and work is a hassle at the moment, so I have to beg off any detailed analysis of America's Stonehenge - anything deeper than reverting true-believer nonsense, at least - until the fall, I fear. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Afro-Asiatic and Proto-Afro-Asiatic

Hi, I've posted on your discussion about maps, and I hope it helps lead to more clear guidelines.

While writing it struck me that you may be interested in my current efforts to clean up the origins discussions on Afro-Asiatic and Proto-Afro-Asiatic. I have never worked on them much before, although aware they were not being looked at much. However when SOPHIAN and Wapondaponda were edit warring recently they were both impacting these articles, and they made a mess as you might expect. Because Kwamikagami was the admin who intervened I mentioned to him that I'd start work, realizing that there might be some objections coming from any of the editors who hang around Africa related subjects, and some "policy interpretation" issues needing admin (or moderator) input. As I mentioned to him, I felt I was in a reasonable position to help, having recently written a review article on the subject. (I am not intending to cite myself, it is just that I have stuff fresh in my mind.) As I've also mentioned to kwami:

1. I am getting some personal attacks which I am trying to address on the talkpage of the Wikipedian in question, User:Causteau. Comments would be welcome though. I am achieving very little through attempts at dialogue, and it is basically a big distraction to good editing. This is not a new problem.

2. Related to this, there is a neutrality debate which started with User:Causteau by accusing me of inserting POV FRINGE material by mentioning a theory of Martin Bernal. Causteau initially argued this author was not a known writer in this field, but when I mentioned that he is cited as a serious source by Lionel Bender he changed his position to saying that I am making it up. Some other editors with a very different approach then entered discussion to demand (I think that is a neutral description [20][21][22]) that all mention of non-linguists be removed, and indeed that non-linguists should leave the editing of these articles. Causteau therefore now says this is simply a case of 3 editors accusing another (me) of POV pushing. But all these arguments seem against Wikipedia policy, and I never even knew Bernal had theories on this until when I started reading all the recognized major articles, and I certainly don't agree with it, or object to calling it a controversial minority view. I just entered information about him along with all the other material I wrote in quite a big re-write. So to me it seems that removing all mention of this person's theories is going to remove neutrality, as would removing all discussion of archaeology and history. I note also using google that Bernal's theories are widely discussed by amateurs whether that be a good or bad thing. So in any case they have a high note in the real world, and people are going to come to Wikipedia looking for some sort of explanation. I guess I see this theory as a WP:TIGER. Am I doing something wrong here?

3. Coming from the above is now a discussion about article splitting. But this is also problematic in policy terms. If we are being pushed to split of a separate article about origins theories the nature of discussion so far seems to imply that there will be a POV fork. Because the 2 linguist-purist editors seem to be saying that "their" articles will continue to contain linguist's theories without the contamination of non-linguists. Obviously no neutral discussion of homelands can be purely linguistic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Complicated. I suggest you stay off of Cousteau's talk page (just a suggestion) as it isn't getting you anywhere. I'm not happy with Cousteau's talk page edits however.
Editing should be by consensus, and if several editors say no genetics and one says please can we have genetics, you have a problem. You could take it to the NPOV notice board, but I'm not sure how far you would get there. I'm always dubious about links between genetics and language, but that is not a good reason not to include a view that links them. If you can't find another RS for this, maybe that's indicative of a problem. There are various noticeboards, but if you decide to go that route, only use one.
Of course it is ridiculous to say only linguists can edit a talk page. I really don't know enough about the subject here and don't feel I can get up to speed on it enough. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
End result is that the article got split. That solves problems concerning Urheimat question for the time being because it means no one can argue that the subject is only linguistics. Concerning the use of genetics in linguistics questions, I'd say that this trying to work out where and when a proto language was spoken is not a linguistics question as such. Anyway, I share your doubts in general, but in this case there is a long pedigree of remarks from good sources on some close correspondences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Zorats Karer#Reliable sources

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at the above discussion. There appears to be a fringe theory about the site that it could have been an ancient observatory. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For providing some real, useful references for this article. Hooray! ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) on "South central Asia", "Peninsular India", Afghanistan, and Pakistan

I noticed you have dealt with this IP earlier today. I have noticed this IP making vandal edits on Southwest Asia, South Asia, Flags of Asia and on other pages that other people reverted before I noticed. This IP is making up a region of South-central Asia. I have been undoing their POV edits, but what further steps should be taken if this user returns and redoes his edits? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This IP keeps on doing these edits. Can actions be taken against this user? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


1-John Vandenberg blocked the page. 2-John Vandenberg asked to delete false informetion. 3-Nobody has done it since some time ago while Wikipedia is used as a reference to extend libels thropughout the web against Arnaiz villena,who has himself pointed that he has not written a word about what he is accused. 4-The matter has nothing to do with voting:no anonymous (web) pages were admitted as a reference. 4-Please have a look to the page Antonio Arnaiz-Villena and also to John Vandenberg one and see if you can do something.Thank you--Virginal6 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please,also have a look here: (end of 3rd page). Thank you Dougweller----Virginal6 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You left the following wrong paragraph from Alonso page (ref 24)

"and advertises that Basque can even be used to translate the Indus script of Pakistan,[24]" Could you please delete it as well?--Virginal6 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Please note that Arthur999 (talk · contribs), whose edits to Jasenovac concentration camp you reverted, is a sockpuppet of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs). The sock has been blocked, but I'd suggest keeping your eyes open for more socks (which may include IPs in Serbia and open proxies) - the individual responsible is a long-term sockpuppeteer. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't gotten around to dealing with the editor, but he was obviously a sock. I'll keep an eye out when I can. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gerrard Street (Toronto)‎

Thanks for your attention to this article. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem edits

Hi Doug, An editor I'm in dispute with keeps trying to make the dispute personal, and normally I just ignore it and take the high road. However, I feel that this comment (about me) goes too far: Please let me know what you think, and whether you can review this and do anything, or whether I should take it to WQA or ANI. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you aren't specifically named. So unless this becomes or is part of a pattern, just shrug your shoulders. If it gets worse, let me know. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy

Hey Dougweller, thank-you for your response! If I'm correct, the problem with my blog is advertisement...I understand why you could take my blog as advertisement, but I'm really just trying to spread knowledge...what Wikipedia is all about. I just wanted to share my commentary on the torah portions, along with all those other websites. I don't think that should be a problem...I hope you understand where I'm coming from. JIB830 (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. I was wondering why you reverted all my edits...Namely, on a lot of the torah portion pages and the Midrash Shmuel page. What's wrong with my commentary on the torah portions? On the bottom of all the torah portion pages it lists a bunch of websites with commentary...Why can't my website be one of them? It's not advertisement...I'm just trying to spread knowledge.JIB830 (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This should have been at the bottom of my page in a new section, and I did reply on your talk page, but basically our guidelines say blogs should not normally be used as external links. If you were famous, maybe your blog could be used in an article about you, but that's not the case here. I suspect some of those other websites also fail our criteria at WP:EL (which says also that the number of websites should be minimal). But the bottom line is, it's a blog, and thus shouldn't be there. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me understand what is going on? I have not looked at this pae for a while but the last time I did I found Ancient Observer and Wdford to be thoughtful constructive editors and now they are banned. Do you understand what they did to get themselves banned?

On another note, I have my own proposal that is meant to help resolve the conflicts: have one article on the controversy, but mak it explicitly an article about scholars, journalists, activists, living in the twentieth century and using an argument over the past to forward present-day agendas, and have either an article or just a section in the article on Egyptian history that limits itself to acknowledged scholars of Ancient near Eastern history and archeology as sources, for separate discusions concerning (1) what we know about Egyptian demography and (2) what we know about how Egyptians classified themselves and others (such classifications understood to be social constructions). By this propoal, if an acknolwedged scholar has claimed that the ancient Egyptians had a notion of race, that could go into the article but properly contextualized and explained.

Thoughts? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You called this comment tendentious: "as the article title makes clear, this article is about the Afrocentric "race controversy", not about prehistoric Egypt in general.". How does that statement differ from your suggestion to "have one article on the controversy, but mak it explicitly an article about scholars, journalists, activists, living in the twentieth century and using an argument over the past to forward present-day agendas,"? Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this the question you have been waiting for an answer for? if so, I regret taking so long to answer it, I only now saw it. I suppose what i wrote was vague. First off, I could just have easily written 19th/20th century - my point is, an article about modern Europeans, EuroAmericans, African Americans, not ancient Egyptians. Secondly, my sentence does not refer to "afrocentrists." I take it for granted that there is a controversy because of a debate between Afrocentrists, Eurocentrists, and probably other views. dab's comment is tendentious and frankly offensive for two reasons. First, the title of he article does not specify Afrocentric so he is distorting the situation. Second, by singling out Afrocentrists (who, with the possible exception of Martin Bernal, are all or mostly Black), he is implying that it is Blacks who hold nutty views. The fact is, when I look at popular views of topics of scholarly research, from evolution to who built the pyramids, it seems to me that most non-scientists/scholars hold pretty nutty views. I have even seen documentaries produced by the National Geogfraphic, Discover, and History channels promote nuty views (by which i mean, views that most historians or anthropologists or geographers would dismiss as fringe). dab's comment suggests that there is a controversy only because some people are Afrocentric. Other editors have pointed out that several people who have written about ancient Egypt were Eurocentric, and that this is part of the "controversy." I do not see how any progress can be made on this article as long as it is characterized as promoting afrocentric views. Now, i know that some editors have tried to use the article to promote afrocentric views. So what? Screw them. There are other editors who are trying to use the article not to promote any view but to provide an account of a controversy. I'd like to give those editors time to look for articles by anthropologists, sociologists, intellectual historians, or cultural studies people because i think it is quite likely that someone in one of these disciplines has analyzed how debates over the race of ancient Egyptians actually have been motivated by and reveal something about race relations in the 19th and 20th centuries. An article that explores this would be a pretty interesting article in my view. But as long as some people characterize it as a controversy between Afrocentrists and scientists, we will get nowhere. Let the article on Egyptian history or Ancient Egyptians draw on mainstream research by scholars. Let the "controversy" article be about popular views about a particular historical topic - some Afrocentric, some Eurocentric, and all revealing something about how modern people (not necessarily historians, but maybe just regular people) think about history. History is regularly politicized, if this is a new idea to you I highly recommend historian Mike Wallace's Mickey mouse History. But blacks and whites are equally capabl of politicizing history and if as dab suggests this article should put all the weight on afrocentrists, well, then he is politicizing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein quite obviously has no idea what he is talking about and would profit from reading the article. For all his involvement in "race" articles, I am dumbfounded at the naive and confused grasp on the topic he still appears to have.

The above is very close to a direct personal attack on me. No, I am not implying that "Blacks hold nutty views". I am implying that some people hold nutty views, and it is our job to keep them off the wiki. This appears to work reasonably well as long as the nutters are white power Neo-Nazi Nordicists, and if you know anything about my involvement in ethnic nationalism topics you would know that I have been combatting those, too. It is just very easy to get rid of your typical Neo-Nazi nutter, while it seems to be almost impossible to get rid of your typical Afrocentrist Black Power nutter, because if these are banned, people are sure to stand up and complain "but how could you ban him ... he's black!".

My answer to this is that I don't give a damn what colour, shape, flavour or scent a Wikipedian is, I simply react to their edits. I am extremely tired of this US game of "playing the race card". It's racist. There I've said it.

No, there is no controversy over the "race of Ancient Egyptians". Not between "Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists" and certainlyh not between scholars. This is just a red herring used by Afrocentrists to create political noise.

If Slrubinstein feels that this article should discuss how "debates over the race of ancient Egyptians actually have been motivated by and reveal something about race relations in the 19th and 20th centuries" then I cordially invite him to sit down and write this article already. I am not holding my breath. I have been watching this article for literally FOUR years, and all it ever attracted was Afrocentric bs. That was until Moreschi sat down and put it straight. Now my entire involvement in this most recent eruption has been defending Moreschi's sane version from the most recent outbreak of Afrocentrist trolling. If Slrubenstein thinks he can actually improve on Moreschi's version, let him just put his money where his mouth is and do it already instead of filling talkpages with oblique attacks on me. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember when Martin Bernal's (not an Afrocentrist) book came out, and there was indeed quite a controversy for quite some time. As is typical in academe, much of the criticism was legitimate and a sign of the kind of healthy debate that ought to characterize university life. Much of it wasn't. Some didn't like Egypt being portrayed as having such a great (and direct) influence ... and some didn't like Egypt being portrayed as African. Controversy? Yeah, I'd say it is out there. Was Moreschi's revision an improvement. Now, i generally have a lot of respect for Moreschi, but the answer is: no. His version was simply about refuting Afrocentric claims, the article was largely argumentative which an article generally ought not to be. The only time he mentioned eurocentric views, they were "perceived" eurocentric views. A good NPOV article would have the same attitude towards both Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism. I think the current version is much better. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The academic debate about Bernal is a reliable source, but what you seem to be referring to as the more tricky question is some other type of debate which is "out there". Can that be sourced? I have not looked at the edits in question closely, but it is perhaps worth remarking that sometimes people interested in these debates are influenced heavily by their awareness of extensive internet debate, and come to think that this is so big and clear that it is obvious that it can be discussed on Wikipedia in a neutral way. I write this having been drawn into an article which appears to have similar problems, Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. While posting to the talk page of Slrubenstein I noted a comment you made to him re the problematic Ancient Egyptian race controversy article. I see your discussion about the scope of the article being limited to "scholars, journalists, activists, living in the twentieth century and using an argument over the past to forward present-day agendas." I see also your specific comment that "the article is about the history and development of the controversy, it is not about the race/color of the AE."

Please could I ask you two specific questions, and get a straight answer to both:

1. What is the compelling reason/s why the scope of the article should be limited so as to exclude any discussion about the underlying evidence which parties to the controversy on either side cite (however incorrectly) to support their various claims?

2. If indeed the scope of the article needs to be limited for valid reasons, why then can we not create a separate article to discuss the underlying evidence which parties to the controversy on either side cite(however incorrectly) to support their various claims?

I do not understand why this material, which is clearly relevant and which is thoroughly referenced, should be so ruthlessly suppressed. I heartily agree that Afrocentrist bs should be dealt with as such, but a rational and referenced debate of the actual "evidence" on which the Afrocentrist bs is founded, is surely the best way to clarify the matter to all interested readers. Obviously we need to enforce NPOV and OR etc, and obviously we need to be clear about what is mainstream and what is "fringe", but surely an open and balanced discussion of the "evidence" will clear the air much better than blanket bans and provocative words like "trolls"? I am also concerned that if this article disappears, then Afrocentrist bs will surface across the Wiki in articles like Cleopatra, Tutankhamun and the Sphinx etc - which is how I got to be involved in building this article in the first place.

I would value a straight-forward response please. Wdford (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As you should know, I didn't make the first statement, so the appropriate place to discuss that is certainly not here. I strongly object to the 'ruthlessly suppressed' bit. You seem to have ignored the suggestion by DBachmann suggesting that some of the material be split into Population history of Egypt, or have I missed something? I'd like to see the controversy article cover "debates over the race of ancient Egyptians actually have been motivated by and reveal something about race relations in the 19th and 20th centuries" and from his post above it looks as though that would also satisfy DBachmann. And it's only by not extending good faith can DBachmann's edit be considered tendentious. And claims such as Panhesy's that there is a "pattern of banning black people who contribute based on inconsistently administered provocations." are just nonsense and are part of the problem here. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of problems here, Dougweller. Its perhaps easy for you to strongly object to the 'ruthlessly suppressed' bit - you were not among the group of editors who were banned out of the blue and in violation of WP policy, with no discussion and zero AGF. Please recall also that Dbachmann did not "suggest" splitting off some material, he just went ahead and unilaterally moved part of the content to a separate article, without any discussion far less consensus. Dbachmann has openly adopted a certain POV on this article, and hence I suppose the description "tendentious", but my preferred word would be "disruptive". Personally I'd be very happy to include in the controversy article "debates over the race of ancient Egyptians actually having been motivated by and revealing something about race relations in the 19th and 20th centuries", provided that does not become the sole focus of the article. But notwithstanding the above, my actual questions remain unanswered. Please could you provide straight answers to my two questions? Many thanks Wdford (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you won't acknowledge that I didn't make the first statement (but persist in asking for an 'answer' to something I didn't say), and haven't responded to my question, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Oh - everyone has a pov, it's best though when they are open about it. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Doug, I acknowledge that you didn't originally make the first statement. The only question I saw in your post was the one about did you miss something about Dbachmann's "suggestion", which I think I answered in full. If there was another question I would be happy to address it, again in full. I am happy that you accept everyone has a right to be open about their POV, although for some reason only some editors get banned for doing so. My questions are not directed at the first statement only, regardless of its origin, my questions are addressing the history of efforts to limit the scope of the article so as to exclude any discussion about the underlying evidence which parties to the controversy cite to support their various claims. It seems that you (among others) support a limited scope for the article, so I ask please could you clarify for me why (in your opinion) you feel the scope should be limited? Wdford (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Ancient Observer thinks there should be one article covering both the history of the controversy and the actual question of AE origins. I think that is undesirable and unnecessary, and wouldn't hold in any case as there would probably be continual suggestions to split it, and I don't mean just by current editors. Among other things it would almost undoubtedly be too long. An article, and there is at least one I believe, discussing the ethnicity of the AE should concentrate on modern sources and not bear the burden of obsolete ideas. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I am happy to have two articles, with cross-links. I'm sure that this would suit all parties who are working in good faith, as the existing article can then be limited to the history of the controversy as many seem to demand. However, how do we go about doing this so as to avoid accusations of "POV Fork"? Wdford (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not ask DBachmann? Seriously. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

UNfortunately that's is what they are doing. The notion that the egyptians were black is considered a fringe theory by the administrators here at Wikipedia. And evidence presented otherwise is labeled POV even though it meets NPOV standards. It's just called "Afrocentric". So it's circular. Anything presenting black egyptians is afrocentric because afrocentricism is also unfairly characterised as pseudo-science (instead of distinguishing the pseudoscience from the real science in it). Who were banned from editing for six months? Why were they banned? I quote "... for promoting fringe theories"... NPOV... only when not-black. --Panehesy (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Rock5410

The new user Special:Contributions/Jeet698 is editing mostly the same pages as Special:Contributions/Rock5410, including working on the same copyrighted images. It's certainly possible that it's someone else trying to clean up the mess and not the same person. Although I haven't looked at every edit yet, I don't see any glaring bad ones. You said to let you know if I saw anyone else that looked like him/her after the previous block evasion and threat to vandalize. Just letting you know; I'm not sure that any action is needed other than reviewing and watching. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at more of the edits, I'm more convinced. Without you having to go through all of the edits made by this user, check out this image. This was uploaded by Rock5410, who previously claimed ownership, but Jeet698 added a summary claiming authorship. On [ other image files, the possibly unfree content notices were removed. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll deal with it later. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, your "later" is still pretty darn fast. Thanks so much--your work is appreciated! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
More whac-a-mole for you to play with an IP address: Special:Contributions/ WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Whacked. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a little weird. I'm honestly not sure if it's worth blocking the IP address, since obviously he's changing about twice a day, but check out Same files, removed PUF notices from other images from the same site, etc. However, on one image file he claims that Chirags says it's fair use. This IP address also edited Chirag's work history on the user page; he's worked at NIIT & Kuvempu University. Chirag has been here since 2005 and has made lots of edits, and he does use edit summaries sometimes so I'm not convinced he's the same person. It seemed odd to me though, and I wanted to bring it to your attention so you can take a look and see what you think. It may simply be that they know each other in RL. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
And it looks like part of his response now is to set up another account to evade the block: Mymac007. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
My main concern is probably copyvio, I don't know that I can keep up with him, and most of his edits are 'mostly harmless' if not great, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I do feel like it's promising that he's talking to me on the talk pages and that he decided to delete the remaining disputed images in Kuvempu University rather than fighting about them. That is progress, even if it's taken numerous attempts to get him there. Blocking the IP addresses is probably a waste of your time unless there's something really flagrant like the threat to vandalize. Let's give it some time and see if I can coach him under the new ID; maybe the new username is a sign that he's ready to turn over a new leaf. If the copyright violations start up again in earnest, we'll have to come up with another response. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, scratch the idea that it was promising. I was hopeful that the weekend was mostly quiet. We've got another threat of vandalism. I'll just keep plugging away at reverting the copyvios. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Request a rangeblock at ANI? I've blocked that address for 24 hours, but that won't help much. I've never done a range block and would rather not start now. :-) Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've never requested a rangeblock, but this seems like as good as any time to figure out how. Thanks for all your help; it's been nice to have an admin assisting without having to explain all this history every time something comes up. :) WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Doug, re the Sam Fuld thread at AN/I: overlabeling of people for ethnicity, and violations of WP:BLPCAT actually goes beyond Jewish folks, though that is where it is the biggest problem. There should be a task force or something to deal with it, don't you think? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it goes beyond Jewish folks, but there does seem to be a problem with people trying to pin the Jewish label on subjects, for I guess a variety of reasons. There should be a task force but I don't think I'm the one to set one up. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
True enough. Were you aware of this category? Evidently it was up for deletion and kept. This is one of those "there oughta be a law" situations. Me, I'm just a Novato and quite wet behind the ears. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

CopyVio Wong Doc-Fai page

Per your observations, I have made extensive changes to the lead and reincorporated them into the article. Please let me know if this meets the Wiki requirements. Thank you.Clftruthseeking (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Moonridden girl has rewritten it after I asked her about it, see [23]. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the rewrite and thanked her for her efforts. I also thank you, too.Clftruthseeking (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

from editor unhappy that I've suggested he's been editing logged out

you have no proof it is me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talkcontribs) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I will see if I can get the proof, and if I do, you will be blocked. Unless of course you wish to change your mind. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder fake translation

Doug, could I ask you to keep an eye on Human rights? An anonymous IP (and now a newly created user account, Demonictouch (talk · contribs)) keeps adding unsourced claims about the Cyrus cylinder and the notorious fake translation that makes it out to be some kind of human rights charter [24]. I've reverted it out several times but it keeps being added by, I presume, someone pushing Iranian nationalist claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I put it on my watch list yesterday. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Using your Buttons

Hello, I am looking to adapt some stuff off your userpage so I can use it too, but before I did it, I wanted your permission. Thank you. Tiki Cthulhu (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore this guy. A part of the user:Black Rabite sockfarm I blocked earlier today, and believed to be a Grawp sock. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ainu people edits

I happen to come upon evidence on the latest scientific study on the Ainu and North American Indians share a great deal of anatomical skeletal characteristics. How about you read this link from Science Magazine in regards to the subject my removed edit was talking about. [url=] Can I re-add the edit with a credible source provided on the Ainu-American Indian connection analyzed by mainstream science? I know you removed the edit out of concerns about the racial controversy about Ainus may be inter-related with other very distinct races, but the Ainu cannot be properly classified except the Ainu of the present day are heavily mixed with the Japanese majority. + (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's actually 2001, how do you know it is the latest study? I'm not at all clear what your point is in any case. The Ainu are a modern, historical group. Skeletal studies are questionable, as the article points out. Genetic studies are more reliable, eg those here [25]. Have you got genetic evidence relevant to whatever point it is you want to make? By the way, I disagree with the concept of "very distinct races", there are no such things. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, skeletal size and genetic samples are two different forms of anatomical study. To determine a modern, historical group's race (the sociocultural meaning of it), language, religion, culture and nationality are separate categories: The rest of them are acquired traits like one tribe moves in to another area and become citizens of another tribe, adapting the local customs of them and then over time assimilate in a new nation. My apologies and thanks for pointing out the link was a decade old! The study of racial anthropology in regards to the Ainu among other "isolate" peoples is difficult, and yes, we are one single race or species known as homo sapiens in the inside. The Ainu have been increasingly Japanese from their neighbors' inhabitation, but the Ainu were the first known peoples of the Japanese islands, if historical analysis is correct. + (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar controversy

Hi Doug:

According to Wikipedia's "neutral point of view":. "...encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

In the Robert Sarmast page, it should be noted that the ancient world believed that the Strait of Gibraltar used to be a dam, which broke and connected the Atlantic with the Mediterranean. With or without scientific evidence, this is what they believed and the source (seneca) is cited on Wikipedia itself (pillars of hercules section), thoroughly reliable. This note is integral to the reasons for the scientific expeditions close to Cyprus and should be in the article.

Providing the criticism without allowing "all significant views" to appear on the page is an NPOV dispute. Here it is in Wiki's own words: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Please let me know what you intend to do about this. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talkcontribs) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You should have raised this on the article's talk page really, but I've edited the article using Colin Wilson's Daily Mail piece. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Doug. Sorry about the wrong talk page, I'm learning. Your revision states: "Sarmast argues a much smaller Mediterranean Sea was flooded eleven thousand years ago when the Atlantic Ocean burst through the Pillars of Hercules and that Seneca and other ancient writers knew about this." This isn't quite correct. The argument is that since the entire Mediterranean world believed (not just Seneca and other writers) that the Strait of Gibraltar used to be a dam that (Hercules) broke through, thus connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea, then it must have been an event that transpired when humanity was around to see it, and not five million years ago as scientists currently believe. It could have been eleven thousand years ago or forty thousand years ago, we don't know, and Sarmast has not nailed it at 11,000 years ago -- that's the date the Egyptian priests put on it before Solon passed it on to the Western world. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talkcontribs) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

America's Stonehenge

First I think I need to warn you about making comments on other editors in edit summaries. These looked like personal attacks and you need to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF perhaps. Secondly, your 'citations' were simply links to the home pages of various laboratories, etc., not to any actual reports by them. See WP:Verify. Thirdly, the article does not state when the site was built although it does say " The origin and purpose of the structures is usually attributed to a mixture of land-use practices of local farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as construction of structures by owner William Goodwin in the 1930s.". You've written things such as "When dating was performed by Geochron in 1989, it was found that the pit was from approximately 650 A.D. It was concluded, therefore," -- have you seen a report from Geochron stating that they concluded anything other than the date from the particular pit? You say there are ad hominem attacks on the Stone family, but they are not mentioned in the article. Can you please point to what I've missed? This article is covered by WP:Fringe and WP:REDFLAG. You might want to read those pages. You are also editing against an apparent consensus that your edits are not helpful. If the IP whose edit summary looks like yours is you, you were asked to take your edits to the talk page for discussion but didn't do so. That's often a sign of someone who has decided to edit war rather than discuss. At the moment, none of us can edit the article, only the talk page -- where any discussion should be about the article, not an attempt to prove anything about the subject of the article. I hope this answers at least some of your questions. I've got a number of sources for the article and will add them when the article is unprotected. I may bring them to the talk page first. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. I will avoid from making comments in the future that could be perceived as personal attacks. I agree my "citations" weren't actual copies of the documents, they were simply meant to verify the validity of the research groups that have done work on the site. For the actual documents, they're on display at the gift shop, and can be viewed for free anytime 9am-5pm every day of the week. I didn't have access to scan them...would you like me to check with the owners and see if they'd be willing to do that?

Concerning when the site was built, saying " The origin and purpose of the structures is usually attributed to a mixture of land-use practices of local farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as construction of structures by owner William Goodwin in the 1930s." is highly flawed, and I think it's rather assuming at the most conservative estimate. Who is usually attributing this to be true? Certainly not the owners of the site, the researchers, many prestigious professors, and multiple visitors to the site. From what I've seen, someone just wrote that to vaguely legitimize what they were saying without actually using statistics. In essence, it's certainly not any better than my "citations" that you rightly critiqued. And quite honestly, anyone who has seen the structures I would assume wouldn't be naive enough to believe they were the work of farmers. The boulders weigh up to a few tons apiece -- why on earth would farmers be moving these around? I'm not aware of any land use agricultural practices of the 18th and 19th centuries that involve megalithic structures, astronomical alignments, or sacrificial tables -- if you know of any, please enlighten me. Concerning the quote you used from me, yes, I have seen the reports from Geochron, University of Washington, etc. They're all hanging up in the gift shop, which as I already stated, is very accessible.

The ad hominem attacks I made reference to have been deleted. When I first started editing the page, it was much worse than it is now. Thankfully, there have been a few improvements. There are still arguably indirect attacks on their integrity, however, by questioning the credibility of the site, and suggesting that there is a general concensus that they're running a fraudulent operation. I will agree, however, that it may just be a part of healthy controversy.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss a compromise for the page. I apologize if it seemed that I wasn't explaining myself. In my defense, however, no one else was really either. If people such as Mr. Brooks explained what they found flawed with my edits, I would have been happy to talk to them. After all, I'm talking to you right now. I do find it quite petty that someone locked the page for weeks, leaving an editing consensus that is, as I've stated, highly inaccurate. And if you view the history of the page far enough back, it appears I'm not the only one to feel that way, just the only one who will continue to debate the topic rather than giving up to pugnacious editing by dissenters.

Once again, thank you for your time, and I apologize if I seem terse. This is a topic that I feel passionately about, and as I mentioned, I'm rather peeved at its current state.

In closing, I'd just like to highlight a few facts:

-William Goodwin was not an insurance agent. Goodwin also purchased the site in 1937, not 1936.

-The name change to "America's Stonehenge" in 1982 was an attempt to more accurately describe what is believed to be the original use of the site. There is no connection to "roadside oddity sites"...who came up with that? At least have a cited quote here…

-Goodwin did move many stones around, but there is no reason to believe he did this to support his theories of Culdee monks. This could simply be to clear out what he found to be excess rocks around the chambers, not having a complex knowledge of archeological disturbance it would create.

-There is no such thing as "America's Stonehenge Foundation." And where did the supposed quote come from ("one of the reasons the enigma of Mystery Hill is so deep")? There isn't any citation, and for a quote that bold, one would hope there would be.

-If there is to be no bias in the article, it really shouldn't read: "Proponents of a pre-Columbian, yet non-Native American, origin for the site argue that some stones are encased in trees that may have sprouted before the arrival of the first colonists..." This is a clear-cut case of the Weak man fallacy. In the very least, mention here that carbon dating has been done on the site...

- A quote: "Artifacts found on the site lead archaeologists to the conclusion that the stones were actually assembled for a variety of reasons by local farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries." What archaeologists? Who with any credentials came up with this? This "conclusion" was certainly not shared by Geochron, U Washington, Barry Fell, etc. And the sacrificial stone table is an estimated 4.5 tons. Once again, why would farmers go through the difficulty of moving that, especially before modern equipment, for simply making lye? I'll admit I'm not knowledgeable about the topic of lye-leaching stones, but common sense dictates this wouldn't happen...

- "Carbon dating of charcoal pits at the site provided dates from 2000 BC to 173 BC, when the area was populated by ancestors of current Native Americans." Once again, making assumptions. This is not a fact. Common inference, maybe, but not a fact.

Verbatim Veritas (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm replying on the talk page, the best place for this. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


It was me that deleted a section of text from the entry of the Antillia page last night. I knew at the time that I ought to have listed my reasons. I was behind writing the vast majority of the page as I've a vested personal and professional interest- the Antillia legend underpins a collective that I was involved in founding.

Your link to Crone's text was great, I'd only previously read references to it. It was simply that the extended text seemed a little extraneous for the introduction. The 'hotly contested claims' referred to the race between Spain and Portugal to claim the newly discovered lands, the confluence between Antillia and the Isla das Sete Cidades, and the ultimate assignation of Antillia to the realm of a phantom island.

In retrospect maybe it was too hasty- the Pizigano quotation does lend weight to the idea that the islands had been discovered even earlier but were already 'defended'.

Virtualken (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your explanation. Although I agree the claims were hotly contested, the edit made it appear that Crone said that and I'm not sure he did. What do you want to do now about it? Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to leave a note since you deleted our blog link from 'Nalanda' page and all I wanted to say is that it is a well researched and very thorough blog based on the history of Nalanda. Its a comprehensive research that people can't find it all in one spot and anybody who wants to know more about Nalanda will find it very beneficial.

Please do visit the blog and you might change your mind about it but if its a strict policy decision against the medium that we chose (Blog), then I guess your audience will have to wait till we convert our blog into a website, which is already in the works.

Regards Neevda (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response here. You might want to read WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to appropriate forums

The guidelines you referred me to are subject to interpretation. It is clear that whenever administrators believe an external link to a forum is appropriate, it remains. DMac noted that I was linking to the entire forum (unacceptable), rather than linking to the appropriate area of the forum, which in this case would be the Philosophy forum (which his statement implied 'could' be appropriate). There are existing links to at least one other philosophy forum on a number of Wikipedia 'philosophy' pages. The only difference between that forum and the one I was linking to is the age of the forum and the number of existing posts. If I link directly to the Philosophy forum of the Knowledge Research Forum, I believe this should be acceptable. This forum contains no advertising, and is especially intended as a place where original research can be posted, which cannot be posted on Wikipedia. I respect your need to keep spam off Wikipedia, but linking to a forum where the applicable topic can be discussed and original research can be posted should not be considered a spam link.

It isn't a spam link unless you spam it, but it is a forum and does not conform to our guidelines as you have been told by others as well as me. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Egyptian pyramids

I've deleted this as it was clearly a copyright version from Egypt: 3000 Years of Civilization Brought to Life' by Christine El Mahdy. I don't know what the book is in your reference, but obviously there is no author called 'Global Books'. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to be patronizing

I understand wiki policy very well, and I did not insult anyone, so your warning was spurious, and using your position as an admin to threaten other users, which is a violation of wiki policy. I think you owe me an apology on my talk page. --Street Scholar (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied in detail on your talk page - "your perverted ideology" is clearly a personal attack and was taken that way by the other editor, and the comment you removed was even more of a personal attack but you did remove it. So, no apology due to you. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say: "I love a personal attack in the late afternoon"? as I honestly do not recall saying something like this - I have amnesia sometimes. --Street Scholar (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Not you, that was the edit summary Gimmee danger used when replying to you on her/his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, I did not at all mean to mark it as minor, I haven't used that button since I was a relatively new user. I changed browsers today from IE to Firefox, may have inadvertently clicked it, my mistake. I should have given the user an explanation, but this has been crashing on me, so I've been preoccupied. Sorry. Okay if I move all this to the talkpage of the article? I undid all the edits as several were unsourced, misplaced and broke wikilinks. There's probably some validity to some of it, the user seems to know the topic, but the things that were removed and the things that were added appear on the surface to be POV. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good move to Firefox, there's so much more you can do with Wikipedia if you use Firefox, Opera or Chrome. I concur with your assessment of the edits, moving it would probably be a good idea as it allows others to work on the material. Could well be pov but probably good faith. Thanks for the quick response. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Learn what a personal attack is, please.

Please note this is twice now (three if you count the entry on my talk page) you have accused me of waging a personal attack upon another editor, (loremaster, in the new world order conspiracy theory) when my comment clearly stated that his arguments were shifty and dishonest. I can't help but assume this mistake was intentional and meant to undermine my credibility as you play his yes man in a POV related controversy. If it's not intentional then I'd say you've not even remembered the comment and had your mind made up you'd side with loremaster anyway. Whatever, but jeez, if you're going to be petty about it, at least be right with your accusations. If I said HE was shifty and dishonest that is a personal attack. I didn't. If you called this post lame, or said I don't like your lame posts, I couldn't possibly take that personally unless I was so arrogant that I thought every word I wrote was above reproach. If you said you're lame I don't like your post, that's personal. Understand the difference now? Batvette (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You wrote " In addition this is typical of you and your shifty, dishonest arguments-" If you think 'shifty and dishonest arguments' isn't a comment on the editor whose contributions you see as shifty and dishonest, it is hardly worth discussing it with you. I've just seen your most recent edit to the talk page, where you wrote "This page smacks of a fascist discouragement into healthy investigation" and it is clear that you are talking about Loremaster. And calling me a 'yes man' -- amazing. But you'll say that's not a personal attack. I strongly suggest you tone down your language. I note you also appear to be calling some editors 'fools', if you didn't mean to do that, I presume you will make that clear. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This page smacks of a fascist discouragement into healthy investigation" and it is clear that you are talking about Loremaster.
LOL, since that statement is in a section where I am warning potential editors of that editor's blatant attempt at article ownership, it's fairly ironic you say that. You strongly suggest I tone down my language? Are you threatening me? If you want to take this to a higher power, be my guest, make sure to include the part where I criticize the tone of the article. This should be good for some laughs! Bringing it down a notch now, if you went back and found that line go a few posts above it and see what he said in his very first reply to me, I'm serious. He starts with this-
"Batvette, I want to be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, and be welcoming but in light of your comments, and upon reading your user page, I can't help but tell you that you sound like a crank. But I will nonetheless reply to some of the questions you have raised"
Before even replying, he went to my user page, trying to assess my person and insulted me to attempt to discredit my opinions before he could address them. Please, could you tell me how my being a crank or not has any relevance toward discussion of the article? You don't seem to notice that, nor just yesterday where he starts his reply with
"Putting aside the fact that no one takes anything you have to say seriously,"
Yet "This page smacks of a fascist discouragement into healthy investigation" makes you jump to defend this editor from a personal attack? Is this Wikitwilightzone, or what?Batvette (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thank you for your kind comments on that talk page, you can delete this entire section as you wish. On that section title, I realize now attacking him for article ownership leaves me looking like an ass because with his skills that's only an asset to wiki, and I'm not there to win an argument. I hope appealing to his desire for accomplishment with the article is the route to do just that to the satisfaction of both of us, and would even admit it has partially been my own scholarly ignorance that previously failed me in presenting to him what my problem was with the article in the first place. It might also be said that his aspirations for the article's finished product are dependent upon references and an overall content which would stand up to "institutional analysis" as he states. (it helped for me to shut up and actually listen to what he was saying) I think bias isn't an issue but his desired encyclopedic standards for the article preclude anything less legitimate than institutionally approved critiques of institutions themselves. In that light I hope the reference I furnished can open the door to the presentation of information he can stand by without apprehension it would fail to meet the standards he seeks, yet provide a portal there or elsewhere for those looking for answers, which is of course our mutual goal. (copy of this to that page) Cheers. Batvette (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. No, I'll leave this here because I appreciate what you've been saying recently and it has made me change my opinion of you. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And again, thank you for another friendly comment. I'm afraid Loremaster seems to have come to the table of discussion with a smile, but left his food on the plate and left the building. I would like your assessment of the situation before I make a rash comment toward him. Just to relay my perceptions:
I'm not insisting he change the whole article to grasp any conspiracy theories as credible. I think he puts far too much creedence in the views of one scholar, Domhoff, and in the example I provided which suggests one of his "conspiracies", the involvement of some members of CFR in behind the scenes planning with motives kept private, he seems to refuse to consider the points within- and I think my reference in Shoup's CFR critique was impeccable. While it seems he's offered a concession, I think the views he did express (call them domhoff's if you like) in the article about the Council on Foreign Relations, or Round Table, have no factual basis and must come much further toward Shoup's analysis to reflect a NPOV. I believe he's wholly rejected that aspect, and while he hints at a concession, from the remarks that follow you have to admit it comes with a bitter chaser. I've not replied yet out of concern I don't want to be dragged back to where we were last week- and it could be a case of winning or losing an argument for him, if this is all it is I've of a mind to walk away for a week or two but I don't know if that will help the result of an article which guides prospective readers to what they are looking for or not. What he think of me doesn't affect the article anyway.
(something I've been puzzled about, is it can't be politics but he thinks I'm a crank or a CT. Based on a user page created in parody, or satire, really. I wonder if he really looked at my contributions on other talk pages and articles. You'd really have to stretch to think I'm in the Alex Jones camp if you saw my arguments about- the Valerie Plame scandal- Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction- etc, etc-) Hmmm....Batvette (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been out most of the day/avoiding answering you because I'm not sure what to say. In cases like this it is best to step away for a day or so at least, in my experience. I do think you may have given the wrong impression about where you stand, now that I think about it. But basically I don't know this subject in any real depth and am too involved right now in other articles which I am trying to edit when I'm not doing admin stuff to be of much help. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That's okay, I can say I'm happy you and I were able to see eye to eye and pursue civil discussion on this, even if, and I concede the fault is as much mine as his, that may never be the case with this editor. If this were a matter of writing history as it has occurred I'd probably have walked away long ago. However I feel that this issue, clearly involving unfolding events that affect us all, needs to be out in the open and nobody on either side of it should feel disenfranchised when they look for information on it. I agree with Loremaster that it attracts crank editing (vandalism) but that would surely diminish if they didn't feel the article discourages objective investigation. Batvette (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Thought you might want Seked on your watch list. Looks like it was a coatrack for some stuff. I cleaned it up a bit. NJGW (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ow, I hate those Egyptian measurement articles. I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Ancient Egypt Watchlist where it should have been all along, but it's hard to keep that up to date. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Yes, believe it or not, that was an editing error and I replied to the comment. (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor who restored it noted that he restored it, and you made no comment about removing it in error. That was the time to say it was a mistake, not now. Never mind. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Apologies Doug. (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Accepted, but I can't ignore your general behavior and have reported your repeated adding of a speedy tag, despite 2 Admins deleting it, at ANI as you should know by now. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: David Rohl

What is the story with the blow-up over this article? I saw that William M. Connelly blocked Rohl, but it appears to be at your instigation. I had thought things were hunky-dory with this article until this article caught my eye on my watchlist & saw he was on the edge of raising BLP issues with this article. (And no one will happy if this ends up becoming an OTRS issue.) -- llywrch (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP suddenly arrived and started edit-warring, on the face of it a not-so-unusal pov edit war. I warned them at 3RR, they carried on to about 5 and I reported them - you've probably seen the IP's edit summaries, not exactly nice. I had no idea it was Rohl, and I didn't think it was at first when the next day I saw the IP had been signing himself Rohl on the talk page because I knew Rohl had his own account. When I then saw Rohl post from his account I notified the blocking Admin - I think instigation is a strong word, but yes, block evasion is block evasion and if the blocking Admin hadn't been around I would have gone to Admin incidents.
I was taken aback completely by his attitude as before when I've encountered him there have been no problems. I still find it odd that he complained so vociferously about a reference that has been there since February 2007 - he called it 'my reference' but in fact (and I was going to tell you this today), it's one you added. Why he brought this up now when I know last year he and I discussed this article I don't understand. Something has clearly triggered this off at his end. As you may have noticed, I brought this up at the BLP notice board because I wanted some uninvolved input -- I feel pretty strongly about BLP issues although I also thought he was wrong about what BLP covers. And I added the unblock tag on his account talk page. Given his attitude I don't want to have a lot to do with this article anymore. Earlier this year I removed some stuff from Glasgow Chronology that was not about the Glasow Chronology but Rohl's, you may find some of it useful in his article or a new one but if you use it don't forget to attribute it in the edit summary line [26]. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean the criticism from van der Land? I'm puzzled by his response also. And I don't know why he didn't simply use his existing account. But if he violated 3RR, then that is an understandable reason. As for "instigated" -- well, it was the only verb I could think of at the time. I didn't mean anything by it, & apologize if it came across as if I did. (Looking back, "initiated" would have been a far better choice.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I didn't think you meant to be offensive. As I said, why he suddenly decided van der Land was not acceptable, after definitely looking at the article last year, is puzzling, but then this whole thing puzzles me a bit. I really have better and more interesting things to do on Wikipedia than deal with him. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Newest batch of spam user pages

Scanning the list, I don't see any obvious patterns or similarities -- unlike that batch of several dozen lawyer pages from last week -- so no, it strikes me as just a random clustering from the last 12-24 hours. --Calton | Talk 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ ^ Booth, Charlotte. The Hyksos Period in Egypt. p.10. Shire Egyptology, 2005. ISBN 0-7478-0638-1