User talk:Thor Dockweiler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Great Barrier Island Pigeon-Gram stamp 1899.jpg


Gidday Thor, again thank you for trying to save the MRCCR page I was going to edit again but waiting on further information that was in the pipeline, like the expected formal recognition as a sporting breed and copies of journal articles. I will also hit the net again to verify all your research and add more. I cannot understand why this topic needs more proof than others.... To me it wiki is where you first go to learn something. Having this article omitted is a serious flaw in their original tenant.

The last picture you re-added of the hunting party I took off as I had more recent information that it was taken in the UK at the turn of the century and not of MRCCRs as we originally though. D mentias (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Thor,

thank you for your astounding efforts to resolve the issues with the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever page to try to prevent it from being (I believe) incorrectly deleted. Without your hard work and knowledge of how Wikipedia works I believe the page would be gone with little hope of being reinstated. I am saddened that some of the other editors didn't take the same time and care to understand subject matter before deciding to bin it.

I'd only ever done anonymous edits because it didn't seem worthwhile to set up and account but now I see that in situations like this I left myself without a voice. I have set one up now - nothing like slamming the barn door after the horse has bolted. :-)

Regards Doug (The Other Hound Doug (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC))


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will continue to be of service. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:WARRIORS discussion[edit]

Hello Thor Dockweiler. I have started a discussion at the project talk page regarding a proposal for merging the individual book articles into list articles. You are invited to participate in this discussion, providing feedback and offering your own proposals so that we may reach a consensus decision on the course of action to be taken. Thank you, Brambleclawx 15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Warriors role call[edit]

Hello Thor Dockweiler. You have listed yourself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On January, 9, 2014, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!

Brambleclawx 22:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Julian A. Chavez[edit]

Thank you for creating Julian A. Chavez. Are you able to find a picture or painting of him in the public domain please? It would be great to add it to his page. Please reply on my talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Source for Gebel el-Silisila[edit]

Thanks for all the work you did on Gebel el-Silsila. One of the sources is not reliable however? You have used "Intrepid Radio broadcast, 2015 May 31 Sunday 9-11 p.m. CDT (2015 June 01 UTC), Wisconsin, U.S.A.". That is not a source that can be verified. Sources are usually (if not always) in printed form. I think it should be removed and other reliable, verifiable sources should be found. I wanted to contact you before editing it out though. greetings AB (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Gebel el-Silsila
    • Radio programs are perfectly acceptable sources as they are one of many types of media. Books are another media form, the one I prefer personally the most (just like you do). Besides, it makes it more interesting for the using Wikipedian to know that there is an archived audio recording out there. The present referencing for the entire article is still inadequate but undoubtedly will be improved upon [an issue that plagues all of Wikipedia]. I was aware of the items and Gebel el-Silsila before I found the archived program. Just decided to dig a little to improve referencing. I think adding referencing is certainly preferable to deleting it! Even the ones you have can be further referenced. If I can find the program I am sure others can too. To prove the point, I am not in the Mid-West or Wisconsin. I am in Los Angeles. On another matter and for your kind general knowledge, Wikipedia discourages bulleted lists of factoids within articles. Wikipedia prefers an article in prose. I think the few shrines and stelae listed are OK for now. Enjoying your input too! To a better Wikipedia! Cheers! Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC).
      • I asked others as well, and you're right. My bad! I have downloaded Porter & Moss Vol 5, so when I have more time I can try to add some information about the archaeological site. I will put it in prose form. P&M mentions a temple of Ramesses II which looks to me may be the (re)discovered temple in question? Will need to look into that. Cheers AB (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

florida bear[edit]

thanks for your addition on the florida black bear. However one of your references is no reference but a link to a wikipedia page: BBC. I tagged it. Please add the link to support the astounding claims. I am working on incorporating material about it on teh vandalized FWC page.

If you cant find the particular link, you should retract the specific claims linked to ref 10. Thank you !--Wuerzele (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The BBC citation is factually correct and complete for all 4 places utilized. The "internal link" or "free-link" refers to the topic in Wikipedia of the particular BBC program. This is perfectly fine to do for directing people to WP articles to enlighten them. For example, wikifying an author of note to the WP article from the reference, is perfectly acceptable. Citing WP upon itself would be incorrect as a source which would show as a superscripted number. What you are desiring most likely is an "external link" in addition to what was done to cite additionally into the source. That would be nice but is not necessary. Another example would, let us say, be a citation or quote using the X Minus One radio program. It would be wonderful but it is not necessary to actually find an online link to that particular episode of X Minus One. The citation used is already a full citation; your notations should be deleted. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Muslim conquests[edit]

Hi, Unfortunately, your copy-editing to Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent came in the middle of a raging edit-war. It is too hard to disentangle them from the rest of the stuff. Once the edit war gets settled, I will try to put them back. Thanks for your help! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Redcite ref. problems exist since 201509, + improper bolding of 1 title. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)



Your edit here unfortunately broke the lede's build-up. Instead of reverting, I thought it would be better to ask it yourself as perhaps, I thought, you had some future (for example) intention with it, or that you wanted to change something else there. Feel free to adjust it whenever you can. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Babak Khorramdin Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Redcite ref. problems existing since February 2014 have now been fixed. First attempt failed; second different attempt worked. 2nd use of Whitttow caused problem because of internal quote; needed to be treated as separate ref. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for KIC 8462852[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Asia medal.svg The Asian Month Barnstar
Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation[edit]

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

John Ward[edit]

You mentioned that statements regarding John Ward that the editor removed were malicious and factually incorrect. Neither of those statements is true. In fact, Ward has openly admitted that he does not possess a degree whatsoever, and that his title was given to him by a Knights Templar club. Furthermore, it is also a fact that his original logo for his organization contained the SS Totenkopf ring symbols of the Nazis, and once exposed by journalist Jason Colavito, was changed by his business partner. The original logo is available both at Colavito's article, and by viewing Ward's website through the WayBack Machine archive. These facts are quite relevant to the article, since Ward is mentioned as one of the archaeologists (when he factually is not an archaeologist, his wife is.), and Wikipedia would be undermined by propagating a fallacious claim.

I'd encourage editors to actually read the material posted. Thor's response read like he was more Ward's pal than a serious editor. Links provided below: — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDopplegangerX (talkcontribs) 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

GIGO. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, what do you know, a Wikipedia shithead! Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see facts aren't what you're looking for. Personal insults demonstrate that quite well. However, the facts remain what they are, whether you personally like them or not, and I will continue to present facts on this issue. Readers of Wikipedia have a reasonable expectation of truthfulness, and to suggest Ward is an archaeologist, as the section does, is not factual at all. - XDopplegangerX — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDopplegangerX (talkcontribs) 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Ward's actions, activities, and record speak far louder than your words. You are not a journalist Mr. Colavito nor work at a major newspaper. Save your comments for a Ward page if there is ever one. Your vandalism at the time wasn't even relevant even at a fringe level. To Nazify Ward was just egregious. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

December 2015 [in re John Ward re Gebel el-Silsila][edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please discuss it in the article's talk page. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thor Dockweiler: You are a respectable user. Please do not go down to the edit-warring level.

Thank you![edit]

Totally appreciate your work on Sarah Ballard. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


I strongly deplore your suggestion that the Ballard AfD was related to Marcy, who is not even mentioned in the article. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. In the last few days I've seen a number of academics deleted from wikipedia, including some with long track records in their fields and discoveries to their name. (But, not quite enough for them to be considered notable.) In my view, WP should not be turned into the next linked in. OtterAM (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Really? I have absolutely no idea how you would not know how Ballard was not notable to begin with. By how you worded the AfD nomination I know you had the skill to determine quickly that the article could be kept. You took the route of technicality. Please note that I did very little to the lede to make it sufficiently notable. Could you not have done something similar, or contacted someone who might be able to so? Nothing changed in this AfD until I put in Marcy. I think you were capable of doing the same and had the ability to know this before AfD'ing. So, frankly, I do not know what to believe with all the stuff I have seen in Wikipedia. I assume good faith, but I have certainly seen good faith used as a crutch to hide behind against perfectly decent editors who were just trying. In these cases it causes me to question because it may be a definite possibility (but not necessarily true). You point out that several academics recently have been deleted. I again have to question. Did you do something positive to save any of them? Or did you AfD them? I have no way of knowing unless I really start checking. Look at the people's time, not to mention your own, that was eaten up by this AfD and the frustration you caused them. Impressive. I can truly say I think you angered some of the female editors. Why? My impression, which may not be in fact, is like someone who steps on an anthill and watches the ensuing havoc, perhaps with delight. Maybe you may have a liking for astronomy. Fantastic. I think I have seen your username recently on something. Good if you are positively contributing. I can think of several W items in astronomy that would be nice to have, or even RCW's. There are thousands of NGC items that are needed. Wikipedia needs lots of filling of its knowledge holes. I look forward to your positive contributions. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfair accusation[edit]

Hi, thanks for your work on Tabetha S. Boyajian, that is much appreciated. However, in your edit which partially reverted my earlier edit, you accused me of 'male bias'. That may be considered a personal attack, and you didn't even argue why my edit implied bias despite me providing an edit summary. Note that I strongly defended keeping this article in an AfD in the first place.

In the same edit summary you also incorrectly accused me of 'lack of knowledge'. Even if I wasn't aware of who these people are, their relevance was not mentioned when I removed them. Per MOS:SEEALSO it is necessary to explain why an article belongs in the 'See also' section when it's not obvious, hence my edit summary. (You correctly explained their relevance when you reinstated the section, and I copyedited that a little to prevent editors from removing it.) Gap9551 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you as well for your efforts in the Boyajian AfD, as well as the current Sarah Ballard AfD. Perhaps it was not obvious in aftersight, even though Yale for me shows in each of the three ledes. I am sorry you were not aware of them (Barney & Hoffleit). Thanks also on the copyedit. My apologies. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. My language was ambiguous; I meant to say that I was aware of who these people were. But that does not matter, as such knowledge cannot be assumed for every reader or editor. Still, sharing an institute (especially at non-overlapping times) usually doesn't warrant inclusion in a See also list, hence the need for explanation. Gap9551 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Please do not add taxon ID information to articles that are not about taxa. WP:PLANTS has agreed that groups that are not taxa should not be treated as such, which is why the page has no Taxobox, and never will. It is irrelevant what is going to happen to species pages, since the bryophyte article is not about a species, and is not a scientific taxon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016[edit]

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Thor Dockweiler. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bedson [in re John Anthony West][edit]

He was blocked for fringe POV editing , misuse and misrepresentation of sources, etc, then created many socks. All his articles are suspect. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you. I will keep that in mind. Fortunately, the article he created in this case is notable. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this one is. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding taxon controls to Botanist articles[edit]

I don't know if there is previous consensus to add {{taxonbar}} to individual humans, but it seems awfully redundant and potentially misleading, as botanist links to IPNI are already (or should be) included in {{authority control}}. I don't think it's worth labeling a person as a taxon, and too many overlapping templates just leads to article clutter. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)