home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Talk archives:
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/February
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/March
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/April
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/May

You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

The reason I posted the change, I wanted to see how long conservative truth lasts on the Wikipedia page of a controversial subject and what kind of PC police force Wikipedia has, if any at all. Unbelievable! That revision lasted only minutes!

What I'd said was truth exposed, and that cannot be bigotry.

When you'd said that I'd removed "existing text." So, what's your point? That's what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia encourages people on this site to add, subtract and edit content with wreckless abandon, and you have to know that already. You've made it sound like nobody can touch this page, because it's set in stone. Well, let me give you the same advice that was given to me on this site. You don't own the "Sodom and Gomorrah" page. But, obviously, the page has people watching the site so closely that it not only doesn't pay to try to edit this page, it's shown itself to be of no value to anyone seeking conservative scholarship, if I'd have chosen to include some of that on that page.

However, I have to add that in order for me to have been really legit, I did need to cite sources. If I would've added sources to my comment, then what you did would've been really wrong, because all you seem to be about is slandering, marginalizing and eventually silencing the conservative voice. Canihaveacookie (talk)

Hey Doug, I would like your help again. Paul Smith and another editor 'Loremaster' have repeatedly harrassed Olsson at Wikipedia. Time after time they have removed all positive references and sources from her Wiki page. I cannot continue to deal with these people. Is there someone I can turn to for mediation? Thank You. Alexis

I grew up in school with BC and I'm just not used to BCE yet. I'm not doing this for religious reasons. But sorry for the edit. AaronPaige (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (EST)

I see now that that was an unproductive edit. My apologies. ClovisPt (talk)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 10:30 21 September 2008 (UTC).

It is a bundle nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of how that worked. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should examine the discussion more carefully. Note that Gwen Gale did not address the substantive questions I raised, but only rejected out of hand the idea that administrators should be prepared to substantively justify their actions. This is, I would think, a basic responsibility anyone exercising authority should be prepared to assume. I would also note that Gwen Gale feused to cite any evidence for two of the the charges she leveled against my spouse, relying instead only on accusation. For example, the claim of disruption by "pointy" editing rests entirely on this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Bella (3rd nomination), and that nothing in the discussion supports such a claim. Perhaps you could explain this, since Gwen Gale refuses to. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you calm down and recall WP:AGF. And take your comments here [1] as you are heading for a block yourself if you carry on like this. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doug, I presume you mean crossing the Bay of Biscay rather than going around the shoreline. Well, that is not OR. No research is being done here. And, I disagree with you that "implies" necessarily per se requires a source. I think what you are trying to get at is, is this my personal opinion? Well, yes and no. If my opinion agrees with someone else's opinion, is it mine? It is not only my opinion that Pytheas went round by the pillars. And if he did he could only get to Britain by heading north along the coast. He had to have passed by the region - that is logic, or we should say, self-evident, wouldn't you agree? Self-evident things do not need a source. Now, based on what the sources say, Pytheas' base line ran south of Britanny around the Loire area. I made that point and supported it. So, as much as can be known about Pytheas, he was there - he couldn't really avoid it, could he? How he got there however is not quite so mathematical. We have this statement (which has been proved and supported) that he thought the coastal voyage was easier than the ocean way across the bay. I admit, it does not necessarily imply he went by the bay. He could have thought the bay was so tough he would go by the coast. I thought it implied a bay voyage but you know I could see the other point of view. In cases like this then you are perhaps right. We're not the authorities. If you think we need a source for this, then it seems it would be better to have one. I don't mind, but I doubt there is only one opinion on this. I can only work on this sporadically, so here is what I propose. I want to keep the statement by Strabo but remove the idea that it implies anything. Then on the quiet when I have time I will try to find the source. I am pretty sure I read someone saying he went across the bay but sometimes I don't remember righly (who of us does?) so I need to conduct a search (but looking for an opinion, that's not research, oh no). When and if I find it I probably will want to say a bit more. It isn't a major point but for higher quality sometimes little things are big things. At the moment I want to go on into the Baltic. Changing the wording should hold you for a while and if you see it, be sure and cite it, will you? Thanks. It takes more than one set of eyes to achieve quality.Dave (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If it's your opinion, it's OR, and if it isn't, then all you need to do is find a source, right? My opinion would be that based on my understanding that sailors at that time normally did hug the coast, he did too. But I wouldn't put it in a Wikipedia article although I'd put it into almost any other type of article I was writing. Thanks also for the rewording. Doug Weller (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller not you too! You really have the nerve uh? I thought you were your better than that, shame, oh shame. No thanks!--Ariobarza (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Come on, it's not the first article of yours I've taken to AfD is it? Remember Siege of Ectabana. In any case, I did my research first. And have warned you in the past about making up names like this one. Doug Weller (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

want to be friends melies101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melies101 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, my heater level has cooled off a little, so I am back to normal. In all kindness I ask you, I do not understand why (when ChrisO said he was going to delete it) you are in such a hurry to delete it, I hope your not as lost on this battle as ChrisO, I thought I had a problem with ChrisO. Either, he is trying to convince you of my wrong doings, or you brought him here in the first 'place' to dicipline me? I think I'm connecting the dots now... I guess its just me now, Athens and Macedon has not come to my aid, now its only up to me to stop Xerxes hordes.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]