User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 10

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

Good call!

Good call on (talk · contribs · block log)! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

scholarly version of PIEr page

You are obviously trying to assist by editing the PIEr page. However you have embarrassed yourself by doing something extremely stupid. You have attributed a few sentences in the PIEr article to Carlos Quiles when in fact Carlos Quiles cribbed the entire PIEr page out of Wikipedia (along with about half of his book). Apparently it's legal for him to do this since he printed the GNU license at the end of his book in lieu of actual references. Anyway, here is the correct scholarly version of the PIEr page.

The Proto-Indo-European religion page at on Wikipedia is still being vandalized by religious bigots, since June 18, 2008. There's no point in advising Wikipedia of the situation, because wikipedia administrators condone religious bigotry (and by the way, if you are a wikipedia administrator, solve the problem yourself, don't whine to me about it, because you have the authority to fix it and I do not). In the meantime anyone who is interested in the subject can help by copying the current scholarly version 101508 of the page into Wikipedia and you can credit David Bigot Bachmann for this since he's the one who vandalized the Proto-Indo-European religion page. [snip] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

it is true that Quiles has nicked a lot of material from Wikipedia. Especially images (maps). I am not very happy with this, since it means that maps I have drawn myself now appear in Quiles' book, "attributed" with a generic quotation of GFDL. If Quiles had read the GFDL, he would have noticed yes, he can take the stuff and use it, but that it also requires him to credit the original author. That said, Quiles' work is an useful "tertiary source". Use it to look things up, but don't quote him directly, quote the sources he is giving. Regarding the above anon rant, you can safely ignore it. From their use of "bigot", I take it this is yet another ABCD kid indoctrinated by Indigenous Aryans-scholarship is evil blogcruft. It isn't evident from the rant, but the issue here is that this chap believes that Hinduism = Vedic Religion = PIE Religion, and any "westerners" doubtful of that "fact" are "religious bigots", meaning, they want to de-emphasize the mind-boggling age of Hinduism out of a Christian missionary agenda. We have figured out this line of argument about three years ago, on Wikipedia, and since BJP lost the elections in India, we have generally had less people foaming at the mouth over the idea, but the occasional proponent still shows up now and again. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


I do not want to get into evaluating sources or determining what he is or is not. This is a content dispute that needs to be worked out by the editors of the article. I created this section to try and jump start discussion again. KnightLago (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


As a matter of fact, it usually is enough to just say "as per OTRS" - but if someone wants more details, I'm usually (though not always) free to provide them. In this case, we've been offered a birth certificate, which should be enough.

Apparently, the problem is that there's more than one person with this name - and they're mostly related and live in the same general area. DS (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas

Thanks for answering my AN/I request and for protecting the Sofia Shinas article. If you like, you can unprotect the page since there seems to be an OTRS providing the correct DOB. Like I said on the report, I really didn't have a problem with changing it, but the lack of sources, multiple accounts, and zero communication was beyond frustrating. Pinkadelica Say it... 14:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

Hi there. I stumbled across your de-protecting of the article despite Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Compromise and [1]. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of both, as I'd like to avoid any possible wheel-warring between admins. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To be accurate, I changed the protection from full to semi- quite a while after I said I was going to do it, and on the basis of this [2] discussion which didn't refer to any past decisions in the archive. And before the 2nd diff you link to above. If there had been an agreement that both articles should be fully protected, why wasn't it implemented? I'll contact L'Aquatique and explain. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
All four candidate articles except McCain are currently protected. Since you reduced protection because Obama was semi-protected at the time, would you object to re-protect now ? The consensus in the discussions I've read seems to be that full protection is warranted. Regards, Cenarium Talk 17:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for full protection. As I said, what I did was reduce McCain's because Obama's was only semi-protected. dougweller (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, i just proposed on Obamas page that it be reduced to semi, because the vandalism of McCain in the last few hours since it was unprotected have been minimal--Jac16888 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This is getting confusing. I've raised McCain's to full. I think they should be on full throughout the day, it is still morning in California for instance. Let's move the discussion to somewhere central please? dougweller (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shahin's invasion of Asia Minor (615)

Hello! You do make a good point. Personally, I think the ideal thing would be to redirect to an article on the last Roman-Persian War, which however doesn't exist. Little detail is known about the campaigns and battles of this war, so it really makes little sense to have separate articles on them. This particular one would barely reach a couple of paragraphs more. I have merely edited those created by user Secthayrabe as to correct them or at least remove the sometimes very inaccurate info he included in them. I didn't really think in terms of a big picture, in which case you are right. As I'm a bit out of time lately, feel free to take whatever action you deem necessary. Regards, Constantine 20:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas

I would have to say that this is misleading and quite honestly, very bad faith in regard to the motives of Pinkadelica and myself. It has never been the case of edit warring, it has been the case of repeated SPAs inserting a major change to a vital statistic without sourcing or responding to requests for sourcing. If you will look at the article history, and the myriad of newly registered accounts that continued to change the birthdate of this person without offering a source of any kind besides "edit age.... went to school with Sophia", "I have a copy of the birth certificate that her brother gave me", "wrong birthdate", "dob found in (information listed in London newspaper)", "changed her birthdate. I should know, I was her public school teacher", "her birthday year is wrong ( I attend usc with her - this is her cousins birthday who haooens to ahare the same name, She is also working on another film", why would editors in good faith not be suspicious about this? It's quite interesting that one of these changes makes a reference to a person in a London newspaper, again asserting the 1974 birthdate, and then the note left on the talk page today here disputes the London newspaper as being about another person, yet confirms the same birth year that was based on the London newspaper. When approached, none of SPAs would respond to our queries about sources. The final assumption is that neither Pinkadelica or myself would respect or understand what OTRS confirmation implies and would blindly plow ahead. I want to reiterate, yesterday, one of these suspected socks asked how to submit a "copy of her birth certificate" given to the questioner by the brother of Sofia Shinas and was sure "he" wouldn't care if she released it." If that is true, that editor hasn't the authority to release a birth certificate of this minor actor. Personally, I think OTRS is being duped. Look at this history and tell me if this really looks like edit warring or good faith revisions based on dubious changes. I am trying to find where the editor asked about sending in someone else's birth certificate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So you have decided it isn't necessary to AGF? Great start. 'Edit warring' comes from a drop down menu and it actually says edit warring/content dispute. There was clearly a content dispute and I protected it because of that. If you want to complain about the Admin and his/her OTRS ticket, complain to him, you'll see a comment from me expressing some concern. Meanwhile I still see a content dispute and note that you haven't actually asked me to unprotect the article or edit through it. It's protected so that the issue can be worked out on the talk page, and I see no reason to unprotect it. dougweller (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I was in the midst of revising my rant about this because I didn't realized that Pinkadelica made the protect request, and when I saved it, I got an edit conflict with your response. I apologize. There was a singular indication that the myriad of newly registered accounts making the same change based on vague claims of "I know this" without confirmation. We asked for response and discussion. None was forthcoming. However, I stand by my statement that I believe OTRS is being duped. If a birth certificate was submitted, it was likely done so by someone who by their own admission, got a copy of a birth certificate for someone named Sofia Shinas, allegedly from Shinas' brother, and sent it in. I'm skeptical about its authenticity, based on the supposed source and the SPA history. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've asked if we can be put in touch with her agency; that should help somewhat. DS (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems

You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it as you see fit and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Avalon Druid Order delete


I am new here and frankly not finding this place very user friendly. I saw your message about deleting the ADO page, but frankly I don't see how this page is any different than the pages describing other types of Druid groups, which were posted by their own members. Since people generally don't know that Avalonian Druidry exists, and there is quite a lot of information available about OBOD, ADF, and other brand name groups, I thought it would be useful information. What sort of secondary sources should be provided? Should I provide a link to prove that ADO is a 501(c)(3) religious nonprofit? Yes, I know, I've read all the Wiki stuff. But truthfully, when I went and looked over the pages of the other Druids sites I am stymied as to why you consider this one any different. Clarification would be helpful.

Thank you MVLB (talkcontribs) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand what you are saying about other pages, but in Wikipedia, the answer is not 'this should exist because others exist', but to question whether the others meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you want to discuss sources, the best place is WP:RSN. Being a religious nonprofit organisation doesn't show notability I'm afraid. You need to look at WP:GROUP and WP:NOTE. By the way, it wasn't my message that mentioned deleting the ADO page. Did you ever read [3]? dougweller (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Sorry, when I clicked on the link next to the notation I ended up here, so this is where I commented. You are the first person here to actually bother providing assistance that made any sense. Thank you for that.

BTW, simply being referenced in other written sources does not make one noble, laudable, or valid either. If it were, Nazi's could claim to be noble. Being referenced in mainstream publications is merely a stamp of approval from the dominant culture.

So if I've got this right, Wiki wants a document from an authority acceptable to Wiki, saying that Avalonian Druidry is 'noble', 'valid', and 'real'. Wiki has already accepted Druidry as being verified, but individual branches of Druidry are not until individually verified. Since you are accepting publications by members of listed organizations as verification for their own orgs, does that mean Wiki will accept ADO member publications as verification for ADO? Or is there another criteria especially for smaller organizations?

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MVLB (talkcontribs) 20:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia doesn't care if Avalonian druidry is noble or evil. It wants to know if it is notable. An organisation's publications aren't enough. "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." and "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." also, "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." but note that "the text of the article must be supported by independent sources, and avoid primary research." dougweller (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I've put Whiteoak up for deletion, see [4].

Bible and Spade

Funny, I could have sworn I looked it up and confirmed it was true. No clue how that happened. Anyway, I think there might be a solid article in it. With the amount of time it has been around, I can't imagine it didn't gain some noteworthy press coverage. -- Mgm|(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Hungarian

Forgive me for asking you, but could you help out by keeping an eye on two editors (unless one is a sockpuppet) trying to change English-language terminology for this script? They're doing it on the as well. The roots of this are in a dispute as to what the name should be in the UCS. See the history as well. Thanks! -- Evertype· 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for usefying the article. Wish me luck. I think I'm going to need alot of it. --AniMate 10:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence

Just to inform you I have referred to comments you made as part of my evidence in this case. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a question

I'm not really all that new to wiki, but I have no idea how to nominate a page for deletion. It would be great if you could make the decision or at the least tell me how. The page in question is G Money. It's poorly put together, resembles an ad and on top of that I don't believe I have the admin rights to place such an article up for deletion. Cheers and thanks. --EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw you blocked that IP (yay!). It is obvious the IP is directly connected to User:Melia Jansen, who is currently still blocked. Shouldn't her block be extended as a result of the evasion. MuZemike (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so, I've asked the blocking Admin about it. dougweller (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for removing that vandalism and blocking By the way, should there be a notice on's talk page that he/she is blocked? Thanks again, --DerRichter (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, got distracted. I'll go do that. dougweller (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact

Yes, removing the sentence entirely seems to be a good idea. It is in the wrong place in the article, and totally interrupts the point being made. It does have the feel of something dumped there by a driveby POV-pusher. Delete away. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

You deleted some discussion commentary at centrifugal force. The discussion in question was about improving the centrifugal force article. My objective is to substantially shorten the article and to get rid of all the forks. The argument has come about because some editors wrongly believe that there are different kinds of centrifugal force. Recently there has been a refusal on the part of some editors to recognize material in one of the gold standard textbooks for university applied mathematics. Herbert Goldstein 'Classical Mechanics' deals with centrifugal force in planetary orbits without mention of rotating frames of reference. Yet the article title and introduction wrongly state that centrifugal force only exists in connection with rotating frames of reference. This confusion needs to be addressed before a consensus can be reached. David Tombe (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted some chat in a section about archiving. It clearly didn't belong in that section. In addition, you gave no sources. Wikipedia is about what reliable, verifiable sources say abut a subject. That is what should be being discussed (but not in a section on archiving). dougweller (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The source in question was Herbert Goldstein 'Classical Mechanics'. It was already well understood by all concerned that that was the source that was being referred to. We were discussing the equation at 3.11. I assume that you will be deleting the forks at centrifugal force until good reliable sources have been produced stating that there is more than one kind of centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You assume incorrectly. In a section about archiving you were discussing something else. Please don't do that. dougweller (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. So can we now get to the main point. The article has been forked into three articles. You said that there needs to be good reliable sources to state that there are three kinds of centrifugal force. So far none have been produced. So are you going to re-unify the centrifugal force article into one? David Tombe (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, we have a deletion process which I am sure you know about. Given consenus on all 3 articles, they could be merged. There is no point in having this discussion here since I have no intention of getting involved in it (and I can't delete articles the way you suggest I should do -- and I'm sure you know that also). Meanwhile, you are avoiding the issue that you were using a section on archiving the talk page to do something else. Maybe unblocking you was a bad move. dougweller (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, is that all you were concerned about? The fact that the ongoing discussion continued on the new archiving section? It could have been archived without any mention of the fact. From what I could see, the only purpose of the announcement was to enable Wolfkeeper to make his disparaging remarks about two editors, of which no doubt I was one of them. That of course provoked the responses. But I will nevertheless bear in mind what you say. I have put up a suggestion for merger. That was my main pupose in being involved. We can only wait and see what, if any, responses there are. David Tombe (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:

When you made this diff], did you mean Ptolemy I Soter? 31 hours appears to be the length of the block, not the article vandalized.--otherlleft (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

oops, thanks. It is obviously time for bed. I've fixed that, a mouse slip on Twinkle and me not reading what I was doing. dougweller (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The hidden benefit is that, after scratching my head, I learned a few things as I puzzled out what happened!--otherlleft (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello. Yesterday I acquired a copy of McGregor's "Athenians and their empire", the main claimed source for the deleted Siege of Doriskos. Doriscus figures three times in the book:

  • On the map on page 3.
  • On page 40 where McGregor, commenting on Thucydides' Excursus or Pentecontaetia (reproduced as Appendix 2), writes, "In a single chapter Thucydides has recorded first examples of Confederate activity. Eion was the first Persian fortress to be recovered. There were others: for example, Doriscus on the north Aegean coast, where for many years the defence was conducted by the courageous Persian Mascames".
  • On page 67 he writes: "There are those who reject the peace of Callias as an Athenian forgery of the fourth century. They overlook the awesome difficulties of manufacturing such a document—it was inscribed on stone—in a society so open as that of Athens, a direct democracy in which the citizens constituted the government. Strongest amongst various weak (and contradictory) arguments against the Peace is its absence from Thucydides' Pentacontaetia. No modern historian, in describing the events recounted in this book, would omit the long siege of Doriscus, the fighting in the Chersonese and the Hellespont in the mid-sixties, the ostracism of Cimon, the transfer of the Confederate treasury from Delos to Athens (which we recognise as a notable step in the evolution of Empire), and the Peace of Callias; and he would lay stress on the Panhellenic Congress, which lies on our horizon. Not one of them is deemed worthy of mention by Thucydides; all (including the last, which has also been challenged) are affirmed by other evidence, some of it epigraphic (which is indisputable)."

These references do not confirm the content added by Ariobarza to the deleted article concerning Mascames' claimed escape from the fortress at Doriscus. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Perhaps the information needs to go into the Doriscus article? dougweller (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Which article? Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


Sure, it can be speedy. I was not sure. Hence wanted some admin to make the decision - but this probably escaped eyes of patrollers who probably look for smaller articles. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Thank you for your request. I am busy on the Boeing 777 article but will look into the USS Liberty soon. I know of the incident but haven't read the Wikipedia article. My goals would be for a very encyclopedic article and a mainstream article. It's my general understanding that there was controversy about the ship being fired upon which merits mention. However, my overall opinion is that Wikipedia reports what others state and doesn't do investigative reporting on it's own (called original research). This means that Wikipedia will not break any new ground.

Since the article is controversial, I would also want an adminstrator (two is better) to discuss how to deal with potential problem editors. Such an administrator would not be needed for editorial consultation but merely protection against stalking or harassment by any administrator who happens to edit the article.

What's your current or past role in the article?

Chergles (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I don't think I have ever had any role in this particular article. So far as I am concerned, what you say above is what I'd like to see and is in line with WP policies and guidelines. dougweller (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've look at the article. It's not a mess but can be significantly improved. That will take a lot of work. I'm fairly busy and the 777 is much higher on my priority. I have a lot of referenced information on the 777 that is not in the article. I am thinking of either improving the article for some kind of recognition (GA? FA?) with or without references that I have. I might create a separate article on the 777-232ER because that's my area that I know a bit about. Either that or choose small bits about the 777-232ER to put in the 777 article.

The USS Liberty will be the next priority. I'll keep in contact with you or you can always remind me. Chergles (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc as Game Board

I concur that the first reference "The Phaistos Disc: roll ‘em" should be deleted and has been done.

I have also deleted the "Crete: isle of the dead?" link but it should be pointed out that Philip Coppens is asserting that link is a reprint of an article "originally published in Frontier Magazine 6.1 (January-February 2000)". Assuming this is correct, I am not sure that the the fact that the reprint is on his site does in fact violate WP:RS. However since you feel that it does, I deleted the link.

That will still retain 4 links, plus the internal reference to Trude Dothan and Moshe Dothan: People of the Sea - The Search for the Philistines as well as the internal reference to dgar B. Pusch: "Das Senet-Brettspiel im Alten Ägypten", Deutscher Kunstverlag, Munich and Berlin, 1979, Volume 1:2.

Please note I have also deleted Coppen's quote in item #5, thus expunging Coppen as a reference.

I believe this eliminates WP:RS as an issue. Thanks your for your input. SunSw0rd (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Much better, but still a couple of problems. The first link I am also dubious about, see WP:SPS. The whole section still reads like original research, but wouldn't if each point had an inline citation to a reliable source - WP:CITE tells you how to do this. There are some manual of style problems about the external links placed where they are also, but that can wait. I'm not going to revert again, but I hope you can do something to source each point -- and note what you really need are sources that specifically mention the Phaistos Disc, or else it is original research (see also WP:SYN. There's a huge difference between what you do in an essay and what you do in an encyclopedic article which basically is supposed to simply report what reliable sources have to say about a subject rather than develop an argument which many essays do. Thanks for the response. dougweller (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted previous out of place references, provided 5 references, only did not source point about ancient game boards sometimes being on both sides since there are so many common references regarding Senet and Ur being on both sides of ancient games. There is a lot of other material about Mehen, Senet, Ur, also references to "royal game of Knossos" and possible relationships between that game and the royal game of Ur. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am very impressed, that's good work, the article is greatly improved. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian Race

Dougweller, I see you undid the change I made to the page on the Caucasian Race. I removed the link on the words "racial classification" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I made that change because those words appear in the first sentence and already have a link attached to them. It seemed like an addition from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is why I removed it. Your friend, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you did, and Scientific racism is in See Also. The article gets some problematic edits and I misunderstood what you were doing - and this was your only edit so far, and you're an IP, and that comibination often spells trouble I'm afraid. dougweller (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Phoenician alphabet

Concerning my most recent edit, I came to the conclusion that you had removed the coding for the Phoenecian letters (perhaps the computer you were on at the time lacked the requisite fonts, and so actually inserted the null codepoints, which would look the same to a user of that computer). If this edit was correct, no further action is necessary. If you believe this edit requires discussion, I'd appreciate at least a note on my talk page as to where it's happening (I just don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to keep on top of my watchlist here). Many thanks. Atelaes (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You must be right about the fonts. Sorry, but I couldn't tell - also, you don't seem to have been logged in, right? So I saw an IP address doing something I couldn't understand, and made a false assumption. Thanks for the explanation. By the way, I might not have done it if there had been an edit summary. dougweller (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, that was not me. The only edit I've made was signed in. I suppose I'm just a little jumpy when editing Wikipedia, as it's not my usual project. Additionally, the previously mentioned fact that the actual code-point for the question mark, and a code-point for which one does not have a font, look identical, made me wonder if perhaps you had put something in which I simply couldn't see. Atelaes (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't blame you for being a bit jumpy. Sorry I confused you with an IP editor. Now I understand a bit more what's going on. Anyway, it's clear I don't have the fonts. Does there have to be something about the fonts in the article? dougweller (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Does there have to be something about the fonts in the article?" No idea. I would certainly say that it would be nice to have such a thing. However, again, I really don't know my way around the 'pedia that well. There may be something at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages, but I don't have the time to look just this moment (probably won't spend the time at all, as Wiktionary is really my home project, and I have a serious backlog there). However, if you're simply interested in expanding your own readability, I highly recommend [5]. I have found it to be invaluable. Atelaes (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


I have a feeling adding this section will only make things worse, but I wanted to offer some references so anyone with an intent to assist these editors can do so without having to dig too deeply. I am a bit concerned that perhaps my offering of refs regarding Max's reverts against floro might be misconstrued as bias. As you are involved in the discussion above, I wanted you to be aware of it, so further review can be made. If what I have done is potentially disruptive, feel free to remove that section. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm only involved (at the moment) because of mentions of personal details. The argument makes my head ache. :-) dougweller (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Aye. This is what talk pages are for, to discuss things like rational people, instead of edit-warring. :D Master&Expert (Talk) 10:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, for the message.[[6] With all due respect, may I please explain: I had not written anything personal, since we Filipino editors, are included in the Category:Filipino Wikipedians. Now, User:Cma states, as I also stated that he and I, respectively "and is also an alumnus of Rizal's school, the Ateneo de Manila University:(Vide his and my User page). Then, I myself had my blog in my page as public, and Cma also had his blog put in his page in earlier history[7]. By culture, we Filipinos, call each other by our personal names, like me, Floro, Jun, and by his blog, Cma indicated his name. In good faith, I mentioned this Ateneo de Manila University since it is both published, nothing personal but even an honor for both of us, due to it being a prestigious school. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the link is not there now. I agree about the school, but don't use his name. And not his age, etc. dougweller (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record it's not just names. In the last RfC about him, he obtained another editor's IP address, found his general location, and then used that as basis to hurl a bunch of nonsense accusations. Floro alleged that the other guy is in India, and since he himself had been in India, the other guy's presence was clear proof that he was following him. Floro went on to accuse him of being involved in a plane crash in India, and me of conspiring due to a number of other details he found off Wikipedia. Any suggestion that he is just giving details "in good faith" is an outright lie. Sorry if you've already moved on from this issue, but I felt it needed to be mentioned again in case it helps admins come to a decision about blocking him. Among many other things, I'm really tired of him trying to be like a real-life Lost character and trying to show that everything ever is connected and revolves around his crazy conspiracy theories. --Migs (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I've blocked him now, I did warn him and he didn't stop. dougweller (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


Dougweller, I gave him an satirical-complementary warning notice. So therefore, it is not a threat. I am going to be franky with you, I am aware of the back-door politics of Wikipedia. I trust my gut when I know something is out of place, people jumping out of knowhere, saying I should be banned on a deletion page, is not ordinary, they like to escalate things so I can blurp something out to give others the benefit of the doubt, which will result in a block or ban for me. I told him that Balkan/Slavic coardinated attacks on Ariobarza was not right. Yes, currently for some reason, I found out the certain user or users I have problems with are, Balkan/Slavic. They say it themselves, and I have a Balkan friend, so I do not have anything against them, its just wierd this is the case. Anyways, do more investigating, than giving others more excuses to dislike me. Unless of course, your already one of them. Think outside of the outside of the box. Cheers to ya laddy!--Ariobarza (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Sign in

Sorry about this problem Doug. I forgot to sign. I was shortening the description for a brand new Commons image which I uploaded and placed for this article. I notice my IP numbers keep 'flipping around' like a wild compass. I used to be 24.87.136.XX. Now suddenly I'm 96.48.145.XX. Strange. Anyway, I never vandalise articles. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you never vandalise articles. I should have looked at the other contributions of that address first. Careless of me. dougweller (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

Thank you for the work on the article you did - you removed something I did not notice. One more question: looking at that article in its current form: do you think it can be nominated for GA and if it would, do you, personally, think its reviewer would pass it or would they fail it? I myself think it is well written and referenced but since I am rather new here (only have been here for a month) I would like to have certainty first before nominating it. Thanks in advance,

J.B. (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are really bored....

Doing some wiki-walking through ancient Rome and came across this disaster of a page. The citation issues seem the least of its problems. I can't even fathom it. If you fancy a break from the Persian battlefront, maybe with your expertise you could translate it into wiki-English? Thanks... Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I seem to have found the issue: this editor Appietas (BTW, how do you make a link to an editor that will show the contribs?) is rewriting articles like the above and others... there may be some salvagable stuff in there, but the total result of the edits isn't readable. Maybe you could talk to the EIQ about it? Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh gee, what a nice present! Not. Appietas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (this is what you want, I think?) is making a bit of a mess, isn't he/she? I will see what I can do. I'm bad at acronyms, what is EIQ? Editor in question? dougweller (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Editor in question. Sorry. And sorry for the "gift". And thanks for the userlinks hint. Is there a page that has that information? I looked all over for that hint. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I ran into it a week or two ago and lost it. Hard to find, but it is Template:Userlinks. dougweller (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oooh, thanks! Bookmarked... Aunt Entropy (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


Links to other "personal websites" (such as are frequently included the bibliographies to Wikipedia articles. Most editors allow such links if materials linked are entirely or mainly quotations from publications from materials published by reputable university presses and are pertinent to the topic. The personal preferences of this Dougweller here (to exclude such articles) are hardly representative of usual Wikipedia practices. However, some editors do remark that they would prefer to see a summary versions of such materials posted on Wikipedia itself (rather than merely linked to by an external link) : I suppose that is a bit better procedure. But for an editor to simply label something as "spam" (when posted as an external link) which would be perfectly acceptable if inserted into a Wikipedia article is perhaps slightly excessive verbiage.0XQ(talk) 05:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is your personal website that you are linking to various articles, for a start - see[8] - if you want to argue that it is ok to use it, go there and argue it with the person who first called it spam. dougweller (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC) dougweller (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


We need to find a moderator to deal with Appietas. We can reverse what he has done, but he can reverse it back. It is pointless unless we have a moderator to stop him from making a mess of things. I made some comments on his Cicero modifications. I will look at some of his other works tomorrow. RomanHistorian (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


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

I sorta agree with this guy. I'm a pretty devout Western Roman Catholic and dang proud of it. I was raised on B.C., before Christ, and I don't appreciate these "threats" being made to me. And make no mistake, every time I see BCE or CE, I will change it.

You have been warned.

Jaet —Preceding unsigned comment added by72.148.126.104 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring against "the unofficial global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union"? You are asking to be blocked from editing. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


I see now that that was an unproductive edit. My apologies. ClovisPt (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008


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


Hi Doug, I was wondering if you know how where I have to go to give a reason to keep this beloved image for a GA review for Battle of Hyrba, here are the links that will help you answer my question, [[9]], [[10]]. As you will find out, it will be deleted tommorow, so I will greatly appreciated if you respond on my page today. I solemnly apolagize if I might have ever offended you earlier, and I want to thank you for your helping hand in previous events. I can honestly say you have helped me here more than anyone else on Wikipedia, a true mentor. Best regards and goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

edit on Papua mythology moved out of this section. dougweller (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You guys lost me, (are these two comments above in relation with my question) and how is this answering my question? Doug if the comments do not have anything to do with what I am saying here, tell OXQ to comment somewhere else, so please reread my question, I thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
It's too late now, the image is now deleted. Thanks for helping me save the image...--Ariobarza (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
I have been away all day being taught by an Italian chef how to cook exotic meat and game. I am afraid I only noticed OXQ's edit-- you are right, he definitely should not have done that. But looking at the links, I don't think I could have come up with a way to save it, sorry. Please though, stop the sarky remarks, they show a real lack of good faith. dougweller(talk) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on... Sarky comments? Doug you know, as an adult, one should not be offended by sarky comments. This has nothing to do if I have good faith with you or not. A joke is a joke, you must evolve into a new state of conscienceness, I am always happy, and I had a smile on my face when I said that. A big smile! "Don't worry, be happy." Byebye.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Doug, you have been warned. ----Shadow

Egypt list

I don't personally don't update it as I am unfamiliar with it. It is Captmondo (Keith) who does the updating here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume anyone can update it. I certainly have added several articles this week which should be in it. I use it to check on vandalism. I guess I should check with Keith though, thank you for mentioning him. dougweller (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite IP blocks

Hey again, I noticed you indefinitely blocked the following IP addresses:

Per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked (as you probably now know due to the message you recently left on my talk page). Do you have a problem with unblocking (or at least reblocking these IPs for a set period of time)? I've reviewed the history of each of these IPs and I personally would have blocked the first for a month (would be expired by now), the second for no more than a week (would have been expired by now), and the third for no more than a week (also would have been expired by now). From my understanding we should only indefinitely block IP addresses in extreme cases, such as aWP:OFFICE or perhaps an OTRS action. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked 215, but I'm a bit uncertain about this still as I note another administrator, User:Zzuuzz put an indef block noticed on the user page it and also for 170, thus obviously agreeing with me about the indef blocks. Should I contact them to say I've unblocked? What do I do about the notices on user/talk pages, remove them or add another notice? Thanks.dougweller (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and you don't need to leave a message to ZZuuzz. I'm pretty sure he was just matter-of-fact tagging it so the IP would show up in the proper category. I'm pretty sure he or a bot goes through every once in a while to remove/add the indefblocked IP template from pages, I'm not sure if he reviews to see if he actually agrees with the blocks or not. Thus, you can remove the template if you want but it will eventually be removed whether you do or not. As for removing indefblock notices on talk pages, you can if you want. I don't when I unblock, since usually the pages are so scattered with warnings that I doubt it would make a difference. VegaDark (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I won't remove them and doubt that the users involved even read the pages themselves.dougweller (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
If an IP continues to disrupt after being unblocked, feel free to re-block for whatever time you feel is justified, as long as it isn't indef (usually 1 year is the max regular block length, but a few months is a lot more common). Since they are discussing it on the talk page though, you may want to hold off unless they ignore consensus. VegaDark (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm holding off, but if he continues to edit in contradiction of the references, etc, I may block him again. I appreciate your advice. dougweller (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas

Hi. I hate to drag up old stuff, but I wanted to direct your attention to Talk:Sofia Shinas#Birth Date - This may solve it.... ALos Angeles Times article seems to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the birth certificate forwarded to OTRS and the 1974 birth date alleged by it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Doug, could you explain to me why you blocked User:Florentino floro? I would like to facilitate his unblock if possible, and I am hoping we can determine some reasonable conditions for that. Everyking (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to take this to ANI. He appears to be mentally ill and no one objected to his block, quite the opposite.You've seen the discussion about his user page, also see[11] and [12] although hopefully you already have. Start a new ANI section on unblocking him would be my suggestion. I will oppose it given his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing at the very least. I don't think he is able to function as a Wikipedia editor, and given his threat to use sockpuppets and the earlier creation of sockpuppets, I expect some will oppose him just for those reasons. I also will say that I don't think he can work within a community on a truly collaborative basis, probably because of his evident mental problems. dougweller (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
What if he acknowledges wrongdoing? Everyking (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think his problems prevent him from doing this meaningfully, for a start. Also, scroll just up from here:[13]. He has also said he would continue editing, he has at least 3 now blocked sockpuppets (he vigorously denies this[14] one, although it seems pretty clear that it is a sockpuppet of his). As I said, you can and more or less must take such a request to ANI, but I don't think it will fly.dougweller (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware of the difficulty of obtaining a consensus in that setting, particularly considering that people have taken to characterizing him as an lunatic, and I would much prefer it if you would agree to unblock him, or at least outline some conditions. Is it your position that Florentino is fundamentally incapable of functioning as a worthwhile editor and that there are no conditions in which an unblock would be appropriate? Everyking (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is my position, but even if I felt differently I would still take it back to ANI considering the response to my blocking him. I would not consider doing it unilaterally. dougweller (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think your position is compatible with the some of the philosophy behind Wikipedia; I think it's necessary that, if someone is going to be blocked, we need to articulate reasons for that block that can actually be addressed by that person within the context of Wikipedia if he or she wishes to resume editing. That way, we give everyone a fair opportunity to get back in. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to articulate something like "needs to be more civil"? Florentino could then undertake to be more civil and we could watch his behavior carefully for a while to ensure that he was sticking to his promise.Everyking (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read the original discussion? He has been politely asked to be more civil many, many times before. He has also been politely asked to refrain from doing the things he does--adding useless trivia, prophesying disaster, threatening people with curses. Each time he was asked to, he replied with an incomprehensible rant, followed by edits that clearly showed he did not follow any of the advice. And keep in mind that people have been asking him this since 2006. Check his talk page and the archives for yourself. He was not blocked for being a lunatic but for harassment, and there are plenty of non-derogatory reasons to keep him blocked, as articulated in the original discussion and even the RfC. I realize that people are coming down hard on him in the ANI page, but that's no reason to make the jump from defending him to saying he should be unblocked. There are plenty of valid reasons to keep him blocked. --Migs (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
On a few occasions early in Florentino's editing history, I gave him some editing advice and he reacted positively; I was subjected to no incomprehensible rants (although, of course, I have seen him indulge in such rants when talking to others—I just want to stress that's not the whole picture). I also think we need to keep in mind that Doug's block is only the secondblock Florentino has ever received. It's not exactly normal to move so quickly to an indef block when dealing with a long-term, industrious editor. Isn't it reasonable to think that a series of short blocks might have helped guide his behavior? We don't know how he would have reacted because we haven't tried that approach. Everyking (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Please keep this discussion on ANI so everyone can see it. No one else wants to unblock him, and what is strange is that he only has one block. Even his response to the block shows that unblocking him wouldn't bring about a new Floro following Wikipedia guidelines and policies, by the way. And that blog of his... if he had a clue and an interest, he'd have wiped most of it.dougweller (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection for Hatshepsut

Dear Doug, If you please, I request some form of page protection for Hatshepsut ASAP.

  • There has been massive and repeated vandalism of this article by numerous anonymous IPs: [15] Just go through the edit history. I don't know why almost every anonymous editor has to vandalise her page...just because she was a great female pharaoh. How many times is the article going to be vandalised until no one can make sense of its content? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Done, I've protected it in the past but they just keep coming back. dougweller (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for acting here. It was painful seeing all the anon IP's placing words like mother f..., btch, etc in Hatshepsut's article. It was brutal. By the way, I created this article: [16] Feel free to place a banner or category for it. Personally, I just create articles and try to source images for them. I got the 3 flickr images from my contacts within the past two days. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Captmondo posted a short response regarding the listhere Basically, he says no problem. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm unwatching all the Egyptian stuff from my watchlist to make it easier to read and making sure it's on the AE list. Good article by the way. dougweller (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You're very welcome. Since the tomb of Senenmut's parents were found intact, they certainly merited an article here. Sadly, you likely won't find one on Brittanica. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request of Lux Lord (talk · contribs)

Hi. Could you comment on that request? I'm asking because it's not immediately evident to me, judging from the contributions, that he's indeed a sock of Florentino floro (talk · contribs). Thanks,  Sandstein  08:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dougweller but Lux Lord has many of the same speech patterns and obsessions exhibited by Florentino Floro. He also obsesses over similar topics. I'd be more specific, but Floro actually reads other talk pages and I'd rather he didn't know how we're able to tell it's him. I think, though, that a comparison between Lux Lord's messages and Floro's should suffice. Floro himself admits to having sockpuppets so this is a reasonable assumption. In any case, Lux Lord probably isn't who he claims he is; knowing quite a number of faculty at that school, I can say with reasonable certainty that Lux Lord's concerns are not something Ateneo would concern itself with. --Migs (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


And speaking of Floro's sockpuppets, I suspect this might be one but I'd like a second opinion.Laa Careon. He also follows similar editing patterns and concerns, but he hasn't seen fit to deliver a long incoherent rant yet. I've also posted a notice in the ANI topic. --Migs (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he shows up about 5 hours after Floro's block. I don't understand why some people think a promise to be civil is enough in the face of all of this. dougweller (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

protected for 6 weeks

I think you're entitled to an answer and/or a discussion on the application of "original research" at the RSN. Otherwise it looks rather as if we're seeing a POV attempt to block the discussion that the page is intended for.PRtalk 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As it happens, another Admin took the bit between his teeth and unblocked it. And now the article on the author is a redirect to his book, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War‎ and that is up for AfD!. I'm particularly annoyed still that people think they can quote 'book reviews' that are just Amazon blurbs (and tell me that 'blurbs' isn't encyclopedic). There was a discussion here[17] that was just completely ignored. Another editor has tried to fix that however. This is all basically a POV push for a particular writer, who himself seems to be aware of what is going on here and indirectly taking part. dougweller (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlantis Location

I tried to be helpful by including links to Philistines in the Crete location, and Coordinates to the Mount Sipylus under the Turkey location. While I don't particularly lend credence to either location, people examining the merits of those ideas would be better served by having links to inter-related data (eg. Keftiu = Caphtor = Origin of the Philistines, so the Philistines origin may determine the validity of the Minoan postulation) or simply coordinates for all the locations for some Google Earth amusement. I know you chimed in on the edit wars, I wonder if you have any insights regarding why these types of edits would be rescinded. It seems that Georgeos Diaz-Montexano has a strong inclination to promote the Andalusia Hypotheses... —Preceding unsigned comment added by207.127.128.2 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have to admit that an IP editor coming along and adding coordinates without a source is pretty much fodder for reversion. Why not start a new section on the talk page first? And what did you want done with those quotes you put on the talk page? dougweller (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will post the coordinates request in the Talk area. With regard to the quotes, many of Mr Diaz-Montexano's rebuffs against the Minoan theory have to do with the fact that Plato never claimed that Atlantis had such and such attribute. I just tried to post sections of Critias that have correspondece with the History Channel's version of events. While Mr Diaz-Montexano is technically correct, I would say that Critias's comments (in the same document where Plato has commented) count as part of the historical Atlantean cannon.

Battle of Thermopylae

Hi there, You protected this article yesterday after a content dispute. For my part, I am sorry for becoming involved in it, although I didn't really realise I was, until I was, if you see what I mean.

Anyway, I see that I am not the first to come up against Ariobarza and fail to get through. I left a not-especially-polite response to his edits on the discussion page after you protected the article, to which he responded in typically rambling , and equally not-very-polite fashion. Feeling a little guilty, I proposed a compromise (still on the talk page). However, since then I have been now exploring Ariobarza's history a bit more, and I'm not sure that changes should be made to the article purely to please him/her.

I would therefore be happy for the article to remain protected for the time-being. However, given that the current version is a mess of edits which pleases no-one, could I suggest that the whole article be reverted to this version: 18:51, 25 November 2008. This would remove all of yesterday's edits. Not because I believe that that version is the best, just better than the current version. Obviously I understand if you just want to leave the article as it is.

Thanks, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only do that if Ariobarza agrees, I'm afraid, however much I'd like to. dougweller (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)