Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Dear administrator, i have edited the article sohrevardi, the iranian philosopher.some one with name of boqan is keep changing the article. sohrevardi was born in persia, and without regarding his ethnicity he is a persian philosopher, even if he was an arab, an ethnic persian, an azarbaijani or a lur he is persian in historical sources.but the user boqan is claiming he was kurdish. sohrevardi was born in the town of sohrevard, in todays zanjan province.and both the town of sohrevard and the province of zanjan are azarbaijani inhabited provinces. sohrevardi was born in sohrevard town, khodabandeh county, and zanjan province and azarbaijan region and the country of persia today known as iran. so he was a persian and an ethnic azarbaijani born in sohrevard. but the user boqqan is claiming he was born in bijar which is wrong.i am requesting you with a good faith to correct the article. thank you very much.--Tabande (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed something deeply troubling. One of the main reasons cited the mass deletions ("[1] were the "use of blogs", and above the blog was indentified as that german language "Hungarianvoice" wordpress blog[2]. However the exact same blog that was complained about was left in the version that received the deletions.[3] So while newspaper sources were deleted the complained about blog source remained. This very strongly suggests to me that the article wasn't even read prior to editing because there is a complete disconnect between the edit summary (complaining about "use of blogs") and the actual edit (leaving the blog but removing newspaper sources). Could you explain how this could have happened? Tüzes fal (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the version I protected: [4] - where's the blog? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please click on reference number two in the version that you linked. Do you see a different link than I do? i see this under reference number 2 in your above link [5] Tüzes fal (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page, but that was just an oversight and should have also been removed. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, I see where you edited this page and made references to it "promoting Rosicrucian values". While the organization does share some common principles with Rosicrucian "orders", just as it does with the Buddhist and Hindu religion, it has stated publicly that it is not a Rosicrucian organization. I do not think a single reference in a book constitutes a legitimate connection between the two groups. Also, how do we verify the substantiation of the author's information. You also removed information which attempts to provide a detailed understanding of the organization's beliefs and practices. Yet, on various pages for other religions, there are details provided to allow the reader an opportunity to understand the major points that differentiate a religion from other belief systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonisi (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I found at least two books which are reliable sources by our criteria WP:RS (we don't take on the task of verifying them), but we can say 'said to'. Yes, there are a lot other pages that don't follow our guidelines and policies. If there's a source saying it is not Rosicrucian we can add that. If there are independent sources (and I think I put one on the talk page) that discuss the beliefs and practices, use that. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you look at my edit summaries, there was quite a bit of copyright violation in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the copyright violation, can that information be included with proper attribution (I have already received permission from the author)? Mbonisi (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We can only use copyright material under the conditions described here: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. But in any case, our articles on anything should be built up mainly upon what independent sources have said about the subject. I know this doesn't happen nearly often enough, but this is an encyclopedia. If you were to look up the Auset Society is a paper encyclopedia, would you expect the article to be mainly detailed information provided by the society? Dougweller (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In your recent warning to this editor, you said that you were tempted to block him, and would reconsider if you found more recent examples of personal attacks. Please see this edit summary and this comment. This comment too, on the talk page of an editor who had just reported me to AE, was clearly intended as a personal attack. This editor has been warned previously and subsequently blocked after repeated personal attacks against me. RolandR (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I rather think upon reflection that we'll be told that he's been warned a final time and we should wait, if you want to take him to ANI though....

Actually Zooey Deschanel is on record in other places as being diagnosed with ADHD. I have the article on my watchlist and checked when that edit was added. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's fine then, the flippant comment wasn't and didn't say diagnosed, so if you can add a source saying she was diagnosed (I think we have to hold to that or the list gets out of hand). Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note I was thinking about the list article, not hers. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. there are a conversation on Bahá'í Faith's talk page. I added POV tag to the paper to other user come and talk and improve it, but one of believers of the faith remove it over and over. please come and judge. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, I was just hoping to get your opinion on the status of my ongoing updates to the Trilateral Commission page. I've been cutting out conspiracy theorist nonsense and trying to more accurately reflect the discussion group. Do you think the page is too long? Frankly, there just isn't a lot of non-CT writing about the organization (which makes sense as it is only one of many similar think tanks). This is my first major attempt to rework something like this, so thoughts/advice welcome. Sailingfanblues (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, I think you've done a great job. We'll have to see if it sticks. I've just commented that the TC has its own list of members so we don't have to make one up! Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller,

There has been some recent updates/changes to the Corticon Wikipedia page. Would it be possible if you can review it?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.11.162 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps weak sources, but sources nevertheless, surely. Self-publication is a way to eschew censorship.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Then get our policy changed. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's an idea...I'm sure you'd use a leaflet published by a given political party as a source for their platform, for example. Yet that would be self-published...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The article Ferdowsi has under gone massive changes(removal of references/referenced information, etc) by an anon IP:174.7.10.19[6] of which I have posted 2 warnings concerning Ferdowsi and one concerning Shahnameh. It would now appear that this anon IP has taken the name of User:BEARskinner[7](undoubtedly for my benefit) and reverted back to the undiscussed changes. I have posted twice on the Ferdowsi talk page asking for an explanation to these massive changes on Ferdowsi. At this moment neither the anon IP nor User:BEARskinner has felt the need to use the talk page. Any suggestions on how to bring this editor to a discussion? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted him. If he continues, take him to ANI and mention concerns about his name. Or maybe I will. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reported at usernames for attention, whatever that page is called, and told him on his talk page. Busy now. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to help resolve a dispute but you have repeated your blanking routine in the disputed section. Xenophon's statements are not misleading - Anyone that is remotely familiar with ancient history or that has studied classical history knows what Kurdachi means. The English pronounciations are ALWAYS quite different than the ancient ones, this is also a well known fact that you should become acquainted with. I should not have to give you examples or give you a basic history lesson here.Zenbb (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And I shouldn't have to tell you you need reliable sources (and certainly not student essays). I've given reasons why I removed material and asked you to discuss it at the talk page. Have you even read our article on the Kurds? "The Kurds as an ethnic group appear in the medieval period." So whatever Xenophon was referring to, it was not the Kurds as we know them. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, he's a persistent bugger! J04n(talk page) 21:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joseon Dynasty. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the deleted text. This is the 17th time 67.49.218.212 has blanked all or part of the page. Thanks for blocking him. He has been banned for various periods of time and has come back and done it again. This IP address should be blocked for a long time or permanently since it is only used for vandalisn. Really the calendar page should be semi protected. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I've blocked the IP for a month. We'll see what happens after that - the IP has a lot of edits not related to this article. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you also warned them. They are now well past 3RR and still not one response on the article talk or their talk, or an edit summary. I made a report here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:207.210.33.3 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: ) if you wish to add to it. I am also at 2RR on the article, which they have again reverted to their preferred version. Heiro 22:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see they've been blocked. Not all the edits were bad but editors must communicate. I'll try to check what they are trying to do -- they removed the word 'pious' from Petroglyphs Provincial Park for instance, and I've now also removed it. That article has some obvious OR. 05:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - I did not know about the button. I will use it in the future for all my changes in articles. I deal mainly with the late antiquity stuff. Cheers!

Sorry again - I forgot my signature.Romanus451 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I forget far too often myself! Don't worry about either thing. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I never suggested that he had nothing to do with Corduene, only that there is no evidence to suggest that he belonged to a Corduen dynasty.

Xani95 (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that's what I meant. I wasn't happy with the view taken by the creator of the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I will read it.

--Xani95 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How many authors have to write about a subject before it is not considered original research? I am referring most especially to the subject of a council of elohim covered for example by Heiser in his "The Divine Council" the link for his work was in the section deleted. thanks Al-bqrb-aleim (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't you discussing this on the article'e talk page? If you do, I'll reply to you there, as there are other editors involved. Dougweller (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any policy/regulation/rule governing the use of the word "terrorist" as used in the Kurdistan Workers' Party article? Does not Words to Avoid apply? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The main issues over this sort of thing are usually sources - it needs reliable sources and attribution. If "Listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union," is correct, then the article can certainly say that. It would need other sources to show that it's listed of course. Dougweller (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. That is all I needed to know. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that what I wrote about the Hebrew Interlinear Bible was not verified. I'm a complete newby to this whole thing, although I've wanted to "correct" things for a while. I finally thought I'd take a stab at it, and see if snipers waited for me to go out! I had wondered about my writing that line, but thought it might be appropriate, as that is supposed to be the goal of publications of that sort. I would really appreciate any help you can give me, especially with my user page. What you do is so appreciated, and dare I say it and sound like a (gulp) nerd, COOL!!!! Thanks again for your comment and change. (I don't know how to do a signature, sorry.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connielafon (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Doug!

Thanks for the advice on the tildes. As to why I have two accounts, I read the part where a user should not use their real name, because this could result in harassment. One of the ways of remedying this was to create a new account, if I didn't already have a lot of edits, so I chose to do this. If you could tell me how to delete my first account (connielafon), and transfer my edits to my "secret identity" ValentinaPhilosopher, I would greatly appreciate this. Being that I'm a single mother, and my main interest is religion (Christianity), I'm sure I'll probably step on some toes (not intentionally, of course).

I'd love to learn how to make a really interesting user page. I guess learning my way around Wikipedia is just going to take practice and experimenting. I already have one page up for deletion from TwisterSister. I thought I understood that I could have a part in my own section where I could pre-write articles, and only post when they were ready. Was I wrong?

Also, it's been my dream to write since I was a young child. While I realize that Wikipedia doesn't financially compensate the editors or administrators, I do believe that to be chosen as an administrator would look good on a resume. Do you have any advice on becoming an an administrator? Any feedback on my editing that is not being changed or deleted would be appreciated.

Appreciatively,

Connie — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValentinaPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 08:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller! I didn't even consider that Google would index this. I'm assuming I can use NOINDEX on my userpage too? Yes im not planning to replace an entire article, that would be pretty disrespectful I think to those who contribute to it, rather I plan to make edits one by one; I understand the value in being able to track the progress (or deterioration) of an article. Good point about vandalism - I'll watch my wording. Thanks again. Jason (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I realise this is well out of date, but since it's not the first time its happened I wanted to set the record streight. You told me that an edit I made to the Carthage article was unconstructive and constitued vandalism, the history clearly shows that I've never actually made even one edit to that article, not being a vandal I resent being accused vandalism, and how it was deduced that I made the edit in the first place is beyond me. Thank you and goodbye. Alexsau1991 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I see what happened. I'd already warned you that day about your edit at House of Steweart. The next edit I'd reverted as unconstructive was for Carthage and when trying to warn the IP my mouse slipped and I ended up warning you. Careless of me and I apologise for that warning, although the House of Stewart one was justified. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Doug ...

I would be very interested to know your views as to whether or not it might be worth mentioning Leslie Weatherhead's [controversial !] suggestion regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus. That was included in my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=446053315&oldid=442209340 ... but my contribution was reverted yesterday (21 August) by Wiki-Editor "History2007". Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Including it is probably fine, but not the way it was worded as there was too much editorial comment (eg we shouldn't call something 'interesting'}. I say it's fine because it's discussed in clearly reliable sources. I'd suggest that you try to use those as your main cited sources if you can, eg [8]. I note that several sources mentioning him are self-published and can't be used (eg anything by Xulon Press). Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Hashem sfarim is abusing the article talk page as a personal talk page here. This seems to be a relatively new user and I have not reviewed his/her editing history, but maybe a short introduction to dos and donts on WP would be prudent? ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully he's learning. I guess you've seen my comments on his AN3 report. What I think would be helpful now is if you made a reasoned response on the article talk page about his Jehovah edit. You might even post to RossNixon's talk page asking him to chime in! Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So much effort for so little... :-) I just got back from vacation and I'm a little typing-lazy right now. Maybe I'll write something later today. ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. You'll probably have noticed I reverted you about Gmirkin, I think you misunderstood what he was saying (not that I think he's right or am sure we know where Arsinoe was or what was there before, just that you've misread him) - we can discuss it on the talk page if you wish. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Some discussion would be helpful. I had the memeory that there was a section about the identification of Baal Zephon with Tjafanet (Tahpanhes, Daphnae Pelusiae) at 30°51′36″N 32°10′12″E / 30.859866°N 32.169887°E / 30.859866; 32.169887 (Tjafanet [Tahpanhes, Daphnae Pelusiae, Baal Zephon)] ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain why this was removed? I don't understand why her own words on a subject, especially when referenced by second parties, can't be included in a biography. Could you please explain? Thank you. PRONIZ (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the source doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. davidicke.com is definitely not a reliable source for a WP:BLPl, and not for very much else other than his own opinions for his own article. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that his ideas are fringe if that reported her correctly, and if you can find reliable sources.... Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the policy on using youtube directly? PRONIZ (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually not a good idea as there is so much copyvio on YouTube. We generally want evidence that it is not a copyright violation (ie our default assumption is that it might be copyright). What's the link? Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of them here which are of her live interview making the claims about the HAARP research project being the cause of the earthquake in Japan. PRONIZ (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly [9] seems fine, it's an interview by the person who posted it. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! PRONIZ (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

I was checking up on the Corticon site and I noticed that it still hasn't been checked. Since the last time you made edits, there has been changes. Thanks Doug! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.11.162 (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's ok now. More third party sources would be a good idea before that tag gets removed - I'm sure they exist. 'Dr' isn't normally used in articles, but that's not a big deal here. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that User:DragonTiger23[10] is removing Kurdish translations of article names stating that User:Takabeg[11] is removing Turkish translations of article names. Neither seems inclined to discuss these issues. Is there somewhere this can be reported? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Either ANI or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Doug, hope things are well with you. User:Will Beback is requesting that I not use the vandalism button on TWINKLE (long story). With the new preference page on TWINKLE, there should be a way to turn off the buttons you don't want to use, I can't find it. So I am guessing it is admin only, would you mind giving it a look-see and if so, turn off access to the vandalism button only. Will isn't entertaining my request (as you can see via my talk page). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. I agree the second source - some website - was not RS. So i removed that and the content behind it (which was getting a bit racialist). I restored the data from the Keyser study. You have no reason to object it, and no interpretation of anything has occurred there. I added new references for general phenotype. I suggest that if you have an issue with the interpretation of the study, then you take to to ArbCom. I;m pretty satisfied with my interpretation, being a doctor and having studied genetics for years. Regards buddySlovenski Volk (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Please highlight exactly which part of that paragraph you require direct statements for, and I'd happily provide you the corresponding quote. (I have e- article access via my department). Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The study sampled 32 specimens in total - "10 were attributed to the Andronovo culture, 4 to the Karasuk culture, 12 to the Tagar culture and 6 to the Tachtyk culture" (p 395). They equate the Karasuk and Tagar peoples as part of the Scytho-Siberian group of cultures: "Karasuk peoples were farmers who practice metallurgy on a large scale. They produced a realistic animal art, which probably contributed to the development of the later Scytho-Siberian animal art style. The Karasuk culture was replaced by the early Iron age Tagar culture (first millenium BC) which flourished in Khakassia producing an art of animal motifs related to the Scythians of southern European Russia.

The Karasuk and Tagar periods were the Siberian components of a broader Scytho-Siberian group of cultures and peoples. (The Scythians belonged to a broad cultural grouping which dominated the Eurasian steppe zone between the 8th and 1st centuries BC. Often referred to as the Scytho-Siberians,...The Scythians were the westernmost of these people, inhabiting the Crimea. To their northeast were the Sauromatians... The present-day Altay Republic was home to the Early Nomads or Pazyryk culture..to the North .. lived the people of the Tagar culture. The art of the Scythians. Pg 2)

Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion there are too many assumptions/interpretations in your edit, and that the 'group of cultures' looks pretty wide. I think this needs more opinions

which we would get at WP:RSN where I'll probably take this. No offense meant, but my interpretation of policy is that this doesn't directly back your edit. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

None taken, and feel free to open a broader discussion. However, if you think that including the Pazyryk and Tagar peoples as "Scythian" is a stretch, or my personal "interpretation", then I think you'll find that you'll very quickly be proven wrong by a volume of literature. Afterall, as the article indicates, the Scythes were a broad group of steppe nomads from the Danube to central Asia. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

from another source - A history of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia Watson describes these cultures as Scythic. Many artistic motifs spread from the steppe and the Altai into the Ordos region of norhtern China. {pg 125]. It is possible that many of the pastoralists sharing this culture had a loose sense of ethnic ties.{pg 128).

and Perhaps the most astonishing confirmation of Herodotus' essential accuracy (about the life of Scythians) comes from the 5th or 4th century Pazyryk tombs in the Altai mountains... both flesh and textiles have been preserved, so that archaeologists have found the typical symbols of Scythic culture. ...shows that many aspects of the culture he describes could be found as far east as the Altai (pg 141-2)

Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. Doug asked me to look at this discussion. I am finding it a little hard to follow what the definition of the concern is. Is Doug saying the Keyser article does not use the word Scythian? I do not remember off hand. I have also passed a message to User:Genie who I think is better read than me in this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Essentially Keyser et al 2009 shows a continuous genetic and cultural trail from Andronovo to Scythian. They say

The Karasuk culture is a Late Bronze Age culture that succeeded the Andronovo culture in southern Siberia (late second millenium BC.). Karasuk people were farmers who practiced metallurgy on a large scale. They produced a realistic animal art, which probably contributed to the development of the later Scytho-Siberian animal art style. The Karasuk culture was replaced by the early Iron Age Tagar culture (Wrst millenium BC.) which flourished in Khakassia (southern part of the Krasnoyarsk Krai) producing an art of animal motifs related to that of the Scythians of southern European Russia. On the Yenisey River, the Tagar culture was replaced by the Tashtyk culture... We also performed Y-SNP typing of one Scytho-Siberian specimen from the Sebÿstei site in the Altaï Republic (Central Asia) dated from the middle of the 5th century BC.

--Genie (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to use your page for discussion Doug, but that's where it seems to be taking place. There is another reference from a different source about the locaiton and dating of the groups used in the study:

The first millenium BCE in the history of the Eurasian steppe peoples has been named the Scythian era. During this period people inhabiting a vast territory from the Danube to Transbaikalia and Manchuria shared common features in their material and artistic culture, as well as their social systems.

Several very large archaeological cultures have been decovered here. ...the Tagar, the Pazyryk and 'Slab Grave' cultures. {Pg 22}

The Tagar people ...used the "Scytho-Siberian animalistic style". {pg 23}

Like other Siberian peoples, they lived in a kinship system {Pg 25}

The History of Siberia.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, I'm not comfortable with a youtube video used in the Leuren Moret article, I deleted some text and was reverted. If you have a few moments you may want to weigh in, thought I'd give you a head's up. Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Campaignbox Texas Revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Zaza people article should be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral. The article should not be fully protected indefinitely, but semi-protected for certain periods, because fully protecting this article does not solve the dispute and the controversial aspect is that only one theory but not other contradicting theories about the Zaza peoples’ ethnic classification is present. I myself did not add and will not add anything to this article, but completely blocking the whole article for future and constructive editions is unfair. There should be no fait accompli. My suggestion is that both users’ editions about the conflicting theories of the Zaza people should be included in the article. The main reason is that the Zaza people are either classified as a separate ethnic group or as a part of the Kurdish ethnic group. Both theories and views are supported with academic sources. And academic sources, neutral and objective will of course diverge. -- Menikure (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We can't pick and choose who can edit an article (although we can semi-protect it so editors must have accounts and have done a bit of editing first). If conflicting theories exist in reliable sources then both should be in the article, see WP:NPOV. It's blocked because of the edit warring - but we virtually never fully protect anything indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller my request on you. Could you or some other Admins you know, work on the article when the locking is over and the User Takabeg still insists in editing it because in such a political motivated article there will always be someone who will not stay on the reality. And I also don´t understand why turkish Users like Menikure insist that normal and unknown Users should be allowed to edit the article. Are they not convinced that the Admins are able to make an non political motivated article. Or do they fear exactly this?

I have shared my ideas and believes on Kwamis Talkpage.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kwamikagami#Request_about_the_Zaza_people_article

but I will copy it here please read and make your own decision. Like I have promised I will stay out of editing this article if Takabeg does this too. I was also involved in editing Zaza article on different Wikipedia versions, were other People were involved too. Surprisingly we could come to a conclusion and made the article, even though not perfect, at least close to reality. All of the involved Users agreed on the fact, that Van Bruinessen is one of the least Sources who is not politically motivated. When we see Van Bruinessens work, we see this facts. 1. The idea of being a separate group, is only present among a small Group of "Exilromantics". 2. The Zaza were traditionally and are still usually considered as Kurds. 3. Virtually all Zaza consider themselves as Kurds and reject strictly the Idea of being a separate ethnic group. 4. The Zaza language might not be classified by some specialized sources not as Kurdish(used as synonym for Kurmanji which is only one of the Kurdish languages) anymore, but still a very close language to it. The definition of what is Kurdish and not is only based on the own ethnic definition of the Group. And we read that according to Van Bruinessen they do consider their language as a Kurdish dialect. 5. Also very important. In Van Bruinessens schooled eyes. It seems more like a "inner Kurdish" conflict than a Zaza-Kurdish separate one. He mentions and what is the reality. There are as much "other Kurds" who consider themselves as Turks or define their ethnic identity by religious denomination. Means when there are Zaza who consider themselves as non Kurds, those mainly don´t do this because they believe that Zaza are a non ethnic Kurdish group but because they define themselves by religious Groups to which they belong. In other words, a Zaza Alevi feels much closer to an Kurmanj Alevi as he would feel to a Sunni Zaza. So according to Van Bruinessen The Kurds (in which he includes the Zaza) could be separated into 3 Groups not based on linguistics but religious believes. Like "Alevi, Sunni, Yezidi".

You can read it here. http://www.hum.uu.nl/medewerkers/m.vanbruinessen/publications/Bruinessen_Ethnic_identity_Kurds.pdf And now please compare this to the Version of takabeg and you will see the sparsely selected parts of this wonderful work. The only thing he really took out. "According to Van Bruinessen some Zaza have started to consider themselves as a distinct ethnic Group". He took out the part which became the least importance by Van Bruinessen and mentioned it as if this was the most important part.

All other Sources believe it are somehow politically motivated. Be it Pro or Contra Kurdish. And this cant be that much compared to other disputed articles. The Zaza Article on Wikipedia is Used by Turkish media, like TV and newspapers, turkish intelligence services as a source to brainwash the people and to tell them as what they should consider themselves. http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34423&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=26&cHash=c82a6a69c6 Wikisupporting (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much time today and maybe not enough time ever to really work on this. I will say that Administrators have no special rights as editors, although of course we should be good experienced editors with the knowledge of policy and guidelines needed for articles like this. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Can I ask your advice on something? User:JohnLloydScharf is a rather disruptive new editor, who has, if you look at his talk page, made it quite clear that he is angry about people giving advice to him unless they are admins. (Keep in mind he has already deleted a fair bit from it.) Concerning non admins, once he realizes they are non admins, he has made it quite clear he thinks their advice is worthless and plain wrong and he is going to do things his own way. Apart from making a real complaint about his editing, which is not something I want to waste time on, is there any way I can get an admin to look at his edits and give him some advice about what things he should and should not do? Just to give an example he has recently pasted the same blocks of useless text in almost every section of the talkpage of Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading through some of his edits you should in fact take the matter to WP:ANI and get the user blocked for disruptive editing, messing up of talk pages, and thinly veiled personal attacks. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Thinly veiled is being nice about it! :) I know everyone has different approaches to this sort of thing, but I figure there is no point getting involved in wikidrama if the disturbances are still mainly on talk pages. I do not dispute that there would be a strong case, and if someone else feels that they have the time and energy to spend, and they truly think it would help the project, good luck to them. I suppose there is a very good chance this editor is going to be kicked off Wikipedia eventually. I'd prefer to just edit when I get a chance, and my main practical problem is that this activity is making talk pages cease to function. So I was wondering if there was anyone could help give this person advice. It would be trying to AGF, so to speak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have experienced User:JohnLloydScharf's editing enough to put together a request to get this user blocked. Others would have to sift through numerous talk pages to get a more precise idea of the editor's conduct and to collect evidence. As far as I have looked at his editing at this point the issue is way past AFG. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are correct that it would be easier for me than for another, but still I am averse to that direction, and as mentioned it is mostly talkpages being ruined for now. (I fear I am doing so much refactoring that I am likely to get a comment though.) I was just wondering whether anyone had any ideas about non Wikidrama approaches. Probably naive of course. It would be wonderful, for example, to have a list of admins offering to talk to people who show no promise of listening to any advice, but perhaps not likely.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC/U makes sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Out last night, going shopping now. Might be a good idea, you need to show two people trying to work with an editor to do it. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse have started the ball rolling. There are several people who could choose to counter sign, and they have been informed. If not, then the case lapses I suppose, which may even make an over-confident newbie more over-confident.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of JohnLloydScharf (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JohnLloydScharf. -- Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an IP adding uncited fringey stuff (prob. derived from Clyde Winters, though one of their edits suggests a "Clyde Walker") to Olmec and Olmec alternative origin speculations, so some extra eyes could be helpful. Ergative rlt (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drrll (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you.

• Another evidence. Takabeg (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Added references and release details to Ninnishtam Ennishtam 2 article. Please remove the deletion tag.
Anish Viswa 16:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how they7 meets our criteria at WP:Movie, but you can !Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninnishtam Ennishtam 2. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

don't know how to respond directly to your contention of the roger maybank page, but the two mentions of "someone with his name" are indeed him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiscotheque (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've noted that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Maybank along with a list of our criteria. I think the mentions are too brief, but I'm happy if someone can find sources that show him to be notable. But everything self-published? Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Doug, can you revert back to my version? You only reverted one of his two edits. I've made an appeal at ANI for someone to block him, but frankly my patience is running low. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dougweller. What do you think of this user. Situation of this user is same as this user's. Frankly speaking, former is the victim of Kurdish nationalism, latter is of a victim of Zaza nationalism. Takabeg (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Veriss (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at Talk:Thor_Heyerdahl#Link_from_Norwegian_newspaper_today.--Narant (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Will you please help me with explanation of something I don't fully understand?

I don't fully understand the role of meta in case of disputes on local (other than English) wikipedia projects. Can meta have some kind of position of supreme court in case of disputes on local wikipedia projects? If not, is there such thing as "supreme court" on wikipedia which could be able to investigate some disputes on local wikipedia projects and implement decision on such disputes?

When I say disputes, I mean unjustified blocks. I don't refer to myself now. There is another user which I believe was subject of an unfair and unjustified block on one local wikipedia project and I am wondering how could I help resolving that issue taking in consideration that all possibilities for resolving it on local wikipedia are exhausted.

If I bothered you with my question you are, of course, free not to answer on it or to point to somebody else who could give me explanation I need.

Best regards, --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no over-arching council of any kind to decide local disputes. I've heard that at least one of the smaller Wikis is controlled by a very tiny number of Admins, for instance. I guess you could ask Jimbo. Sorry, it's not a very satisfactory answer. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your advice.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure User:I am A filipina is a sock of this guy User:WalkerHerbertBush, or rather this guy User:Suckafree420, an indefinte blocked sockmaster[12]. Prolly could just block them too, as they are repeating the same disruptive edits. Hope all is well, havent been around much lately, busy IRL Heiro 15:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

Please take a look at the situation with this article. I would have started with the sysop who recently protected the page, but he seems to be inactive for the last few weeks. I noticed that you already took action in a related matter. The IP user 89.* is the currently blocked Kurtan, e.g. see here. Thanks in advance for any help in sorting this.

In a totally unrelated situation, I see I was just reverted at Twin paradox by an IP who is likely a different blocked user promoting his own non-notable fringe. Feel free to take a peek if have the inclination, but no obligation of course. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And who is 195.198.226.242? Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you block 89? Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think 195.* is completely unrelated, different material is being promoted. If you can arrange for someone to give me the bit, I'll consider blocking 89.*, but I might be considered too involved anyway. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got you confused with someone else. I've blocked the IP now for block evasion. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The non-standard cosmology article will always be a potential magnet for various proponents of ideas without proper encyclopedic notability, some of whom are more persistent than others. Not that the page is unique in that regard, of course... Tim Shuba (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the censoring deal. I still feel the same as before, though, images like that shouldn't be uploaded to a public page. Maybe Wikipedia should think about allowing censoring based on certain grounds and guidelines. Anyhow, thank you for making me aware about my recent edit. Have a great evening.Tales From Thaer (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for your polite reply. What Wikipedia is doing is holding a referendum on hiding imges, look at the top of this or any other page and you'll see how to learn more about it and comment on it. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. I notice anonymous poster 75.11.160.255 has been continuing to make unconstructive edits since your final warning to him/her: mostly changing "BCE" & "CE" to "BC" & "AD" yet again. I've done my fair share of editing and I've reverted his/her work, but I have no experience or knowledge about how to block unconstructive editors. Do you know how we can go about doing this? Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As he hasn't edited for 3 days, it wouldn't be appropriate to do anything. I've just seen [13]. Of he continues, let me know or take it to WP:AIV. Sometimes this sort of thing is treated as a content dispute though, it isn't straightforward, especially with IPs as some IP addresses are pretty permanent, others are not. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the "Celtic Sea" nonsense that first put me on to this particular editor. I'll keep an eye on his/her editing log for a few days ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug - I've been looking at a lot of the edits you've been making (and reading some of the discussions on this page), and you seem to be a sensible Wikipedia editor. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia (I've had an account for some time, but I'm only recently getting into making a lot of serious edits), and I've come across a user who has been troubling me somewhat. Please don't misunderstand me; I have not had active discussion or confrontation with this user, but that's precisely why I'm asking you for advice - I'm wanting to avoid putting myself in that situation. I've come across this user's edits on several pages, and I find myself cleaning up after him a lot. He's not vandalizing or anything, but I'm not sure he understands the principle of NPOV; he seems to be doing his best to subtly slant a lot of articles in favor of his position. I always try to assume good faith, but it's very difficult with someone who seems to have a biased starting point. I'm not asking you to intervene or anything; I just want to know if you would mind taking a look at some of the reversions I've made to his edits and tell me if I'm handling it the right way. If not, I completely understand - I just don't want to overstep anything and I was kind of hoping for some advice from someone who seems to know his way around a bit better than I. Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to go cook and eat risotto, but I'll try to take a look tonight. Thanks for the compliment. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

i am sorry becuase i will vandilise no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baconator 753 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse for former vandalizing your site. 85.17.190.71 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I was wondering if you have any advice on how to properly update this article in a way that's proper and interesting for a Wikipedia article, but still convey a good deal of info. It's currently quite barren with regard to recent work, but I don't want to overload it. How do I achieve a good balance? I have most of the source reports I need, but those are notoriously dry. And yes I know about COI, but this is thankfully a case where COI concerns are minimal (it's not an ad for our dig after all. :p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think COI is a problem. Cline's one of my favorite academics. Without more context I'm not sure what to suggest. If you've got anything electronic, email it to me. I'm out tomorrow doing agility (dog agility) and away on Saturday also (wife at a quilting exhibition, me doing foodie things while I wait for her). Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am offended that you called my edit racist. I would like to know what in my post could possibly construed as racist. My edit of the Pasthu people was entirely accurate. I have extensive knowledge in the field and am currently living in the region. There was no profanity in my edit, nor was there any statement that was the slightest bit racially charged. I ask again. What was wrong with what I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.11.3 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only is [14] racist, even if it weren't, it is unsourced. WP:VERIFY and WP:RS require anything likely to be challenged to be reliably sourced, and we can't use your own opinions on this. If you don't recognise what was wrong with your edit I doubt I could convince you there is anything wrong. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He is a racist (anti-Pashtun) using different proxy servers from Germany who's been attacking Pashtuns for years. See 84.59.190.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a.k.a. banned editor AhmadShahAbdali (talk · contribs). I think he used to edit under Sikandarji (talk · contribs) in the past.--Dupree fan (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt he'll be back, but let me know if you have any trouble with him and I'll deal with it. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay first of all I'm not someone who's been attacking Passhtuns for years as I've only recently learned about them. I don't have multiple user names, it's the first time I've ever made an edit of any kind. So Dupreefan couldn't be more wrong. Like I said, I live in Afghanistan. The reason the IP adress is german is because Wimax and Roshan use proxy internet ip's from european countrys with signals based out of India. Anyway Doug, I can see how you might mistake my post as racist. Although I disagree that it is, I can respect your position. I think a better way to put it would be that it is slightly prejudice or perhaps stereotyped but that's as far as I would go. It's unfortunate that first hand experience or basic common knowledge for that matter isn't allowed but I will find a source that supports my claims if that's what you want for my edits on the Pasthun culture. As for my edits to their religious practices, well I don't know what to say there except once more it's stated fact, not my opinion. If I make a statement that Margaret Thatcher used to be a prime minister of the U.K. or that 2+2 is 4 would I have to find a random internet article to back up my claim. Anyway I will refrain from further edits until I can cite them. I hope that is good enough for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.11.3 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. Remember to follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, I hope this message finds you doing well. The first edit was a partial revert and I do not plan on breaking 3RR. I was not involved in the dispute but was attempting to work for a compromise between two parties, which I explained here. Anyways, since my edits were not perceived as helpful, I am going to leave it to other editors to solve the dispute. Thanks for the heads up. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes. I've no reason to think you meant to break 3RR but the first edit does count as a revert, and although I'm not saying you were edit warring 3RR is a pretty bright line and sometimes editors don't notice when they've hit it. I know I'd like to be told if I ever hit it! Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree! Thanks for letting me know! If you do get an opportunity, perhaps you could look at the dispute I was attempting to resolve. Have a good day, Anupam^Talk 21:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Where do I report harassment and battleground mentality? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you thinnk they should be blocked, topic banned, interaction banned, etc, WP:ANI if you are sure you have a case. If you just want other editors to comment then WP:WQA. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Probably. Takabeg (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This user is probably... Takabeg (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you edited the crop circle entry I modified, and would like to understand a bit more clearly why. Everything I posted was true, and referenced, and in fact correcting misleading statements that were used by others. The reference I used was from a well respected scientist with decades of research in the field, unlike many of the references provided that are the arguments of skeptics who claim precisely the opposite of the actual reality of the science being discovered.

It is obvious that the page is written by skeptics, which, fine, I can accept that there will be skeptics who assume everything unusual HAS to be a conspiracy and we're all out to them with science that *clearly* MUST have been fabricated... But when someone is presented with factual material, especially a group like wikipedia that claims to be accurate, why is it their arguments are the ones that get published?

You wrote that I had to correct a statement of factual science to "Colin Andrew believes" - does one have to write the same for mathematics? Because I do not see these quantifiers in other wikipedia pages for other statements of factual science.

I have provided wikipedia with the book reference so that anyone can see for themselves the 20+ years of research available on the topic, and I would like to see my revisions returned (in whatever altered form the heading / body requires), as they were both fair and scientific.

Thank you. Allthankstoyou (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please post this to the crop circle talk page where I will reply. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, it has been posted. Thanks. Allthankstoyou (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Maybe you can explain to me why after I spent all morning correcting my reference section and other errata, without making any changes to content, someone came in and put the reference section back the way it looked, previously. Every save I made had an expanation. And if you revert to what I did, you will see a "cleaner" looking reference section. Also, Alf has added a reference to Alexandra Robbins, in my reference section. Does this really belong here? Or at Ron Rosenbaums's page? It seems inappropriate for it to be on my page. Regards, Peggy Adler user=Bxzooo 22:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

Hello Dougweller! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference (Zupko is a respected metrologist), which quotes much what i have said. Cassini's geographic foot is given on p 113 of that reference. The use of Cassini's measure and Bessel's circle are the basis of the Metric system, mark 1.

It is not unreasonable science to suggest that the Attic foot, which is identical to the Cassini foot of 1720 in length, comes from the same source (that is the circle of the earth, divided sexagesimally). If this is pseudoscience, then you might as well put Dirac's large number hypothesis in there as well. Calling it 'pseudo-science' is an opinion, not a fact.

It is a tenant of the group of references, that is confirmed by history, that there are older periods that were more advanced technologically than more recent periods. Some of these ended in great cathophies, like the plagues etc which started the dark ages. One should note that none of Euclid's books come to us in the Greek, but are all from arabic translations.

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at the article's talk page. Besides being original research and pov, it's also badly referenced and doesn't seem to relate to the article. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ok , Im trying to learn the editing process, however I have noticed that in your edits you are neglecting the fact that the Sassanid empire was a Persian empire where they spoke a Middle Persian language and NOT Kurdish , you forget to mention that Ardeshir is also called Ardeshir I of PERSIA and yet you include a Kurdish origin based on some assumptions that are not even accepted by any reliable source .

1, Sassanids spoke a Middle Persian language which has nothing to do with Kurdish since it is a South western Iranian tongue ,while Kurdish is north western and last time I checked you have to speak Kurdish as mother tongue in order to be ethnic Kurd.

2, you can not include assumptions while there are clear evidence that point out his Persian origin,

3, in your edits you use Iranian sources as references , while I can show you that in the same Iranian book that you are pointing at one can find tens of historical errors, Iranain sources like Shahnameh ,Khoday nameh, etc are not reliable since most o Iranian sources were burnt down by Arabs ,Turks and Mongols ,and when they were rewritten many locations ,personalities and dates were changed. I can show you tens o errors in Shahnameh alone. when editing articles like this usually Western sources are used since they are more reliable and historically correct.

the Kurdish origin can not be included simply because there are no such claims in any Western sources or Sassanid sources , yet Persia or Parsa are mentioned in diplomatic letters .

until you show another reliable source which is accepted by western schoolars and not kaveh farrokh who also claims Azerbaijani Turkic people are Iranic ,while NO reliable ethnolog would accept such claim . — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthPosterIrani (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've never edited the page before, so those aren't my edits. As I said, you need to use edit summaries. I suggest you also put your reasons on the article talk page. I am NOT disagreeing with you and although I have no feelings towards Kurds I do find a lot of Kurdish nationalism in articles (which is what brought me to that article as it was being edited by a sockpuppet who appears to be a Kurdish nationalist). I certainly support your removal of material cited to Farrokh (I know who he is). Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

hi , Im sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought You're the editor of the Ardeshir I article. I really dont know what to do ,on one hand these nationalist extremists are fabricating history and on the other hand I cant edit correctly, however that doesnt mean that Im unfamiliar with historical facts ,It is interesting that I saw Bookans edits apparently he is behind the corrupt edits,I know this person from Youtube he is a panKurdish separatist from Iran,I can show you his channel and anti Persian videos on YT , a few week ago we had a disscussion about this issue and I guess thats why he is changing the factual parts of this article .

plz can you helpme with the editing part ? I know all the historical evidence which leave no doubt about the Persian origin of the Sassanids. these ppl are excluding anything Persian from the Sassanid empire arersiaticle ,even in the achaemenid article I see corruptions, I know this for a fact that there is a conspiracy going on against the Persian history and encyclopedia Iranica and scholars as kaveh farrokh are part of it , plz help me with the editing part , we both know that there are enough material which exclude any of these fals claims,but the editing has to be made by an expert who knows how to edit a wikipedia article , plzzzzz help me ,btw my name is sara thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthPosterIrani (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the mainstream view is that Ardashir and the Sassanids had a Persian origin (in the most literal sense, since they came from the province of Fars - "Persis" in Greek - from which "Persian" derives). The Encyclopaedia Iranica biographical article of the king makes no mention of the Kurds [15]. A recent book on the subject is Touraj Daryaee's Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire (2008). I don't have it and there is only a snippet view at Google Books, but using the "search the snippet" facility I found no reference to "Kurd" or "Kurdish". Another recent book is Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis' The Sasanian Era. Again, only a snippet view but this time I got a reference to the historian Tabari's account of a letter from the "Great King" (presumably the Parthian shah) calling Ardashir "a Kurd who grew up in the tents of the Kurds and accusing him of killing, land grabbing and illegitimately posing as a king..." (page 38). So this is probably just rhetoric by Ardashir's enemy rather than genuine biographical fact. I'll try to look in the Cambridge History of Iran...--Folantin (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Ardashir's Kurdish roots in the relevant volume (Vol.3). --Folantin (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of Daryaee's Sasanian Persia:The Rise and Fall of an Empire. The words Kurd, Kurdish language and Kurdish people appear on pages 40, 41 and 101. However, as Folantin has already said, Daryaee makes no mention of Ardashir I having Kurdish ancestry. Pourshariati's Decline and Fall of the Sasanian empire has Kurdistan on pages, 237, 238 and 333. Also there is no mention of Ardashir I having Kurdish ancestry. Hope this helps. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also this online essay by Touraj Daryaee "Ardashir and the Sasanians' Rise to Power" [16]. I can't find any mention of alleged Kurdish ancestry there. --Folantin (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello I see there is a debate on whether Ardashir was Kurdish or not, well I have no Idea but I heard in the Book "Book of the Deeds of Ardashir son of Babag" There is a mentioning that Ardashir was called a Kurd and raised by Kurds. His mother is believed to have been a Kurd but I don´t kbow if this is true. Hope this helps. Wikisupporting (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Anti-abortion violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember there was a debate what should stay on the first section of the Zaza People article. I have a suggestion based on the sources we have collected.

The Zazas, Kird, Kirmanc or Dimilis are an ethnic Iranic*(2) or Kurdic People*(1) whose native language is Zazaki spoken in eastern Anatolia. They primarily live in the eastern Anatolian provinces, such as Adıyaman, Aksaray, Batman, Bingöl, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Erzurum, Erzincan (Erzıngan), Gumushane, Kars, Malatya, Mus, Sanliurfa, Sivas, and Tunceli provinces. Generally the Zaza regard themselves and are mostly regarded by the outside World as Kurds and throughout history always considered as such by Persian, Turkish, Arab and Armenian records. Nevertheless a number of Zaza have begun to question their previous ethnic and political loyalties and to search for new models of collective identity. As a result, a particular Zaza politics of identity has emerged, seeking the creation of a distinct nationality

• (1)http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Kurdic

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325225/Kurdish-language http://www.zazaki.net/haber/among-social-kurdish-groups-general-glance-at-zazas-503.htm http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.jpg http://books.google.com/books?id=dgDi9qFT41oC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false http://users.htcomp.net/kishwork/kurdprof.pdf http://www.joshuaproject.net/people-profile.php?peo3=11560&rog3=TU http://www.let.uu.nl/~martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Bruinessen_Ethnic_identity_Kurds.pdf http://www.prayway.com/unreached/peoplegroups/1951.html http://www.amazon.com/Zaza-Kurds-Turkey-Minority-Globalised/dp/1845118758

• (2)http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dimli

you can find the exact statements of the sources on the Zaza People talk page. I also want to redesign the whole article using the sources and claims collected. This is my suggest. Wikisupporting (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article. The genetics section concerning R1a is in general a bit eclectic. On the R1a article we eventually stripped most mention of Indo European, partly because of sourcing concerns, but it is maybe possible to put something together. Not sure I have time at the moment but you could start by looking here: [17]. I think most genetics papers concerning R1a will give it age estimates which are older than IE. Logically, you could say an branch of R1a might have been involved, but we found it difficult to find sources discussing this option in any depth. Also while R1a is now looking like it came from India, I do not know of anyone who has taken this and reversed the logic to say that this is evidence that IE came from India?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is online. From the abstract:

"Even though R1a occurs as the most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup among populations representing a wide variety of language groups, such as Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Dravidian, Turkic and Finno-Ugric, many authors have been particularly interested in the link between R1a and the Indo-European language family. For example, R1a frequency patterns have been discussed6, 7 in the context of the purported link connecting Indo-European-speaking pastoralists and the archeological evidence on the distribution of the Kurgan culture in the Pontic steppe.8 A more precise interpretation of the underlying prehistoric and historic episodes of R1a chromosomes across this wide span of Eurasian geography remains largely unknown because of insufficient information on the phylogenetic subdivisions within haplogroup R1a. We address this shortcoming here by analyzing more than 11 000 DNA samples from across Eurasia, including more than 2000 from haplogroup R1a to ascertain the phylogenetic information of the newly discovered R1a-related SNPs."

So here they are saying people have been interested in speculating on a link between R1a and PIE BECAUSE it looks like R1a is associated with Steppe cultures. Then go to the closing statement:

"A final comment can be made concerning the relationship between R1a phylogeography and contested origin of Indo-Europeans that is generally, though not solely, attributed to either Anatolia, the South Caucasus or the North Pontic-Caspian regions (Gray and Atkinson56 and references therein). Haplogroup R1a1a occurs in all three of these areas and beyond at informative frequencies (Figure 1). Consistent with its wide geographic spread, the coalescent time estimates of R1a1a correlate with the timing of the recession of the Last Glacial Maximum and predate the upper bound of the age estimate of the Indo-European language tree. Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Dravidian or Turkic speakers from each other. Some contrast, however, is unfolding in its subclade frequencies. Although the R1a1a* frequency and diversity is highest among Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the subhaplogroup R1a1a7-M458 frequency peaks among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples. Although this distinction by geography is not directly informative about the internal divisions of these separate language families, it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period."

So they are saying R1a overall comes from India to the Steppes but is much older than R1a. Part of R1a might explain IE coming from the steppes to India. They are not saying IE came from India. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to write "they are saying R1a overall comes from India to the Steppes but is much older than R1a."? Thanks for this. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted: much older than PIE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up. I looked at these edits again and found similar ones on several articles. Apart from yourself, User:RJC has cleaned up a few, and hopefully I now have most of the rest. Probably not finished. I am not clear whether the editor involved has understood the way of working yet. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken so long to reply. I'm not sure that he does. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

People now use oxygen concentrators, not oxygen tanks. The neighbor's comment was only one of two in the article and he was interviewed now. Please put it back. 8digits (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He was interviewed now but he said (and you didn't mention) "Attiya al-Usta, 77, said he had seen Megrahi just before the February uprising against Gadhafi's 42-year-rule." February - almost 8 months ago. That is what made your edit a BLP violation. I don't see how tanks versus concentrators is relevant to this. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree, don't restore it, go to WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/31/lockerbie-bomber-near-death-pan-am-victims-families-don-t-believe-it.html

This is what the CNN reporter stated that you quoted in an interview +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday night, Robertson acknowledged the possibility that reality might not be as it appeared.

“You know, when you go into a situation like that you always think in the back of your mind, are they faking it?” Robertson said. “I saw Megrahi two years ago … He looked much better back then than he does now. And I really got the impression that his family were tense, nervous.” He added: “You got the impression that they were very low at that moment, really just sort of sitting in the room there, waiting for him, in a way, to die.”

Robertson continued: “When you looked at his skin, it looked very thin. When you looked at his wrists, they looked very thin. This did seem to be a man who is perhaps on his last days. But not being a doctor, not doing proper medical checks, you cannot sort of say with a hundred percent certainty his real state of health here.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You can also read the page that many notable people involved are dubious too. I think it should be mentioned too. 8digits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

I asked you to take it to the article talk page, not my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

hello dougweller

my intention is not here to confront any body but as a indian i know the reality regarding this pseudo secular very well. i fully respect the neutrality of wikipedia and want to preserve it but neutrality does not mean that something which not good in respect of somebody should be ommitted. i have given good refrence of aurngzaib's cruelty against hindus in google book page 67 kindly see it. it is bad part of indian history, thats why indian respect akbar(who was tolerant towards hindu) great grandfather of aurngzaib more then him i hope you will understand it and respect my thought in a good manner.--Ind knight (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know the Template:Editnotice for lists of people is used only in talkpages and not in mainspace. The problem with it, is that in general, maintenance templates are ignored and sometimes are removed without people fixing the problem. The correct template to use there is "BLP reimprove" as most of that page is unsourced, and an edit notice seems the best option to not cover a large part of the article. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed SporkBot is blanking out single malt scotch articles.[18] Is this supposed to be happening? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it, thanks for alerting me. I hit the emergency button. :-) Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking it (see my talk page). It would be great if you could unblock it now so I can debug the problem (although I suppose I could unblock it myself). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, what did it have against single malt Scotch? Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a fairly minor parameter update after I closed this TFD. I will be contacting the devs to figure out what when wrong with the MediaWiki API connection to the server. Thanks again! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I tracked down the bug. When the server lag is high, the page load fails, so then the string which holds the page is blank (actually uninitialized). My regular expressions were then running on a blank string. I was missing a check to make sure the page load succeeded before saving the modified page. Doh! This only happens when the server load is very high, but happened again just a few minutes ago while I was running it on another task. Thanks again! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You're lucky it was high then! It was Kansas Bear who noticed it if you read the start of this thread. Dougweller (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be involved in an edit war, but the reason I edited what Maunus was editing is because he was putting his point of view and not fact. The issue was whether Finns are an ETHNICALLY related group of people to the Swedes and the fact is that they are not. The Finns are a Finno-Uralic peoples, while the Swedes are a Germanic peoples. The thing is all of Europeans are related in one way or another, but there are groups that are more closely related to each other than others. The Swedes share a cultural, linguistic, and genetic relation that is closer to other Germanic peoples (ie. Danes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch, Icelandic, etc) than to the Finns. The Finns are a Uralic peoples that have a language which is totally unrelated to Swedish or any other Germanic language. Also, genetic studies (which there is a reference in the article to) says that the Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, Danes, Dutch, and Icelandic people are very closely related genetically. So it's clear that the Finns are ETHNICALLY related to other Uralic peoples like the Estonians and Hungarians. While the Germanic peoples are ethnically closer to each other and that includes the Swedes. I was only trying to make the article factual, while Maunus keeps on insisting that the Finns are somehow ethnically related to the Swedes, when they aren't. TheGoodSon 20:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you've agreed to handle this properly now. I hope you understand that there are few exceptions to 3RR - copyright violations, BLP violations, and obvious clear vandalism, but not content disputes like this. Work it out through our usual procedures. Extend good faith to other editors (WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I have discussed the issue with Maunus at length and explained over and over again why the Finns are not ethnically related to the Swedes, but he won't budge. Now he took out the whole section on "related ethnic groups" simply because he can't include the Finns. I am just trying to keep the article as factual as possible. Including the Finns as a related ETHNIC group is not a fact, it's his point of view only. Now if someone who knows the subject well were to come on and read that and see the Finns listed as an ethnic group related to the Swedes, what would they think? They probably wouldn't take the article serious from the get go. Don't let him ruin an article just because he can't insert his point of view on it. TheGoodSon 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

dougweller you are so serious about my edits. to mitigate your seriousness and worries on what i talked to truesecular it am mentioning here. ok i asked him to give references.like if in some reference something is useful for article and you want to put that onto wiki then i suggest him to write in this manner - it is mentioned in so and so refrence that what ever content ....in .. the refrence. --Ind knight (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Remember the source needs to discuss the subject of the article, which is my concern with your edits. I've asked an Indian Admin to help you, which you probably know. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Erinyes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

HELLO MR. DOUGWELLER, THIS IS ANIONMISSION. MY EDITS ARE ALL TRUTH AND THE VEDAS ARE MY SOURCE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO DOUBT MY EDITS. THANKYOU. AND I AM NOT SHOUTING. I AM JUST PROTESTING AGAINST THE INJUSTICE OF BENGALI BRAHMIN SOCIETY. IF YOU ARE NON-BENGALI, YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THAT.

          HOPE TO GET YOUR CO-OPERATION IN THE FUTURE.

                               REGARDS,
                                       ANIONMISSION.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anionmission (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 

Hello Doug. The New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is being vandalized at least once a day. Can you please restore the indefinite semi-protection? --Loremaster (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a year, indefinite was an error, although I've move protected it indefinitely which is different. I do question whether Domhoff used the phrase 'seemed to', I wasn't convinced that was vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Domhoff does in fact used the phrase 'seemed to' so it is sourced. I don't consider the edit to remove this pharse vandalism. I was referring to all the other anonymous edits. That being said, thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No hurry on this at all, but when you have a moment, could you take a look at Mission Dolores mural? Artist Ben Wood has contributed and donated a lot of the content, which is fine, but I want archaeology experts to review it for any glaring inaccuracies. Also, any suggestions for improvement would be helpful. The real problem is finding additional sources, however, I believe that one or more of the institutions involved in the project have primary sources available for review. Thanks. BTW, your alternate account is listed as a contact over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Participants. You may want to correct that, as I left a message on that talk page until I realized I was talking to myself. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I was active around three years ago and just returned, so it seems I have some brushing up to do. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have you back. Yep, there have been changes. Big ones with drama to date linking which we rarely do now. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm working with this IP because I saw the potential for the articles to be improved, which is what we're all about anyway. I was going to revert this edit when I thought I'd look it up on Google first, and the material I found was pleasantly surprising. StAnselm (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See my note here. The anon edit wars in much the same way user Haines used to. Basileias (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Whoever he is, he's editwarring. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your message to me. I come from Taiwan. My nickname is teapot. I very admired the spirit for wikipedia. I also especially like raed featured articles and good articles raed article. These excellent articles are truely all human crystal and Treasure.

Even though my Account registered in the en.wikipedia ,but I mainly active in the zh.wikipedia,so far, the edit amount achieved 1200,while my contributions is very little, I hope as possible as I can to Perfect article in wikipedia.

--Mouse20080706 (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Red-Green Alliance (Denmark). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greek genocide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the cleanup work. I hope you got every article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And thank you. I'm pretty sure I did. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I brought this up here & they thought our stance correct. Also no need to move the titles from "Venus" which remains standard, they thought. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I missed one, not sure what to do about it [19] and several years ago he was added to Eleusinian Mysteries which looks pretty bad anyway. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the edit and the content. Here the claims do not introduce a new theory but expand on an existing one. It would be hard to argue WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. There is in fact a dedicated article to the topic: Entheogenic drugs and the archaeological record. I believe any wise reader studying that article understands that experts seeing depictions of entheogens in the archaeological record may in fact have been guided by "divine inspiration" :-) Petri Krohn (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. And Eleusinian Mysteries? Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:V "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Here the source is only used to make a common sense counterargument against poorly founded speculation. I have no objections. The Venus issue is different, more "exceptional." Sometimes science produces miracles. I believe the Neanderthal genome project surpasses everything. It produced the definitive answer to a stone age mystery. Maybe they bring Ötzi back to life, and he will tell us whether they made Venus figurines for porn or for recreation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Dougweller, this is Anionmission. Well, I was pretty surprised by your statement, "VEDAS CANNOT BE USED AS SOURCES " . Well its like saying BIBLE does not exist to a devout Christian. Please dont say things like that about VEDAS, because you are insulting the whole Hindu community by doing so. VEDAS are the ultimate holy book of HINDUS and they are the ultimate source.

THUS I AM WELL ELIGIBLE TO EDIT.

REGARDS, Anionmission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anionmission (talk • contribs) 05:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

But, per our policies, they are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, we prefer to use WP:SECONDARY and tertiary sources for our information. Dougweller has not insulted you. But you seem to be under some misconceptions about what WIKIPEDIA is. We do not allow people to push their religious opinions, no matter what religion. Heiro 06:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you trying to improve my ability to contribute to this page, but I was just wondering which parts you specifically had issue with. You mentioned that some of the sources do not support statements I'd written. Could you be more specific? Some of the material I had cited includes video and audio material that is difficult to pin down an exact time in which it's cited. Could you please provide me with some more feedback? I really wanna help improve this page, as I believe it needs it, but I wanna be as professional as possible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarushiaDark (talk • contribs) 11:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

doug what r u saying? The 1st paper by underhill et al. clearly mentions South asian R1a1* to be the oldest and frequent whereas the next paper also backs the 1st ones conclusions by verifyng it, I think u didnt read the papers fully so read them. Gd tms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986641/?tool=pmcentrez Nirjhara (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The paper you've linked doesn't even mention the R1a1a branch. Let's see quotes from both backing up your statement - I read them and couldn't find anything. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Its R1a1, happy? Nirjhara (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, Apologies if I didn't get the procedure right. I have made only one or two Wikipedia contributions so far. But on the subject of the disappearance of the Claimant Prince Michael of Albany / Michael Roger Lafosse I thought I made two reasonably valuable, non-frivolous points. I tried, using Google and Google News, to find any mention of him in recent times and failed to find any mention since 2006. This implies that he has dropped his claims, and possibly created a new identity, but that is speculation, and I did not speculate in the edit. It is not easy to give accurate sources when a person 'disappears'; it is the absence of accurate sources that is significant. Also, I added the reference to Laurence Gardner's obituary in The Independent. Gardner was one of his leading supporters. I thought it was relevant information that Gardner had renounced the titles bestowed on him by Prince Michael. I think it would be regrettable if the two points of information I tried to make are kept out because of my novice capabilities.Radex09 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Gardner bit can probably be reinstated, but we can't have unsourced comments about Lafosse in the article. Our WP:NOR policy applies to this. I can't see anyway you can include it until a reliable source comments on it. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller - I have posted to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard about what I regard as an anomaly of the NOR policy. I mentioned my discussion with you here in that post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radex09 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for this but I couldn't justify a third relist and there's too many !votes to say "no consensus". I'd wait a few months and try again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it happens. I'll just trim the ELs that duplicate the sources, etc and leave it. Thanks for notifying me though, that was kind. Dougweller (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Syropls. They keep coming.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I noticed your post on my talk page and I understand your concern. I have now added references to those pages. Please be assured that, I am committed to following the rules of Wikipedia. As you know, Holy Quran is today one of the most mis-understood books. It has been misinterpreted by lot of people. In this regard, Wikipedia can play a major role. I am putting lot of effort in gathering content and posting on Wikipedia. If you browse through the content available in wikipedia for each chapter of Holy Quran, you would notice that, there is no much content. It my humble request to you that... before you revert my post, please drop an message on my talk page. If I don't get back to you in 48 hours or if I failed to rectify the issue, then revert the post. Thanks again for reminding me to post the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Followerofquran (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentimental trash which adds nothing to ones understanding of the trade. In fact I read it 4 times and it seemed rather sentimental as if written by someone trying to have a "got ya" moment rather than reading as something academic...

Also there was no source. Delivernews (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't add to the understanding of the trade, why do so many books mention the slave castles, the Middle passage, etc? I repeat, you should have done a quick search first. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I was and remain puzzled how "copyvio" justifies or explains deletion of all of the conntent of a talk page. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a great deal (admittedly mostly rubbish) on that talk page that wasn't copyvio. As to all of that, your action seems difficult to distinguish from vandalism. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

All that I removed was the essay, see [20]. Removing copyvio is never vandalism. You really need to be careful about suggesting that people are vandals, see WP:AGF. I removed copyvio, you restored it. The rest of the page was left alone. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

66.229.56.118 is getting out of control Jasonasosa (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He's had a final warning. By the way, if you added the Xulon Press book, please find another source, see the talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, I have a question for you as member of the Wikimedia OTRS team. It is related to Edward Feigenbaum.

Based on a recent change of the year when Prof. Feigenbaum received his Ph.D in the article on Edward Feigenbaum, I found some conflicting references. So I send an email to the Mathematics Genealogy Project how they came to their year 1960, although different other good references mentioned 1959. I received a confirmation today from their source that "Prof. Feigenbaum received his degree in 1960 although he completed and likely defended his thesis in 1959", based on checking the two copies the Hunt library has of the Ph.D dissertation of Prof. Feigenbaum.

Now the question: is it a good idea that I forward this email to OTRS and add a note on the talk page, refering to this OTRS ticket, why the Mathematics Genealogy Project reference is correct and the other references not on this matter? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 19:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot this. I don't see the point of forwarding the email to OTRS myself. It's rare that we would use email for something like this but in any case I wouldn't be happy about it being forwarded and not direct. But you could ask at WP:RSN what people there say. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that I need a direct reliable source for this; an email to OTRS is not good enough. Mitch Keller from the Mathematics Genealogy Project was mentioning in his email the primary sources ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and the Carnegie Mellon University Library Catalog. Both are telling 1960 as the year for Feigenbaum's Ph.D. Are this considered reliable sources for Wikipedia? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 21:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem resolved. Thanks for routing me to WP:RSN. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 20:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's settled. Dougweller (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Calabe1992 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller:

Thank you for taking the time to tutor me on wikipedia guidelines in reference to the page for the Watson Institute for International Studies. Point taken, directly copied text from our own website is not going on wikipedia. Still, you went much further than that, removing an entire faculty list and a list of research projects, for instance. The result is inaccurate and insufficient information on the page (including the name of one famously dead global diplomat). It would seem that your own comment: "Obviously in the case of an organisation some material would be sourced from the organisation itself," would allow for an accurate list of faculty members and of research projects.

Could you walk me through this one a bit as well? Is it possible for you to re-display lists that I posted and does the page at that point qualify as something more than a stub?

Regards, Karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kplynchpk (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for the suggestion. I am just starting out and appreciate all the help I can get. :)

Bed28 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. There's quite a steep learning curve, especially if you are used to writing essays where you can combine sources to make an argument, something forbidden here. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

I combed through all of the Seven seals references and cleaned them up as best I could using the wikicite feature. I removed or modified anything that was...meh. I hope it looks good now, and I will continue to use the wikicite templates.

I do have one request though, if you don't mind. Is it at all possible if we could archive Talk:Seven seals, and start that discussion page fresh? It's just one big eye sore. I hate that page and every topic on there is worthless... nothing came of it. If you can't... or won't... I understand.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Next time you revert someone's edit, try not to trash the entire page. --210.103.36.58 (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What a kind, civil comment. Did I block you in some other incarnation? I've no idea why a simple rv did that, it wasn't a manual edit. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller,

I have messaged you a couple of times to take a look and edit the Corticon page. Since you last edited it, April 2010, there has been changes. If you don't have time or someone else new has to edit it can you please let me know?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.11.162 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Wheres Dan has recently expanded the article on the Denyen (one of the Sea Peoples) to focus on several dubious connections between the Denyen and other peoples. A lot of the material is unreliably sourced (self-published or out of date) or twists reliable sources to support its assertions. In some cases, because I don't know much about the Sea Peoples or the scholarship surrounding them, I'm not sure what's trash and what isn't. I'm removing the worst parts, but I'd appreciate someone else taking a look. A. Parrot (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Your change at [21] at Akademio Internacia de la Sciencoj San Marino "I don't see how this meets WP:EL". Can you please explain what the problem is? The template:Authority control can be used in various methods. Some languages are starting using it. See: commons:Commons:VIAF inter project linking. Knowledge about the whole impact is not known so far. Regards ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted myself, can I suggest you use an edit summary such as 'adding link to template Authority Control linking Wikipedia articles to various library catalogue systems' or something like that? It's new and had me confused. I apologise though because after I reverted I meant to try to figure out if I was right to revert and got sidetracked. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. The summary is suited for commons:Commons:VIAF inter project linking/viaf.user.js_Greasemonkey-Skript. Probably this weekend we will have PND support for that script. It will take some weeks to get a clear figure about what to do. Until now I verify all records manualy because of some bugs I found. Some of the datas where outdated. I would be very happy to get more and more contacts at wp.en: interested on this (library) topics. Greetings from Munich Germany ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 22:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

After a while of relative quiet, we have another religionist editor WalkerThrough who edits the Bible article to deal with its subject as the "word of god" and he wants to let the Bible "speak for itself". Can you please have a look into this and the editor's overall conduct? I don't want to revert his edits again. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Will you do anything? I can't, I'm at 3RR. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I would be happy for you to look at my edits. I am following Wikipedia policies, and yes I am a believer in Jesus as my Savior and Lord. I am sourcing the statements, and simply quoting the Bible on the Bible's article. Cush is not a believer and thinks the world would be better without religion, so obviously he is biased against the Bible. Of course believers can edit Wikipedia too if they are following the rules. I started a talk page to talk it out with Cush, who has only responded once. I think he and I should try to reason together and not run right away to a higher authority. I would appreciate your fair judgment. God bless you. WalkerThrough (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug, as I mentioned in the article talk page, I am the original author of the material (though someone changed some of it) and I put it in the lead where I think it belongs. When you reverted my last three edits you took out 2 of my new sources. I spent some good time to find those sources and reference the statement. I would really appreciate it if you put the sources back, and you left the statement in the lead where it is important that it remains. You also took out the tag disputing the neutrality. Cush is very biased against the Bible because he doesn't want religion on the planet. Please also allow the neutrality tag to remain. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug, what you did to my statement in Theudas I believe shows that you are editing with a bias. Because I gave a sourced statement in support of the Bible, you try to poke holes with a tag like "who." If I gave a statement against the Bible, would you have done that? Please give me a break and stop hounding every little move I make. I am new to WP, and learning, and trying to follow policy. I have given a good RS and would appreciate it if you could accept that. WalkerThrough (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking for sources is standard practice, and I've replaced the 'who' request you deleted. 'Some' just isn't good enough, among other things it implies more than one person. "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." One person is obviously not 'some', and 1810 is a bit long ago, there are more recent sources. Did you even look at the ones I added on the talk page? There are some much better ones there than your 1810 one. As you say, you are new, but if you continue to edit war you are going to get yourself in trouble. I strongly suggest you read WP:3RR very carefully. As for 'bias', I don't see how you can not be biased, so to ask someone else not to be is a bit odd. And any bias I have about the Bible is simply what a lot of Christians think about it, that you can't take every thing it says literally. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller: I got your message about being disruptive. I do not see why and for what reason I have been considered disruptive, is it because I clicked the wrong tab or because the subject in question is highly sensitive? I can understand these reasons if they are what you mean. You could have sentme a no-reply email explaining the reasons. I really would like to know because I never meant to "qualify" for disruption as described in the Disruption definition. I wanted to reflect what I knew in the last 30 years and never meant to attack, insult, accuse or pass historical unfunded sources. I thought the discussion page is a forum for thoughts and if not, please explain.

I have listened to the tutorial, by Trisa. The screen is too samll and the message is unclear. I did not find my mistake, but please let me know the reason why this reprimand, and I am deeply grateful.

Respectfully,Noureddine (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note. A lot of new editors make this mistake. They see the word discussion and think it is a page where they can discuss the subject of the article. I can see you didn't mean to be disruptive and should have checked the notice more carefully (it was more or less automatic). It isn't a page where you can express your thoughts on the subject or what you know about it I'm afraid. I can see that you weren't being insulting but talk pages are "not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral." I hope this answers your question. I have no way of sending you a no return email, by the way, if I email you you would have my email address, and I'm reluctant to share that with people I don't know. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

See my response on WP:FTN. Mangoe (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I see it's being used extensively in Wikipedia, and I suspect it's not a coincidence that he edits here [22] [23]. But in some cases it's presented as the most reliable source, for example at Li (unit). I admit I'm judging his book by its cover, as I've not read it. On occasion such books by amateurs turn out reasonable, but that's usually not the case. All I could find about BookSurge, the publisher of Hill's book, (aside from their web site) is this. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller/editor, I have created the entry Landscape under the Speculation about Mona Lisa and I wrote the Cartographica article. The finding, that the image on one edge of the Mona Lisa continues on the other edge and that two copies of the painting can be aligned side-by-side to create a new landscape, is an important original observation. It needs citing and it forms the basis of my article. As it stands now, it appears that I am taking all the credit. Originally I set up the entry with a link to a self-published and self-promoting site. My last entry referenced a third-party book review. By your standards, that should qualify as acceptable. We are talking about speculation. The entry about the discredited “microscopic numbers in the eyes” stands. By your standards it should not stand. It is linked to an article which leads to a self-promoting site. Furthermore it includes opinion about Salai that is plagiarized from the very site by Derek Bair that you have removed. This double standard puts you in a highly suspect position. Please reconsider restoring my entry as it last stood. Sincerely, Dr Donato Pezzutto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.60.24 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If there's plagiarism elsewhere we can't deal with it. If you think the source isn't reliable, bring it up at WP:RESN . Meanwhile, read WP:AGF. I don't think Blogcritics meets our criteria at WP:RS. I@m not sure what you mean about the numbers in the eyes but I will look at that tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, Is Ovi Magazine considered a reliable source by Wikipedia? If so consider this item, by a third-party: Louie Parsons, “Mona Lisa or Mon Salai?” Ovi Magazine, 2006-11-17, available at: http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/1046 (accessed 2011), to replace the Blogcritic one. See the entry under Speculation about Mona Lisa/ 7.2 Letters. The notion about microscopic numbers or letters in Mona Lisa's eyes is discredited. The source is self-promoting. The source also is portraying, as his own, the idea that the identity of Mona Lisa is Salai. That was originally developed by Derek Bair. I respectfully present these related issues as appearing to be unfair to Derek Bair. I am sure that you will want this corrected. Sincerely, Don. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.60.24 (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Ovi my guess is that the answer would be 'it depends' and that any particular use of it would have to be agreed with other editors, probably at WP:RSN. In his case I'd say no, not just because the writer seems to be writing about something outside his field of expertise but also because he wrote this [24] which is certainly a hoax and a racist one at that. You can always ask at WP:RSN but given this other article I'm pretty sure others would agree with me. I haven't had a chance to look at the speculation, later today. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right. Given the number of theories put up about the most famous few works, like this one, we should be conservative, and wait until theories are at least referred to by other art historians. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'ved rewritten the bit about Silvano Vinceti in both articles now. I'd really like to know what this so-called "Italian national committee for cultural heritage" is. I can find no website for it and no suggestion it is what the name suggests, and I'm guessing it's Vinceti and maybe a few friends, anyone know more? Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the entry regarding Silvano Vincenti’s claims. It would be more forceful if the bit about the microscopic numbers or letters was linked to the Louvre’s refutation of this notion. You continue to give voice to his other ideas identifying Mona Lisa to Salai. Again, that is a theory originally proposed by Derek Bair. Compare Vincenti to www.itsjustlife.com/; it appears to be plagiarism. Returning to my entry under Speculation about Mona Lisa/ Landscape -- will there be any decision communicated here? I am unhappy that as it stands, all credit is directed at me. Perhaps a solution is to replace the entry with: Landscape: People of Arezzo, in the Val di Chiana, Tuscany, traditionally claim that theirs is the landscape of the Mona Lisa. An article, in Cartographica, supports this. The article builds on the observations of Derek Bair, that the image on one edge of the painting continues on the other, and of Carlo Starnazzi, that the bridge resembles Ponte Buriano, and hypothesizes that the reconstituted landscape matches Leonardo’s Val di Chiana map. This could all be linked to one reference -- the article. Let people read and decide themselves. Finally, could this entry be added to the main Mona Lisa page? Sincerely, Don. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.60.24 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello there:

Just wanted to point out a proposed change to the Pharaoh infobox that I have made, and would value your opinion on.

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a third opinion on the talpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.254.213 (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but do you have any suggestions for me as to how to deal with an editor who always reverts my referenced edits? We hog the discussion page and the problem is... its always me and this editor, and there is no one else to give a third opinion... so it's always back and forth. I don't know what to do so as not to to cross the line. Any advice would be grateful. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my edits are too fast. I will try going slower. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that using "The Mountain Astrologer" as a source is valid? Serendi^podous 06:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please intervene with the reversion of edits being made by editor SerediPODus on the 2012 phenomenon page? It doesn't seem to be sinking in that references to the contents of fringe literature or publications such as The Mountain Astrologer are essential when one is writing about pseudoscience or pseudoarchaeology. I think that inclusion of a quote from a 1991 article by a professional astrologer represents an improvement to the article but that editor is blocking that addition, apparently because of a personal vendetta against the writer in question (as evidenced by disparaging comments made on the discussion page for that article). Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a legitimate source for this, take it to RSN if you disagree Serendipodous, I've reverted back to John Hoopes edit. I sympathise with your feelings about Mardyks editing here, and I am considering what to do about the IP, but I think John's right here. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that pisses me off. If previous editors had considered it a legitimate source, then Mardyks' edits would have been accepted years ago and I wouldn't have had to spend two years fending off his childish vitriol. Serendi^podous 08:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a post at RSN. I think it's a valid request, even given only what Mardyks has put me through over the last two years. Serendi^podous 09:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you are annoyed, it's happened to me. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think giving this guy what he wanted was a good idea? Now he thinks he can everything else he wants, and spreading victory graffiti all over the site. Anyway, since the real issue is notability, not reliability, where do I go to beg notability? Serendi^podous 19:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can and did remove his crowing. I think you may mean significance, ie WP:UNDUE, but going to another venue might not be a good idea. It would be WP:NPOV or you can try an RfC if you really want to pursue this. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You told me to see the policy, but the policy states that neither system is preferred. Also, I do not think how the page started is important. I think it's more important that it ends up correct.

In any event, I think this is the type of change that will be continually reverted back and forth among all articles. It probably won't amount to much more than an annoyance to some. Niluop (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The guideline was put in place after much discussion to ensure there are no edit wars over this, and editors are expected to follow it and do get blocked for ignoring it. There is no 'correct' in many cases, probably all. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

After haveing read Wiki rules and procedures I have begun to write articles in compliance with the rules, however I have a Stalker... Lol

It seems that a gentleman going by the user name Jeffy (You can find him on any article Ive written) dislikes my article and is simply Eraseing them.

I am new, and I did write a few bad articles, but I have read up on how to fix them. He is still removing my artcles....

Is there a way to make a complaint? Is there any oversight to who's articles you can and cannot remove, and for what reasons?

Who do I inform about this? He has removed my article on SATAN subtitle "Jehovah's Witnesses"....

I did not cite scriptures directly as he asked me not to. I refrenced only WTBTS publications as he asked, and still he has removed my article....

I'm confused.... Please help

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

ME  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not deleted any articles, and am not aware that David42718 has created any articles. I have removed some of his contributions, and in each instance have given quite clear reasons why. David42718 needs to familiarise himself with WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP, and various other policies. Another editor has also tried to direct David42718, at his Talk Page, to various relevant policies.

His claim that I am 'stalking' him is irrelevant. Articles relating to the JW Project are on my Watchlist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding his specific complaint about his contributions at Satan, he is attempting to POV-push a minor view on the matter, despite the fact that the views of no other individual denominations are given. Much of the information in the subsection added by David42718 is already expressed at Satan#Christianity. JW-specific information about Satan is already given at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Satan.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I did check his Contributions page to confirm my understanding that he was very close to breaching the three-revert rule, at which point I was unsurprised to see his ill-conceived complaint here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Doug, David42718 is continuing, at my Talk page, to suggest that I've been heavy-handed in the follow-ups I've made to his edits. I therefore invite you to check over the relevant changes, and if I've gone too far or if you have any other suggestions for either of us, please let me know. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. It takes some people quite a while to understand and follow our policies and guidelines, hopefully David will start to understand that when several editors are reverting you there is usually a good reason. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Note the deletion of the passage from the Horus article on the basis you think there there may be no connection between Horus and the saviour god Shed. Jaroslov Cerny in "Ancient Egyptian Religion" writes: "Shed ("Saviour"), originally perhaps a personification of the tutelary aspect of of the god Onuris...Shed, too, is called "great god, lord of heaven" and "lord of deserts" and was soon identified with the young Horus (Hor-Shed) he is then found represented on stelae as a divine child, standing naked on the heads of two crocodiles and holding in his hands snakes and scorpions and a lion and a gazelle..." Budge in vol ii of "The Gods of the Egyptians" (p. 267-274) gives some well drawn examples of these of these images in the section dealing with the cippi of Horus and, because I think they are out of copyright, you mind find them on the internet. I can't find a separate entry for Shed in Budges massive index, or even if he differentiated between the two but, as you know, he had his own way of transliteration so maybe it's there somewhere. Though not related to your point Hornung in a passage dealing with Shed as "saviour " ("The One and the Many") gives in a footnote examples of use in personal names "Horus 'killed death' , i.e he doesn't seem to differentiate between the two. (p. 212, fn 60) He also gives as a reference work for the "saviour" god Bernard Bruyere's "Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Medineh". I don't have it but Bruyere's worked with Cerny at Deir el-Medina (see John Romers "Ancient Lives", p. xi, p. 207 for Cern'y ongoing standing and influence and p. 28 for Shed as "saviour and helper of mankind"). Apart from the Hor-Shed name the only significant point I can see that is perhaps missing from the article is the antiquity of "Saviour" type epithets. Rosalie David in "Religion and Magic" (p. 313) mentions the use of "Saviour" in names in the Ptolomaic period but traces them back to the time of Imhotep (c. 2686 BCE ) All the above is taken from introductory works written by Egyptologist's and should be readily available in a good library. On the other-hand if you have come in contact with material that gives details showing things have changed or indeed a significant minority opinion exits, or I have plain misunderstood what sources are saying, then of course I would support deleting the passage or editing it to mention a minority opinion.Yt95 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem I saw was that there was no source in the passage linking the two, and my search didn't turn up anything. What Černýsays is very useful, but I'm not sure about all the comments about saviour gods - although of course anything directly to do with Horus is fine. What isn't at all clear to me is when and how Shed and Horus were linked - which I presume is complex. The main thing is that sources must specifically back any edits. Shouldn't this be copied to the article's talk page? Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

When the two merged I have no idea because of the vast timescales involved and the syncretic ways of Ancient Egypt. Cerny gives the name of the merged deity as Hor-Shed. I would restore the original text and add Cerny's name for the merged deity but if there is still doubts in your mind then take it to the talk page with your specific point of concern and source material and see if a qualified Egyptologist can shed (no pun intended) any light on it. The one who could have was chased away by sectarian editors.[25] Yt95 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Editor:Heff01[26] has decided to post rants[27] on this talk page that have no direct meaning for the article. I removed these rants once[28] under wikipedia is not a forum and was reverted.[29] What are your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted and warned. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I will reserve the "minor edit" indicator for grammatical fixes, typos, and the like. Thanks for the input. Rod (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello - I saw you made this comment on an MfD discussion you started. Would you like to withdraw your nomination? MJ94 (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate for me to close it. Dougweller (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello-Regarding your note, yeah, I was just hoping that wouldn't be a problem. The edits I was undoing were recent additions by a novice editor who has a possible COI issue. I said so in my first edit summary, and then felt like doing that lots might overly tag the person as malicious when I expect they're just unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Anyway, I think there are more such still to be undone. I'll be sure to include edit summaries. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at his talk page. Let's see how he responds. Thanks for the response. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yt95 (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the page I was looking for is this one. It's a bit hard to tell because wayback didn't archive the entry directly and I think that the earlier link I was looking for was either to the unarchived place or to a copy of it. I don't know that this extra material is worth including, as for one thing I don't know how well people are going to take this blog-ish site (though the authors as a rule are reliable). Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a concern. May I email you? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

After further investigation, my concerns appear unfounded. Mea culpa. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem and glad to hear it. Admins should always be available for email (with exceptions when it's causing a problem of course). Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about what is going on at Allied Intervention in Hungary; basically WP:SYNT in order to push a POV, which is mostly about the title, but also involving plain misuse of sources, cited to say the opposite of what they actually state. See this diff [30] (multiple consecutive edits by the same user) as a good example of the problem. I left a comment on the talk page there as well. I don't think this is something ANI can handle, because it requires an editor to read history sources carefully, like yourself :-) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

However, the redirection was justified in my opinion. If you see the original text of the page, that was about historical movements in 1918-20. It had nothing to do with 1848.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And about the sources of the article title ('Allied Intervention in Hungary'). I am not English, I did not read my sources carefully. It was not deliberate. It is my fault. One thing is sure there were interventions. Maybe 'Interventions in Hungary (1918-1920)' would be better title of the page. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these good faith comments, Fakirbakir. Hopefully there's nothing more to be done here as I really don't think I have the time to sort out something I know nothing about! Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As requested a new entry on the talkpage has been started.

With regard to your points of inquiry,

Book Citations- I'll have to flip through the books to get the exact page numbers, and can likely post them sometime tomorrow. Most of those books are entirely dedicated to the subject they're being cited for anyway, so readers shouldn't have a terribly painful time finding the pertinent information even without the exact page and line numbers. I will post candidates on the article talkpage, any suggestions are welcome.

Parliament picture- Absent any particular specification from yourself or the other party who expressed interest, I will throw together some citations that I consider to cover the general statement in the image description. If you find you need something more specific post in the article talkpage entry and it will be addressed. With regard to the image size, it was chosen to cleanly fit with the other images & avoid cluttering the page's appearance while still allowing the inclusion of a more contemporary reference of appropriate notability and influence as the article is not actually about ancient civilizations. Post any thoughts you may have for alternatives on the article talkpage and we should be able to come to an arrangement.

Great Wall image is not the right one- I didn't put that image up or the bit about the date of construction, issues regarding that should be directed toward Andrew Lancaster, as shown in the article revision history. I can however certainly rectify this inaccuracy if necessary, but it is not a reason to revert edits actually made by myself.

Claim the Ming wall as the most something- I am fairly confident that I will have no trouble with this, which metric do you feel most appropriate? Let me know on the article talkpage.

Not the only editor with a disagreement- From a quick scan of the article history the only individuals who took issue with the content in question were yourself and two others, one of which was by their own admission mistaking those contributions for vandalism after a fleeting analysis on their part in their quest to "hunt i.p.'s", and after discussion on the contents of those edits that individual withdrew their objection and hasn't taken issue with any of the contributions since. It's hardly in my estimation a case of the community versus the rogue, if this is wrong please inform me.

Suggestion of vandalism- Spidey is the one who asserted vandalism, no other user was meant to be inferred from the reference in the edit summary I assume you are addressing.

That should cover the key points in your query. Let me know of any further issues or if I missed any, and I look forward to working on this with you. Regards, 24.9.30.143 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The above post was not meant for the article talkpage, it was in response to your posting on my usertalk page as shown by the points of inquiry it responds to. You may copy material from here to the article talkpage at your prerogative, but I don't deem it necessary from my point of view at this time.24.9.30.143 (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, Is it copyvio when I save my deleted editing from another page? Talk:Allied_Intervention_in_Hungary#Copy/pasteFakirbakir (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not if it's yours, you still have copyright over all your edits. That's why copy and paste from other articles without attribution is copyvio, it's almost always someone else's work. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dougweller. As I recall, you have an interest in Etruscan topics. I've been meaning to do something about an image problem at Liver of Piacenza for a while, so I thought I'd mention this perplexing business to you. Explained on the article's talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Doug - someone deleted the school logo. Could you help with this? I don't understand copyright things too well. If there is something the school needs to do, I could talk to them. --GroveGuy (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Would this site[31](armenians-1915.blogspot.com) be considered a neutral source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think first you need to see if there is agreement it's a reliable source. You might ask at WP:RSN. It's on blogspot.com, is the author likely to be considered an expert? Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. My subsequent question does not directly relate to the site I previous asked about. Is the neutrality of a source decided upon by editors? Or at WP:RSN? If the source is an unpublished online source does it not fall under the category of Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[32] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear sir,

I noted with interest the fury with which you have been depicting the history of the Kingdom of Kongo in its social structure by a misleading degrading account. As a Congolese, according to our cultural heritage, I am well positioned to tell that your spurious assertions are not only totally unfounded but they are grotesque. And, indeed, no other sources, not even in Wikipedia, confirm them. And even if there was the smallest basis on your delusive claims, the reduction of the whole complex social structure of the Kingdom of Kongo to the specific aspect of homosexuality is highly questionable and denotes your intention to smear the image of the Congolese history and people or to comfort your own bias toward an irrelevant social matter.

I am enjoining you to stop such a misrepresentation.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguluma (talk • contribs) 19:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been reverted by three editors, and I doubt that any of us wrote that section - I certainly did not. Unexplained removal of content like that is generally considered vandalism, and when it is done repeatedly with no explanation in the edit summary it is also considered edit warring -- see WP:3RR. I strongly suggest that you use the article's talk page and gain agreement before any more editing, and add to the article rather than remove sourced content. Read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS on sourcing. I am sure that there is much to be added on the social structure, but you have been going about it entirely the wrong way. You will get support if you have sources to extend our article's coverage on this. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna try to start a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Kongo#Social structure on how to improve that section. If that section is deleted again, I think it'll be time to head over to 3RRNB. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, looks like that might not matter, a sockpuppet has started up. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about that. I obviously didn't look carefully enough at the edit. Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a T-shirt now? Shit, I only have coffee mug. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User Wheres Dan is consistently adding dubious and clearly pseudohistorical content to the Denyen article and perhaps other articles about Sea Peoples. Please intervene.--Tataryn77 (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Nephiliskos (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What? ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greek genocide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on WP:AE, you may want to follow this thread. The fact that user has a clean block log (after changing usernames twice, I must add), does not mean he is not provoking WP:BATTLE on nationalist grounds, moreover, grossly violating WP:HARASSMENT on numerous counts. Atabəy (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That suggests an interaction ban, not a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

While numerous other WP:AA2 contributors are being restricted, Khodabandeh14, who was involved in all WP:AA2 conflicts, remains free of restrictions. Such cherry picking of POV is unfair and does not result in less edit warring, edit conflicts, and NO, his position is very much single-sided WP:POV. So imbalance must come to an end. No one asks him to file frivolous reports, violate privacy of contributors, attempt to waste community resources by another ArbCom, when he absolutely can constructively partake in talk pages, RfC and other steps for achieving consensus.Atabəy (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you might move Zombies in popular culture to zombie (fictional) over the redirect? I'm trying to keep the two concepts distinct. Thanks :) Serendi^podous 12:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You sure? I don't see a discussion. And should it be Zombie (fictional) or Zombies {fictional}? Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a bit of a discussion on Talk:Zombie. Serendi^podous 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, do I leave a redirect behind? How about the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the original title is a good redirect. Serendi^podous 16:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, move the popular culture article to fictional, leaving popular culture as a redirect, and moving the talk page also, right? Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's Ok with you, it's fine with me :) Serendi^podous 16:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, you might want to fix [33] although a bot should do it. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've inadvertently caused chaos in my attempts to fix the interlinks, because my browser was infected by a "BUY CRAP" random hyperlinker that for some reason automatically deleted words in the Wikipedia work window. But hopefully that's sorted now. BTW are you going to respond to that guy over at the "pseudoscientific planets" page? If not I completely understand why. Serendi^podous 19:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I should, but in the words of Shaniah Twain, 'I've got better things to do'. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I wondered if keeping his last name out would suffice....see what you can do, will you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1119E38 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically, not a sockpuppet. Mackemfixer changed accounts on March 18, 2009, and didn't use it to support other accounts. That made it a legitimate alternate account until today's tantrum.—Kww(talk) 21:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I should have checked. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm wondering if you can help. There are two articles on the same topic. I would like to history merge the content of Wolf Hill Scenic Area into Nantong Langshan (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Place names). Could you please help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. I've looked after it. Thanks anyway. Hope you are well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Anna, I'm fine, busy though! Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all, my friend. Glad you're well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page of the Bulgars article, an IP has twice[34][35] issued personal attacks against Jingiby. I have posted a warning to the IPs talk page. Could you help in this situation? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Perceived" seems to be a decent compromise but why would "alleged" in this context be classified as a weasel word? The contradictions are "alleged" by the minimalists so it seems perfectly fine to use this word. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ALLEGED. Sorry to take so long to respond. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem Doug and like I said, your edit was a good compromise. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Turkism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever get access to Ivan Margary’s Roman Roads in Britain? (cf. talk:Watling Street#name). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I've got a copy. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This editor continues to make undiscussed additions and edits to SAQ pages. I've informed him of the sanctions the topic is under and also tried to discuss it with him on the talk page, to no avail. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I made positive edits. Other edits by me relating to the Shakespeare film were made here without any controversy "References in popular culture" Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Objections were raised to my adding "See also" and I complied. Lung salad (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can see that. This set of articles really, really requires collaborative work, and anyone who doesn't play nicely will probably get blocked (although probably not by me unless it is really OTT as I try to stay out of this minefield). If you are making any edits that you think might be controversial, discuss them first on the talk page. If you get reverted, discuss that on the talk page, don't revert back to your version. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I usually concentrate on providing links and have no intention of creating any controversy and will collaborate with any substantial edits to this subject matter. Lung salad (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a warning, of sorts, on User:Orartu's talk page[36] regarding the two IPs[37][38] that mirrored his/her edits on Abd al-Qadir Maraghi, which were essentially used to edit war. I thought it prudent to alert an Admin of this activity and possible sockpuppetry. I will leave any actions you feel necessary to your discretion. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi.It is a good idea,thanks for your guidance.--Orartu (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again.Could I add Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent to this article Abd al-Qadir Maraghiwithout discussion? according to [39],[40],[41],[42], Regards--Orartu (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to ask on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Because of the earlier comments by others, best to discuss first. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for editing my addition to Saharnsaleem (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Tutankhamun page.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serer people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I just removed vandalism from your user page. The vandal was User:Marbleworlddesktop. Examining his short edit history, I suspect he is a sock puppet. As I see your an admin, I will leave anything further on this up to you. Safiel (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't clear if he's a sock or not, but I've left him a note on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Abhinav008 (talk · contribs) looks like a duck case for Iamtrhino (talk · contribs) and Arinjatt (talk · contribs) . Making the same edits [43] [44]--Sodabottle (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, I see he's now saying he's sorry and will never do it again, but I'll leave that for someone else to deal with. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the evidence, Doug. Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to provide evidence that will act swiftly against copyright violations. Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

why you reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.199.81 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

i deleted only images of jewish cemeteries as article seems to be mostly about christian ones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.199.81 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason for the images, the article is about cemeteries in general and we need images of cemeteries for other religious groups for balance. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment on Talk:Farabi, I've never undone any of your changes on Farabi or any other page. I have high regards for you as a hard-working editor whose main concern is a neutral scholarly approach on such topics. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see this. That changes appears to have been an unintentional error on my part, during the manual copy/pasting which I actually preformed in order to avoid reverting the Turkish-to-Turkic changes you had made in-between my Wiqi's revert and my undoing of it. I had not even noticed the mistake, until now. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia. See here for the discussion; see here for the actual new draft. Your input is appreciated!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was on my Iphone and must of hit Rollback, I completely agree that it's not a reliable source.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 20:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, no problem, I've done it myself in the past. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You have no right legally to return my posts which I removed. If you or anyone else is not willing to accept EVERYTHING which I posted I will take it all back, which I can because it was part of an article I wrote. DO NOT RETURN THE POST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleonoftheNow (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As you've been told, you have no right to keep it out of Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you edited this back in June or so. It was determined in the last several years that these are a hoax. I'm working on the matter now. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription was analyzed by Haifa university scientists(linguists and archeologists).Here is the link to their findings (press release). http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043

University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

If you have nothing against, I will use this reference, as Haifa university is in the charge of examining this finding.

Considering the site "History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah Iron Age I" The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription seems to be the most important archeological finding from Iron Age I, regarding the history(and historicity) of ancient Israel and Judah. Therefore, I find important to mention it, in the section regarding that particular archeological period. If you think otherwise I will agree to your suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm anywhere near 3RR, nor am I particularly opposed to Tritomex's edits. I think he means well. Nevertheless, I think you're right abt the potential for confusion between Hebrew language and Hebrew alphabet. I'll try a re-write with a better source. PiCo (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but you are actually at 4RR. Look again, every series of edits you've made counts as 1 revert. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go away again :) PiCo (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I could use the publicity. :-) Hint: look at the bottom. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 07:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I noticed that you are watching this user edits. Would you please watch his edits in Abdullah Ibn Saba article. Other than this specific case, I am really frustrated by the atmosphere of English Wikipedia. Islamic articles are suffering from systematic bias. Every article that I touch, I encounter dozen of apologist Muslims that push traditional Islamic views as NPOV. Admins should do something before Islamic articles become religious book instead of Encyclopedia--Penom (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which also happens with almost all relgious articles and any article where nationalism can play a part. It's a serious problem - please note that Wiqi55 actually told me that you'd posted this to my user page or else I might never have seen it, which you must admit is a positive thing to do. I'll look at the article if I haven't already (with thousands of articles on my watchlist I sometimes forget what I've looked at). Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I apologise if links which we have been adding to some articles appear to be spam. These links are for Connected Histories, a web site funded by the JISC for UK Further and Higher Education (although it's services are available internationally). Connected Histories is a web site which we host and its aim is to provide federated access to a huge number of peer-reviewed, online historical resources. It is free, hosted by three UK universities and publicly funded. Many of the datasets are considered to be key for the study of British history during the period 1500 to 1900. More information about the website and its methods is available here: http://www.connectedhistories.org/about.aspx

I'm sorry if these are inappropriate links. We have been trying to identify articles which could benefit from providing readers with access to original, primary source materials for educational and research use. I would welcome any guidance you can offer. Best wishes Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemenelaus (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm familar with JISC which used to run a mailing list for me (or maybe it was a JISC predecessor). What I suggest you do is use an WP:Edit summary describing what it is you are adding. Let me have a go. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please help at New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures? Anonymous editor is ignoring sources and will not engage at Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 6:33 pm, 22 October 2011, last Saturday (3 days ago) (UTC+10)

He's still doing it, and still refusing to discuss at Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And still more of the same. :( --Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He's doing it again, and still refusing to discuss.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile I was VERY busy. I thought some kind of "congress" was good in whih everyone who assisted and advised meh so generously shall be there, to discuss the up-to-date sutuation. Is my administrating the new box good? Are there still questions? Pls take some moments and join the discussion. Thx. Cheers;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I see that you've been offering guidance to User:Senjuto. I'm puzzled by a string of edits the user has been making, as I noted here. Just thought I'd mention it to you, since I'm not really sure what to say about it. Other than it's annoying to have to check all these, when nothing's actually been changed. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not have any agenda,yet this cite was vandalized with unbalanced, unfounded quotes without any references, and with quotes totally taken out of context in order to suite someone personal interests. In fact I listened to your advice, and I removed the term "Hebrew writing" replacing it with "Hebrew text" (your suggestion was Hebrew script) which I guess is a synonym. I provided direct links to Haifa university which was solely responsible for examining this site http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043 http://humweb.ucsc.edu/gweltaz/courses/intro_judaism/kh_qeiyafa.html

All my editions were erased within minutes

In the same time, the vandalization of my contribution went so far, that texts like this "'Oldest Hebrew script' is found" from BBC was used to prove that this script is not Hebrew

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm (in opposite meaning of what it actually says)

From whole of this article (which is btw outdated) because (Haifa university scholars have translated this script in 2009, while BBC text was written in 2008) user Zero0000. have written on his site the following: "Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found" using this BBC text as reference, while removing all links that the text is in fact a Hebrew script. http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043 All the rest of my quotes( and other parts of this article) with direct links were also removed. The section "Oldest Hebrew inscribtion" was totally erased by Zero0000, without any explanation.There is really a huge need that someone unbiased supervise this particular subject, because the page currently has nothing to do with archeology or science, its totally manipulative and full of false and unbalanced claims written only out of political considerations.

Examples of manipulative editing

1. "Excavations were carried out by archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of the Hebrew University beginning in 2007, who dated the site to 1050-970 BC by pottery styles and two burned olive pits tested for carbon-14 at Oxford University.[7] The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein.[8] Based on pottery finds at Qeiyafa and Gath, archaeologists believe the sites belonged to two distinct ethnic groups.[9][10] "

Although this sites are inaccessible, nowhere the findings of Haifa university scientists are mentioned, while Haifa university was solely responsible to examine the site and gave their verdicts regarding this issues. In fact anonymous criticism of officially established facts were written, while ALL FACTS WRITTEN BY EXCAVATION TEAM WERE SIMPLY REMOVED.

2. "Other readings are possible, and the official publication presented many possible reconstructions of the letters without attempting a translation.[21] The inscription is written left to right in a script which is probably Early Alphabetic/Proto Phoenician,[21][22] though Rollston and another expert consider that it might be written vertically.[22] Early Alphabetic differs from old Hebrew script and its immediate ancestor.[22] Rollston also disputes the claim that the language is Hebrew, arguing that the words alleged to be indicative of Hebrew either appear in other languages or don't actually appear in the inscription.[22] One expert believes it is mostly a list of names.[22] Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found.[23]

1.Who is Rollston and who is "the another" expert???

2.Where are the findings of those who examined Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription ?

3.Why all references about the Hebrew origin of text were removed?

4.Why all references that this was an Israelite city were removed?

5.What kind of edition is this "The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein.[8]"?

6.We didn't even see "that theory" which is in fact an official finding of Haifa university scientists,because it was simply censored by this people,yet we can read only the denial of "that theory" while I can not even find that Israel Finkelstein challenged that Khirbet Qeiyafa was Judean city, or inhabited by 500-600 people

7.What is this? "One expert believes it is mostly a list of names.[22]" ?? This manipulation is beyond imagination.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 

Hi Dougweller,

In reverting some of the recent unexplained changes made by User_talk:Mughal_Lohar, who, by the way, may have just hit 3 reverts on Aurangzeb, I noted that other editors were able to revert multiple changes at once with the undo feature without having to edit an old dif and save it. This is something I've found myself wishing I could do at various points over the past year when running into vandalism or new editors who add a bunch of unexplained information all at once. Any chance you could enable my rollback rights?

Thanks, Dialectric (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see how to do that but Twinkle does something similar, the difference being that you have to add an edit summary. A bit safe in that you're less likely to get told off for using it wrongly. This editor is a real problem even though some of their edits are good, I believe they are at least. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If its too much trouble, no problem, but it looks like it is a setting on the user rights page: quoting from the wp:rollback page, "Any administrator may grant or revoke rollback, using the user rights page." Dialectric (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I find it quite complimentary when people call me Doug. But it is a little confusing, hence the notice. :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You recently deleted a link to a map on the article "Route 443 (Israel)". The website, specialtyinterests.net is published by various university scholars such as Robert H. Hewsen, Professor Emeritus of History at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. OK, so he may be controversial, seeing as he is a Velikovskian scholar. But the link merely leads to a well drawn and colorful map, not some controversial theory about the origins of Egyptian dynasties! Which brings me to the real reason for posting this message.

I am currently preparing an article about the "Ridge Route" in ancient Israel (roughly today's Route 60). Also called "The Way of the Patriarchs", it is the natural watershed route connecting the major cities of the Samarian and Judean Mountains in antiquity. There is a Hebrew version of the page with NO references. I am trying to provide references for the English page, especially references with maps. Many of the websites are not well known newspapers or university publications.

Please take a look at en:User:Atefrat/way_of_the_patriarchs Scroll down to the links which I am considering. I would appreciate your advice regarding any problematic issues. --@Efrat (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Life is extremely hectic at the moment, I'll get back to you this weekend. The website is, as you seem to know, Velikovskian, and I discovered we were using it at Amarna letters and other related articles to a page linking to Velikovskian interpretations. I'm afraid I just don't trust it except perhaps for Velikovskian related articles. I'll look at your links this weekend. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC) - (TY--@Efrat (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC))

Have you had a chance to check the links? Any advice? --@Efrat (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This user is retired. In accordance to OTRS ticket 2011110710001195, I replaced the text on the user page with {{retirement}}. Would you mind doing the same for the talk page? (Of course, the protection can be kept, as there's no point in making any further amendments to the page). Personally, I can see no reason why the current text couldn't be replaced by the "Retired" template. Thanks! Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Done - just read the ticket, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle! Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 03:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed your signature when you corrected the placement of your comment on [[Talk:Genesis creation narrative]. I moved it up where it seems to belong, but if you wanted something different, please feel free to correct me. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Have you seen Talk:Adam? Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I caught wind of it earlier today, but hadn't had a chance to look until now. This isn't going down a good road. It doesn't appear he's swaying much support for his views, at least, but situations like this can turn into larger problems fairly quickly, so I still have some concern. Not much to do about it yet. I'll keep an eye out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the article titles in this section to Genesis creation narrative so they blue link. Cheers.--Adam in MO Talk 00:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Go through the talkpage history... s/he's been told this exact thing many times... seems like a hopeless case; I'm still observing, but of he keeps going with this shit, I'm gonna go to ANI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I always try to summarise my posts in my edit summary (or usually anyway) so that removing them still leaves some clear evidence of my concerns. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The article Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is in a sorry state - so bad in fact that it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. I'd like to take it to some forum where a band of editors could be asked to get together and clean it up. Do you have any suggestions? PiCo (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe WP:FTN. A major problem is OR, sources need to discuss the subject, so sources just showing that there were no horses in the Americas during the Holocene until Columbus probably aren't acceptable. A problem when you are dealing with fringe claims, which these are.

But I would argue at FTN for a merge, as these aren't religious claims but archaeological, etc. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai now @ ANI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Almoravid dynasty. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Doug. I've started a discussion on whether the wording of WP:PARITY needs to be changes to prevent misuse of the policy by fringe advocates. Your input would be appreciated here: [[45]]. Thanks a lot! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veterans Day. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Wheres Dan, a new editor who bears watching. They just tried to insert this nonsense] into the Serpent Mound article. Their other edits seem potentially troubling as well. Heiro 03:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, just noticed some of your comments on their talkpage, guess you are already apprised of their existence. Will the Fringe nonsense never cease? Hope you are well, Heiro 03:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Please note I'm doing my best to have a break, starting tonight. If it's urgent, and no one else can do, and I know you, you can email me but I may not reply. Try to find someone else to help, whatever your problem is. Remember we do have a help deska at WP:Help desk which can usually give you help or guide you to the best venue. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not as active as I could be, I could maybe help in some such matters. And good luck of all kinds with the break, Doug. Lord knows you've done more than enough to earn one. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope you're enjoying your Wikibreak, just putting this here since I mentioned your name in the thread: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Uncooperative editor has serious problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you just deleted my post. Nice! How civil, talk to the hand huh? Just thought I'll notify you that I also added 2011 to the years Kissinger was there with infowars as reference so maybe that should be deleted? Oh, and also the 88. reference (Kenneth Maxwell...) is broken, which means you actually have to delete 2008 + 2009 too. Unless you're prepared to find new ones yourself.--Hodeken (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also reference number 9 only states the participants in 2007, yet 9c (Francisco Pinto Balsemão) states plenty of other years before 2007 still only using the 2007 reference nr 9. The reference itself mentions amongst others Christine Lagarde, which actually is not mentioned in the article at all. Maybe this should be put in?--Hodeken (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug, just posted a message at User talk:Mughal Lohar (Muhammad Shah, November 2011) and noticed previous entries. Is he gaming the system? Could you have a quick look and see what you think? Thanks, eric. Esowteric+Talk 11:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I could use some extra eyes on this user's mass images changes and content deletions at Suleiman the Magnificent. I've tried discussing with him, and all I get are vague allegations of racism. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, minute break from break, revive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive727 Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks -- and sorry, I hadn't read your message to say you were on a break. Have a good time. Esowteric+Talk 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sir please have a look at the behavior of Mughal Lohar in Aurangzeb. He has reverted your edits without any explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarein.mh (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There is now a discussion at WP:ANI#Mughal Lohar. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh so you are here! Maybe you could answer me too? That is if I'm cool enough to be answered by the great Dougweller after half a month waiting?--Hodeken (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at some ARBCOM cases today and I saw that a user that appears to be under a topic ban from discussing the MHP has been doing so in User space. The diff is here. As I am not familar with the ins and outs of ARBCOM, I thought I would ask you what your opinion of the situation before I went and did something trout worthy. Is this editor still under a one-year topic ban? If not can you give me a link so I can see where it was lifted, as I would like to know how to navigate ARBCOM better? Thanks for your time. By the way, here is where I see the topic ban. --Adam in MO Talk 14:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies but I really am trying to stay away from Wikipedia (although I'm writing something) so could you ask either an Admin who has been involved or at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks anyway.--Adam in MO Talk 04:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Under one of his usual IPs, he's been adding some material from a documentary on the Ojibwe - or more accurately, the webpage advertising said documentary - to the WO article to make it seem like the document has more evidence for its authenticity than it actually does. He's started a discussion at WP:RSN; I've already put my piece in there. Ergative rlt (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[[46]]

Hi Doug,

I guess this is a bit off-topic, but I thought I would send you a quick link to my latest work preparing a presentation about the suggested archaeological site in the Aaiha plain that I went and surveyed in 2009. (The one we had big arguments about being called Kharsag). I'm hoping to re-visit Beirut shortly to present it to the right people.

I thought I'd also take the time to personally thank you for the input during our discussions, arguments and disagreements over the last two years. You taught me more than I could tell you during this process and have helped enormously in bringing me to a position to present my findings clearly, correctly and acceptably to the academic and governmental authorities in the proper manner. Hopefully this has and will have various beneficial effects for Wikipedia and wider understanding of human history.

Hope you have a good Christmas and prosperous New Year mate. Any comments about the presentation would be gratefully received. No matter how skeptical! ;-) Kind Regards, Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Sargon of Akkad for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very difficult to find information on 11 11, as I found out for myself when I began researching it. I'm a British Wheel of Yoga teacher and I have written a book about my experiences with 11 11. I have also written the only numerology book that dedicates an entire chapter to 11 11. I understand that you might interpret my listing of my own books as self promotion but all I'm trying to do is to contribute my research to the collective consciousness. My published work (published by a publisher, not self published) is very relevant to the 11 11 information page. It's been written to help and inform people so how can I add this valuable information to Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilaryhcarter (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Doug, I think Risingstar12 might be an avatar of the same, lots of plagiarism (see Mughal Army), edits are in sync with Sridhar100. Can you take a look? I just unearthed a few more dormant socks, so quite a bit of blocks needed and I'll get to them later, but this one is the main contribution account. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

He has copped to this being a sock account, I've filed an SPI under Sridhar100. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just got up, it's early here. And cold. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the period of the occupation of Lower Egypt by Hyksos I have a hypothesis that include an armed intervention of Anatolian people called Solymi by Greeks. As Hatshepsut has said : these are "the barbarian bandits who destroyed everything in the middle of Asiatics in Lower Egypt". On the other hand, I think that Kamose has really taken Avaris, and he settled there refusing to render to pharaoh Ahmose the territory that he Kamose had recovered by the strength of his arms. Considering this act of rebellion of a member of the royal family, Kamose could be banished from Egypt and declared dead to avoid the scandal that could deserve to him an actual sentence of death. So Kamose alias Khamoudi entrenched with his followers in the fortress of Avaris, was besieged by Ahmose and the Theban army. A compromise was ultimately reached between the two half-brothers, Ahmose will reign on the whole Egypt and Kamose inherited the Asiatic territories (as the pharaohs of the 17th dynasty from Seqenenre and Ahhotep were from Canaanite origin). The details of my theory based on archeology and ancient historians' reports can be found on my website: http://www.antiqua91.fr/crbst_5.html and following pages. My linked articles with references of my sources can be read and downloaded from this page of my web site. T.G. 86.69.146.224 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Straight after their week long block, indef blocked user Marburg72 as his IP [47] immediately resumed this editwar at Walam Olum. Heiro 02:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)