User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Han/Roman comparison

Happy New Year, Doug. I think you're right that all the material referenced to the WW Norton book needs to be taken out. It will take a bit of time though. Whether it needs to be protected after that depends on whether TI takes on board what we are saying about copyright. Yes, after lengthy ;-) consideration, I do want to run for admin. Do you want to nominate me? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One alternative is to put the copyvio template on that blanks the page until the issue is settled. Moreschi offered to nominate you, take him up on it and I'll second you if that's procedure, what do you think? dougweller (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see that so far you have deemed me unfit to edit wikipedia; although I disagree with your contention, it is within your abilities as an administrator to prevent a user from making edits. Therefore, in order to save you the displeasure of banning me, I will stop my editing of "comparison between Roman and Han empires" and other articles I have been working on until such time as you feel that I should be able to edit wikipedia. Please inform me of your decision if you do feel that way. Thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
????? I didn't write any article about tv shows. I have written three articles so far. Also, not to be complaining, but i would welcome it if you found a source about this article yourself and added information to the article; your criticism is very welcome, but work is helpful too.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Working on sources that I can afford, but it may take a few weeks I'm afraid. You did create a talk page for the 100 best comedy shows/episodes/whatever asking what made it notable, a good question and the reason for the template on the article. I've run out of time for a few days to do anything lengthy, if no one comments on what you've written I'll try to find time. remember, there is no real rush (except of course for copyvio problems which I don't think exist anymore, there we do act fast and sometimes drastically). dougweller (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh that article. I didn't put up the template because I didn't have much knowledge on the subject, so I merely raised a question to the user. Any contributions by you would be appreciated. Just to note, I am in the process of rewriting paragraphs based on Norton(e.g. restoring the material so it doesnt violate copyvio{I have yet to receive a letter from the publisher, therefore I assume it is copyvio). I'm sure you will agree Norton is a credible source. As to the 5000 years book, I have found you A description of the books the publisher (A big publishing firm in China) has published(It's in Chinese unfortunately). As you can see, the publisher is quite a big and relatively reputable publisher in China. ,, These websites are lists of books they have published.

search:内蒙古人民出版社 in any chinese book site, and im sure you will get results. Here is the website of the publisher: I know it is preferable to have english sources, and i am in process of getting these sources. search neimenggu renmin chubanshe (pinyin rendition of the publisher's name)in google, and you will see it is cited in even english books. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added page numbers for all my book sources except a few secondary sources e.g. I checked an article found some claims that were sourced to that book. See structural history of the Roman Army in that respect. In terms of the 5000 years book and sun tzu's art of war, I do own them and so I have added page numbers. Sorry that was me I forgot to log in. Also, can you help me rewrite several paragraphs that were deleted because of copyvio and now I have to rewrite based on the source Norton books. We can settle the OR, and 5000 years thing later. I believe getting that information restored is first priority. Do you have any problems with the economics section(proposed restoration)????(teeninvestor) (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you see my suggestion regarding the chinese history book? Although I see your objection, I believe it would be a good source for say, description of han agricultural methods, equipment and other noncontroversial details. However, the statement han economy is largest needs more verification. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Dougweller, when will you be able to get the conceiving empire book? We're waiting for that. As to the chinese source, I believe it can a temporary solution.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea how long it will take to get it. I don't think we can have 'temporary' solutions, it's either suitable for a WP encyclopedic article or not. WP:There is no deadlineand it's better to have a shorter, good article than a longer one that for instance can't be verified by most of our readers.

Most Common Name "Shedu"?

Hello Doug, seeing your knowledge in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, I would like to get your input here [[1]] . I wanted you to look over my findings, on the grounds that the current name of the article is not the most common name in the english language. Perhaps you can validate this finding or make your own suggestion to what is the best name for the article. I would appreciate your input here, perhaps you can come across some findings of your own. Thank you in advance. Ninevite (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy Darwin200 Year! . dave souza, talk 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (for story line see Darwin's Rhea#Discovery)

Dear Dougweller,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the wishes, Doug. All the best to you and yours, too! . dave souza, talk 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of material from Norton.

I have decided to restore several paragraphs rewritten because no one seemed to have objections to them. This is NOT an attempt on my part to restore copyright vio material. Although I am not a big fan of copyright law, I don't want to break it or cause wikipedia to be sued over it. I only reinserted it after putting it up for a day and no one submitted objections(I knew you were on at that time because you posted several messages on the talk page). If you had complaints, please address them on talk page. Right now, it seems like no one has objections. Don't worry; I will only restore the paragraphs I have written in talk page. Also, regarding inline citations, I'll get to that after we deal with some other concerns(finding another source, adding technology section, etc...). Also, regarding Original research, I believe that sources that only compare one empire can be used to provide context. The reader could make his own comparisons from the facts. As to direct comparisons, I think Norton could be a good source.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you show an example of inline citations? cause WP: Citations isnt very helpful. i used the first method I found for most citations.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As well as WP:CITE, see [2], [3], [4], [5] - it's hard work. :-) dougweller (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Do you know why H5+R1A (talk · contribs) is editing your User page?

Hi there,

I'm not sure why he's editing my user page actually, I don't think I've blocked the user or his socks.

The Helpful One 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up! :) The Helpful One 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. You deleted some of my additions to the Sphinx article. I accept some of your corrections, and have added the required extra references etc as suggested. However you also deleted some significant extra material, seemingly on the grounds that you supposed it to be original research. These OR assertions are incorrect. I have therefore reinstated the original text (more or less) but have included the necessary references to the work of the original authors from whose voluminous papers I have extracted and summarised these points. I hope this now meets the standard. I don't understand your assertion about the "errors such as that about the Geological Society meeting" - I have deleted it meanwhile, but please clarify?Wdford (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Schoch had a booth at the meeting, with photos, etc, for a morning or an afternoon. It's called a poster session, and there are perhaps hundreds of them at a GSA meeting. Other geologists wander among them and perhaps chat a bit. Schoch never claimed this as an endorsement of his work, this all comes from John Anthony West in the first place, and was just an anecdote with no evidence behind him. dougweller (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it is still OR, because you are using statements by others to come to a conclusion. Eg, unless Lerner connects the channel he discovered to the age of the Sphinx, then you can't use that. If he does, fine, tell us what he says. The paragraph starting 'per Doctor Schoch looks like OR also, and as Giza still receives heavy rainfall so far as I know it's incorrect anyway. The para starting 'the primary counterargument' is all OR (see WP:SYNTHESIS. Ditto the para starting 'However the erosion. You are clearly coming to conclusions yourself based on other people's work. That's fine in an essay, but here we just report what reliable sources have to say and let our readers some to a conclusion. See WP:NPOV about the weight given to various views (not that I'm raising that as an issue here now), and WP:NOR. dougweller (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful feedback. I have left out the less-important elements, and have now inserted only the important but disputed material using direct quotes from the original texts. I hope I have done it correctly. I agree that Lawton himself is not generally an objective source, but Reader's paper is being published here in full and without Lawton's censorship.Wdford (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And thank you. I tried to go through the article bit by bit detailing what I was doing and why. I think it's still necessary to have a bit of why Bordeau disagrees with Reader, and more about why Egyptologists disagree (the archaeological reasons). Then the thing to do was to think about WP:UNDU and WP:NPOV, so ideas are given coverage that their significance shows they should have, or however it's worded. A bit tricky, but the idea is that an idea not taken very seriously doesn't get the same attention as one taken more seriously. I will say that I think Schoch's prominence over Reader and Coxill's ideas has more to do with publicity than anything else. dougweller (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Schoch gets the nod because he came on the scene first - Reader has added a lot of extra value, but in most things he agrees with Schoch, and so naturally it is "Schoch, supported by Reader" rather than the other way around. I also think its wrong to suppose that Reader is more credible than Schoch - scientifically their methodology does not seem much different - all that Reader has done differently is to deduce that the Sphinx may have been carved hundreds of years earlier rather than thousands of years earlier, which makes the Establishment a bit less unhappy, and he has done so with less publicity.
I am happy to enlarge the reason why Egyptologists disagree, in this section as well.
However, I disagree with your removing "what the authors didn't say". In all cases the rebuttals failed to explain all the evidence, namely why did their proposed process affect only the one small area and not all the other rock of equal age as well? Both Schoch and Reader clearly stated that no explanation other than water erosion could explain ALL the evidence, and Gergis is already complaining that inserting detailed quotations each time is more than is required. Surely it is not OR to word a point so as to make it clear what it says and what it does not say - especially as this is scientific evidence rather than just an opinion (perhaps we should move the deductions re the timing to the end, to correct the UNDUE??) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdford (talkcontribs) 13:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course, neither Schoch nor Reader are full-time professional geologists. One reason not to use Lawton's site is that he calls Schoch a Professor of Geology, which is not at all accurate, geology is part of what he teaches (at a non-degree level), but only part and not a minor part, and he does little if any serious geology research. As far as OR goes, we report what authors say without getting into our own discussions about it, and certainly without making any deductions of our own. And there is still the issue about the mainstream view being given much less coverage than other views. dougweller (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
True - but the fact that they are not full-time professors does not invalidate their observations, and it should not undermine their deductions either? If so, the world would not know that Troy really existed? However I agree with your concern about UNDUE - this extra material was only included in an attempt to address OR - so I have greatly reduced the size of the section to comply. I am happy with the current version, if its acceptable?Wdford (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC
Schoch is a full time professor, I meant that neither of them are full time geologists so far as I know. I started a discussion on WP:UNDUE on the talk page, let's see how that runs. dougweller (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Martinjacobson1

Hello. I noticed you detagged Martinjacobson1's userpage. I'm fine with that, I had only tagged it as attack because of concerns that it may have violated WP:BLP. Saying someone was addicted to heroin isn't exactly flattering. But of course, it does seem to have some legitimacy; I had some reservations about CSD'ing the article and they were obviously founded. Apologies for the inconvenience. » \ / ( | ) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I did tell the editor I thought it was inappropriate for his userspace. dougweller (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted: Egolf Tarheel Tour

Why was this article deleted? I wrote this wikipedia page as a project for my internship, the first thing I did was just to get it up there. It got marked for speedy deletion, so I changed and added a bunch of stuff to insure that it would not be seen as advertising which it is not. I added a schedule of tournaments and past winners of events as well as references. Egolf Tarheel Tour is a legitimate Developmental Golf Tour, similar to NGA Hooters Tour, which has a wikipedia page. Please help me to make this page so that it meets your guidelines.

Thank you, Robert Friedman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refriedm (talkcontribs) 17:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I just saw what you wrote on my talkpage. I am working on getting it userfied and will then add outside sources. Thanks Refriedm (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Indefinite protection of articles is prohibited by policy (and that's especially true for "preventive protection"); that was the sole reason behind my unprotection action. Seeing the influx of activity you are referring to, I would say that using long-term semi-protection would have been a wiser course of action, but that, of course, would have been impossible to predict when I lifted the protection this morning. Rest assured, it was my intent to watch this article further, but, as you realize, one cannot watch everything full time, so others had to deal with this in the past half day. At any rate, I semi-protected this article for one month due to the reasons you laid out above. If you still disagree, feel free to bring this to ANI. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:36, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

Happy with this, but after the month I shall probably reprotect, this has a few year to run and it will get wilder as it goes on. I may take it to ANI later this year to see how long we can run at a time with semi. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but we shouldn't be depriving good editors a chance to make useful contributions to this article, even if it means more work for us reverting all that end-of-the-world crap. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:02, January 5, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I think it may be or become eligible for indef semi - "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view)." Did you mean indefinite full protection? dougweller (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I talked about originally. Indef semi in this case may be fine; or we could try one-months increments to see how it goes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, January 6, 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia:An#Copyright_vio_needs_speedily_deleting - John Sloan (view / chat) 22:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I asked too soon, I managed to get there in the end. dougweller (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Promised Land

Hi there,

Just checking the reason why my 'good faith' edit was removed. I thought I included a citation...


Ojh23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojh23 (talkcontribs) 01:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You sort of included a citation. But you removed the 'reflist' template which made the other references invisible, you should have used the 'cite your sources' ref /ref with <> -- look in the edit window, bewlow the tick box for watch this page, next to sign your posts. You called the author 'Dr' which we don't do, and you didn't mention that he is speaking from a Muslim tradition which I think is an important part of the context. I have one other non-technical concern, is he speaking for the Muslim tradition or is this just a personal opinion of his? Do you know? dougweller (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - didn't realise about the 'Dr.' etiquette and I'm afraid I don't understand technical computer-speak stuff. I should have edited without the refs disappearing, but didn't realise I'd done this. On the last point about Guillaume, he was a professor of Old Testament studies at the University of London; generally when scholars are writing scholarly treatises and books they are written in the spirit of rational, academic debate, and not opinion. If you would rather, I can mention that my citation of Guillaume takes account of the fact that he was also a prominent Islamic scholar. However, his commentary on the Scriptures was frequently published by the SPCK - Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, which would suggest he was not 'speaking for the Muslim tradition'. I will wait to hear back from you before changing anything.


Owen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojh23 (talkcontribs) 15:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Sounds good. Use the Preview button next time, when I forget I often have it wrong. I'm sure Guillaume is ok, just add that he was an Islamic scholar (don't call him prominent as that would be a personal opinion). As we have an article on it, put his name within [['s, so it shows up Alfred Guillaume. Look at this Land==ki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnote_system to see how to do references, they go between the ref and /ref (both surrounded by <'s and >'s. Which are, as I said, on the 2nd line below the edit summary window. I'll tidy it up if there is a problem. dougweller (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


I just want to bring to your attention that User:Davidx5 went ahead and re-created his Hispanic (updated) article again, this time as Hispanic (European View).-5- (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I requested CSD as a recreation of deleted material. Verbal chat 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, nothing for me to do then! dougweller (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hi Doug. Hope your quiet evening in went well. We did much the same, but it seems like a long time ago. Co-nom would be absolutely great. A bit busy at work this week, but haven't forgotten and hoping to put the RfA in say by the start of next week. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your co-nom - hard to recognise myself in your description ;-) Have done draft answers to questions now. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rules of the game

Hi: I don't mind if pages are undeleted or whatever but could you possibly arbitrate this whole charade? Obviously there are things I just cannot discuss and since this is an anonymous place you must appreciate that right? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

EEStor advert tag

Hi, I removed the advert tag from the EEStor page after doing a minor edit to make it sound less like an advert. Since you added the advert tag I thought I should let you know. Please see my entry on the EEstor discussion page for more info about my thinking on this. Thanks, Stephen Luce (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. dougweller (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Davidx5 (talk · contribs)

Thank you. As far as I can tell, this user defines as American anyone who does not agree with him. I suspect that this is a fixation which we are not going to eradicate. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as a headsup, it looks like he's back to changing the statement by Anthony. I honestly don't think he'll ever change. Templarion (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it. Right now I've reblocked him so he can't use his talk page. Thanks for letting me know. dougweller (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bronze Age

Respectfully, I propose to reinstate your deletion. What do you mean the article does not exist? I provided a full citation for it? It is a journal article (ie. hard copy), not a web article as the citation indicates. If you supply me with your email address I can send you a scanned copy. Then, after reading it, if you wish to critique its contents you can do so on the Talk page and comment accordingly. The article appears to be written by Mr Keys based on the work of others - it does not claim to be his own research. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but I know it is a magazine article (journal usually implies academic), it is just that the BBC doesn't list it as in the magazine issue you mention. That confuses me. If you click on the email this user at the left of this you can email me, and if you can't add an attachment I'll email you back, I'd rather not put my email address on my talk page. dougweller (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I have sent you through an email with a message so that I might send you an attachment of the scanned article. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Paper folding

Was it really necessary to remove the entire edit? You could have just asked for a better reference. Please do try to bite less (even though I'm not a newbie). — sjorford++ 18:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that that rarely works, although what I could have done and perhaps should have done is removed it and notified you why. dougweller (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing a pair of curly brackets at Sovereign Grace Ministries I think.

The template does not appear, only {pp-protected}. All the best, and I am so very glad to know I am not the only one who does that from time to time. Thanks! :)sinneed (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On the BLP board, I have a post that has both right-hand square brackets... but sometimes they both appear, and sometimes only one. Something odd going on. :)sinneed (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issue; may I refer a contributor to you?

Hi. I'm getting ready to go out of town for an extended weekend (though I'll be here some hours yet), and I have discovered a rather large copyright concern with User:Redpathanderson. He had an article listed at cp which came current today. As standard operating procedure for active contributors, I checked his other contribs and have so far located 14 other articles that either consist of or include large chunks of text copied from other sources. (I'm processing them, of course, and they're at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 16.) I've spoken to the contributor about it at User talk:Redpathanderson#Copyright problem: Reculver Castle, but he may have questions or concerns, particularly since his contribution here suggests he may not understand the issue. Do you mind if I refer him to you if he has questions that I am unable to address before going? If you don't have time, please let me know, and I'll track down somebody else who may be available or just tell him that we may not be able to discuss the matter before the 19th. (This, of course, presumes you'll be around before I go. If not, I'll think of something.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My only problem is that I still don't feel I'm up to speed on handling copyright issues if they aren't straightforward. But otherwise, I'm around and am happy to talk to him. dougweller (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't really be complicated. Thanks. I'll give him your name and let him know when I'll be back. He can also, of course, address questions at WT:CP, but that's hardly a quick forum. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I do. I am happy to give them. Thanks for the heads up anyway. AF-H —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskeharrison (talkcontribs) 16:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


Don't despair, just learn German and seek exile at de: ;-)

Or more seriously speaking, whereas I'm rather skeptical about the Wikipedia in general, the handling of fringe theories and crackpots on enwiki rather made me (nearly) to stop contributing here. It just wasn't possible to stop the snake oil sellers here.

--Pjacobi (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've had more successes than failures. Please don't give up! I've done a bit more tidying of Die Glocke. Warrington seems to have a lot of time on his hands. :-)


I originally created this article as a redirect. I don't think a deletion is appropriate. Deletion just creates a void where someone else will inevitably create an article or redirect anyway, one that might not be appropriate and be less informative or even trolly. If you would like to improve the contents, please try to improve the article itself. Deletion is not a solution at all. If you don't like the changes all these other people have made, then restore it to the redirect please, don't delete it. People have done a lot of work compiling information there, and it has historically existed for a couple years now, so why throw it out? Tyciol (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it will end up as a redirect. Hopefully the AfD process will tidy up the bits that have accreted. dougweller (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Doug, thanks very much for your confidence in me and sorry it didn't work out. I'm going to thank everyone who contributed, then take a short break, then considering being adopted, which I've always thought is a nice idea. Keep up the good work! Itsmejudith (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Ta for noticing. I must have overlooked that one. Tresiden (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Mea culpa, I'll be more careful next time, thanks for pointing that out. — PhilHibbs | talk 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


please, please ... at Culture. Over the years, thanks to too many cooks, this article turned into a disaster. Mixing up different POV's even from different disciplines, lots of redundancies, no distinction between fringe and mainstream theory. I just did a major overhaul (with explanations on the talk page) - basically deleting fringe materials, cutting repetitions, and reorganizing. My intention for now was to clearly lay out different approaches to "culture." I do not think this article should just repeat stuff in Cultural anthropology and in Cultural studies for example but it does need to explain the relationship and differences between their respective approaches to culture. But (1) my revision is incomplete, (2) I surely made mistakes, and (3) a lot needs to be fleshed out. I would really appreciate it if you would go over it and fix any glaring errors, see if you can improve the organization, and then perhaps flesh out parts that need developing. Wikipedia's article on culture was awful - yet it ought to be great! I'd appreciate your help (current archeological methods and theories for material culture are surely relevant, highly relevant), Slrubenstein | Talk 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. I don't think I have time right now, as I am going to see my aged father shortly and will be away from my library. Maybe when I get back, it does look like a big job though! I'll think about it and look at it again next month. Sorry about that. dougweller (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Totally understandable. On the talk page I summarized specific areas I think still need considerable work, and besides, I value your judgment. I hope when you come back you will give it serious consideration, I am sure it would benefit from your efforts. Good luck with your father, I hope it is a positive visit. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I wrote up a section on archeology and material culture - next month when you have time I would appreciate it if you would go over it and make sure there are no glaring errors, I would appreciate it. Also, if you have time to develop it, please let me know, I have a few specific ideas but would rather an expert do any further development. The trick is to make it about "culture" from an archeologist's POV rather than about "archeology" as such. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Doug.

It appears that ancient-wisdom has been banned from Wikipedia.

Honestly...Im not sure exactly whats happened here, or why... I first find myself defending a charge of misrepresentation of the facts, to which I believe I have responded sufficiently well in that is an exploration of prehistory. The aim of the site is to research the boundaries of prehistoric research and as such some of the content is speculative, but it is no way incorrect, nor aimed to prejudice the reader. The site is fully referenced and is intended to be as unbiased and unprejudiced as Wikipedia says it is. As such - I asked for the errors I was accused of making and offered to correct them.

In reply, I found your note on the megaliths discussion page which seems to suggest that I am breaching Wikipedia guidelines by neither referencing material (which can be seen to be a false statement), or that I am prejudiced in my approach. It is ironic that your response was to block me, whereas mine was to accept criticism and alter the site according to your original request.

I once again ask you to specify the mistakes I was originally charged with (the 4-5 errors my 2 year old Top-50 stones page), in order that i can correct them ... As the site is clearly referenced, and I am openly offering to alter incorrect information on it... it will be interesting to see if you will allow ancient-wisdom to be part of the Wilkipedia future.

All the best..Alex.

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you, I have said that your site fails our criteria for reliable sources, see WP:RS. If you disagree, you can discuss it at the appropriate noticeboard at WP:RSN. It is your personal site, and I'm afraid neither you nor I are reliable sources on this area. Now if your name was Timothy Darvill or another noted archaeologist, it is possible but not certain that your personal site could be considered a reliable source. This has nothing to do with any specific errors. dougweller (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect this article

Can you please place some kind of protection on this article: George Vancouver

  • There is quite a bit of vandalism in his article and I just restored a large chunk of info that had been stripped from it. It is a popular site for vandals since the city of Vancouver, Canada derived its name from him. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is enough day-to-day vandalism, at least recently, to justify protection. Take a look at WP:Rough guide to semi-protection. I have found some broken text that I didn't feel I could fix, see the talk page.

If vandalism does grow to a daily basis, let me know. dougweller (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Block of

I used the wrong template, I did mean to only block for 24 hours. Feel free to bump it higher if it's warranted (I did notice they'd had lots of previous warnings and blocks). Sorry for the confusion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Myspace Farm

Saw your notice on the admin noticeboard; I looked a bit deeper and found a few more of the chatters: Donnawood123 (talk · contribs), Laneyboi (talk · contribs) and DANHOWARD2K9 (talk · contribs) and it looks like the geezer character is back as Geezer1003 (talk · contribs)... Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked Geezer1003 for his legal threat, put them all on ANI to see if anyone can block their IPs. dougweller (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Admin mop.PNG
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi Doug,

Many thanks for your message.

I am unsure why there is an issue adding the safe-tide website to the lindisfarne entry. You provide a link to a version of the tidetables which is not covered by indemnity insurance or a strict data integrity policy. In addition to this, you link into a website selling a dvd about Holy Island and the 'Island Website' which is packed full of adverts for Holy Island related businesses and products. The castle also runs as a commercial venue, yet a link to their website is also displayed. Please can you explain why it is acceptable for one business to have an external link and not others.


James —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The castle is National Trust, not a commerical venue. The island website is so far as I can see their official website, so is ok (see WP:EL and bring it up on the talk page if you are unhappy, but you'll be told the same thing. dougweller (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by an official website? Anyone could claim to have the official website for a place. In this situation it is an individual who has set up a website about the place they live and sell advertising and products on the site. You are keeping the link for the Diary of an Island DVD ( - set up specifically to promote or sell? That would appear to be contrary to the policy you refer to. It is not a case of being 'unhappy' but I would like to see a consistent approach to the application, if certainly raises the issue of integrity over the data and those editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No reason you couldn't have deleted them, but I have now. Things get missed, not enough editors watching every article. dougweller (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Doug,

I have removed links selling photography from the Lindisfarne site on several occasions, as have other users. More of less as soon as we remove them they end up being added again. Can you help?

Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A notable essay or not?

A minor point - I'm not interested in the entry - but please view latest article in Prospect - the blog entry for which which cites my bullfighting piece as a "much-noted essay for Prospect on bull-fighting (a piece which sparked one of the most in-depth discussions ever to feature on this blog)" - First Drafts --Fiskeharrison (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi Doug

Thanks for your message explaining. I am brand new and simply read around to see what to do, followed the rules as far as I was concerned as I was in the process of making a page for Manion which is a mascot. Im not sure about the parameters of "notability", but there's a few relatively notable online followings.

Thanks, Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simanion (talkcontribs) 08:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

modern geocentrism: some scientists do believe it.

You said that no scientist believes that the earth is the center of the universe. That is shown to be false if you consult the following papers and monographs.

"Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volume I, The Scientific Case for Geocentrism" by Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. and Robert J. Bennett, Ph.D,

"Geocentricity, Relativity and the Big Bang" by Russell Arndts, (PhD in Chemistry from Louisiana)

"Geocentricity" by Gerardus D Bouw, (a mathematician)

Additionally, non-relativistic models of the universe which has the universe floating around a fixed earth have been developed by Moon and Spencer: "Binary Stars and the velocity of Light" Journal of the Optical Society of America (1953); and Barbour and Bertotti "Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework" Il Nouvo Cimento (1977).

Finally, an inverted universe, which claims that the surface of the earth is the inside of a hollow sphere, plausibly counts as geocentric and has been advocated by Fritz Braun, and by an Egyptian Mostafa Abdelkader: "A geocosmos: Mapping outer space into a hollow earth" in Speculatinos in Science and Cosmology (1983).

With the exception of Bouw these are all (to my knowledge) professional scientists, and so I would appreciate it if you let my edit stick. Pretending that scientific minority opinion does not exist because it is from a minority is not the attitude of the intellectually honest.

Perhaps "Modern Geocentrism is rejected by the vast majority of the scientific establishment" would be better?

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be. Bouw is an astronomer but I don't know what he actually taught. I do think that this scientific minority is infinitessimal, but it is there even if you can count them on your fingers. Put the list on the talk page, make it vast majority of scientists ('establishment' is not necessary, is it now?). dougweller (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ole Miss

Ah! I didn't notice that one; never heard the nickname before, and thought it was a Norwegian University or something. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Now why didn't I think of that, of course it's Norwegian! dougweller (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin help

I would like this page moved to that page, but with the edit histories merged, if that is at all possible, if not, can you direct me to some way to do that sort of thing? TARTARUS talk 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in the air (literally). Why not just copy and paste your version over the current one? Does it matter that you would lose the history from the one on your page? dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No, not really, I just heard that that was the way to do it... But if not, then I will just copy and paste it. TARTARUS talk 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

James Cameron Bio

Dougweller: You made an edit to the page of filmmaker James Cameron on 12-13-08 which did do two things, one (in my opinion) quite right, but the other (as far as I can tell), quite wrong. You deleted somebody's listing of Camoern as an "Anti-Christian". However, you apparently also listed Cameron as Jewish. It was my understanding that Cameron was raised only vaguely religious, but that he is entirely of Scottish ancestry with a light Protestant upbringing. I've read and heard him say this in numerous interviews (I'm a large fan of his, and run a blog about his works). For my citation, please see the "discussion" page at Cameron's own page.

If indeed you were correct and I am wrong, please contact me with your sourcs and also please incorporate these into his bio. Thank you.

Sorry, that must have been an effect of my edit. I would probably never add religious cateagories to an article. I'll undo it. dougweller (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller: Thank you for your rapid response, explanation for the error, and correction. Just one experience, but that's professional behavior through-and-through! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CameronFanSite (talkcontribs) 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


I agree. I can only revert the same article once a day, so there's nothing more I can do there, but he's clearly got a monomania about this, and doesn't much care about how Wikipedia works. Maybe an RfC? -LisaLiel (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC means what? Cush (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm afraid I'm too uninvolved. To give this proper attention I'd need to spend too much time reading the relevant discussions. I suggest you report this to WP:ANI instead to get responses from people with more time on their hands. - Mgm|(talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG, would you take a look at Pi-hahiroth, please? Cush (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I just did. I hadn't realised he'd re-added those references early and messed up the bottom of the page (why does he say they are from the talk page). He is adding OR and editing against consensus. I've got some stuff to add to it, I was working on Baal-zephon and got distracted. Maybe not until tomorrow, meanwhile, as I say, he is editing against consensus. dougweller (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OMG, would you take a look at Pi-hahiroth, please? AGAIN!!! Cush (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to Roman Empire.

I tried to put a link on Roman Empire for Comparisons between Roman and Han Empires but Gun Powder Ma reverted it supposedly because the article has "no information". He retained other links I put though(Roman architecture, History, etc...). I haven't worked on the article for a while(busy with other things, such as Economy of the Ming dynasty) but would you think that comparison article is ready for a link to the Roman Empire article? Also, Dougweller, not to be rude, but when will schiedel arrive? if the book arrives, can you inform me as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your help. Regards.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea and no way to find out when the book will arrive, sorry. I'll think about the link question. dougweller (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I just think it is better if you put it(if you agree that article should be linked to wikipedia) because I don't want to get into an edit war with gun powder Ma, who has heavy anti-Chinese prejudicesTeeninvestor (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC on use of myth in religious articles

Hi. I have raised a RfC at Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles. I feel this is an important issue and wanted to get an interested admin involved in the issue. Any input appreciated. Thanks--FimusTauri (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi! Thanks for the heads-up on the dead-end source. I didn't know the source was unreliable, but it is a personal website from someone so I agree it's best not to use. I took your advice and looked for better sources. Are these sources okay?,+iron,+furnace&source=web&ots=WJzolQaCH5&sig=VPOhOXewQAF5hSLwuZ8QWh0NLwQ&hl=en&ei=_cCKSaDqBYqhtweSn-yeBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result,+iron,+furnace&source=web&ots=ZnEjQi52NG&sig=WRvnLo72eW1qNGPQtid36tcAttM&hl=en&ei=_cCKSaDqBYqhtweSn-yeBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result,+neolithic&source=web&ots=wWVGAvbwDC&sig=oLsfZADAq2fplcionxe5hXjBgXw&hl=en&ei=V8GKSaSbO9eitge6-eibBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA71,M1

Please let me know. Sorry for the cumbersome format, I'm still not completely used to the formatting scheme of Wikipedia.Full Shunyata (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It takes time to get used to it. :-) Except for the 'teachers' guide' and, they look good. Did you see the pdf article on AMS dating? It looks good (although of course it itself is over 2 decades old, always check for more recent stuff). dougweller (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for helping me out with the sources. ;-) I found a few more sources on wheels in ancient Africa, particularly in northeastern Africa. Do these sources look okay?,M1 (metallurgy in ancient Africa)
Do these sources seem to be on the level? Thanks again! Full Shunyata (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The 27s

Greetings, Dougweller. I have removed the "speedy deletion" template from "The 27s". See Talk:The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll#Proposed deletion of this article. Mudwater (Talk) 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is self-published and doesn't meet our notability criteria (eg multiple non-trivial sources) so I've taken it to AfD. dougweller (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the best approach in this case. Mudwater (Talk) 13:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Doug, do you mind taking a look at the article Cryptoarchaeology? I can't make much sense of it. I think it's an attempt to rebrand pseudoarchaeological ideas. If anyone felt like suggesting the article be deleted I wouldn't object, but I'm not sure enough to do so myself. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken one article to AfD you might be interested in, I'll think about this one tomorrow. dougweller (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


I really don't have the patience or the interest to follow him around Wikipedia generally, but a number of articles are on my watchlist, and I'll certainly appropriately deal with relevant edits of his as I notice them. AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Testimonium Flavianum - Additional EL


The proposed addition for EL under "Josephus on Jesus" is indeed posted on a "blog" which promotes interest in a forthcoming book. The article is actually Appendix I from the book, and has been provided because the Appendices tend to be short, stand-alone arguments, with less copyright restrictions.

If the proposed new EL fails Wikipedia standards, it might be a good idea to review several of the existing Wikipedia EL's on the referenced topic:

Josephus' Account of Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum dead link I am not sure how this is any less a blog, promoting a POV (although the opposite POV). "...dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the internet..." Also markets numerous books and products: "Get the Official Internet Infidels T-Shirt! Now only $16!!" A well researched article, but not a POV? "Here you will find my writings on faith, science, history and philosophy as well as loads of annotated links and book reviews. The aim of Bede's Library is show how a person from a scientific background came to Christianity and has had his faith strengthened rather than weakened by argument and reason. It is intended for anyone who is interested in these subjects and wants to see how having faith does not mean sacrificing intellectual integrity." A Catholic Newsletter...good article, but must be purchased for $1.50 Arguments for a POV...I think it provides value, but again a POV Kenneth Humphreys' site? blog? promoting his book 'Jesus Never Existed'

Other than the fact that many of these sites are more commercial, I don't see the distinction? If you read the proposed article, you will find that it contains period sources not present in the other EL's, and it certainly adds something to the discussion.

I appreciate your thoughts,

Mortalresurrection (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are quite likely right about the other links, to be honest I was tired and didn't look at them. Far too many articles have links like that. We have a saying 'Other***exists' which means that just because other stuff is bad is no excuse for leaving a particular case. dougweller (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus

Doug, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: [6] at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thank you, Doug. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably tomorrow. I've raised the issue of Rktect's edits successfully. [7] - a shame in a way, but I've known him for far too long and he hasn't changed. dougweller (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it all unfold on my watchlist. I think it was resolved well; he obviously wasn't going to change/improve. I look forward to hearing what you think about the Nativity stuff tomorrow, thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you something, would you mind emailing me so I can get in contact with you? Mine is my user name here at gmail dot com. Thanks Doug. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

rktect and Mount Horeb

Thanks for you note. I didn't realise that rktect was about to get blocked, although I certainly understand why. As far as Mount Horeb is concerned, I and another editor had already done a complete revert of his contributions on three occasions previously, so there wasn't much damage, and I was actually beginning to get the glimmerings of real co-operation going. You can therefore relax and leave it, and if anything needs doing I'll do it. Many thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow it is even sad, considering how much effort Rktect puts into his edits. It is quite unfortunate that most of it is plain nonsense (and I am just too lazy to pick out the good bits and pieces from the abundance of OR and SYN). I wish he would express his ethusiasm in a less intrusive way and not go overboard in every article he touches. Cush (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, I do not look at my e-mail as often as I visit Wikipedia. I see no reason why we need to discuss Rktect in private. He is an utter pain in the proverbial. I fully endorse the current indefinite block. Feel free to "out" his Usenet activity. But I think it has already been done here - indeed I may have done it myself!

Since you ask, I first encountered him in 2005 in connection with this ink blot (see File talk:3kr.jpg) and similar nonsense. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually you did, but I'd feel uncomfortable outing him. We used to get along relatively well even while disagreeing strongly. I was just wondering how you first encountered him, thanks for the explanation. dougweller (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to my edit on Tale of the shipwrecked sailor. After seeing the AfD for his Western Semitic calendar, I thought it would be good to track what other unsourced original research he has been adding. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Pyramid Construction Techniques

I recently added my external link to my paper The Great pyramid - How on Earth did they build it?

I did this because I notice that you have allowed F Steiger to do the same with his 'Pyramid construction using movable wooden ramps' paper.

I take your point that the hosting site offered to me by a friend for my paper is also an aviation training site. I had forgotten this aspect because the link is just a pdf download. If I now host the paper on my own site with no kind of commercial advertising at all, will it be acceptable for me to have the same opportunity as Mr Steiger to provide a link to my own paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtopa (talkcontribs) 18:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actively looked at the external links and dealt with them, but you may be right that others shouldn't be there. WP:EL says no personal websites with some exceptions, a personal website run by Mark Lehner would be ok for instance. Read WP:EL, if you think some links shouldn't be there, remove them. dougweller (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested that any external link shouldn't be there.

I am requesting that my own link may be placed in the EL section of the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques page provided that I ensure that in all respects the hosting site linked to is appropriate as defined in WP:EL. Mehtopa (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't give you or deny you permission to do any edits. All I can do is point out the guidelines, which say avoid links to personal websites and also " you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent — even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. " dougweller (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica= Atlantis

How can you say the truth violates the NPOV policy when your vandalism prevents my POV from being presented? Where is the neutrality in censorship? Wikkidd (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's so much wrong in your statement above that it doesn't seem worth commenting on. I will just note that you have had 3 blocks, one for bad faith comments on talk pages (like the above) & tendentious editing, one for gross abuse of civility in edit summaries, and a 3rd for personal attacks/harassment. dougweller (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Release of New Book To Be Included

You have deleted my contribution. Professor Fida Hassnain ( and I have researched Roza Bal tomb for years and now our book is released. The Title is Roza Bal, The Tomb of Jesus. We have spent years investigating the name Yuz Asaf associated with the tomb and with Jesus. We investigate the claims that Yuz Asaf could be Jesus and that he survived crucifixion. We investigate the history of Roza Bal tomb and the claiments of a bloodline to Yuz Asaf and Jesus. We are actively seeking the DNA from Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal. The book is self-published in America. However it is also published by Gulshan Publishers in India, a reputable Publishing house with years of academic books listed in their titles. We do not need to provide a link to the amazon site. It just seemed the most convenient way for readers to locate the book. What would you suggest replace this? Further, there are numerous authors associated with Wikipedia who have self-published fiction and non-fiction books even including fiction titled Roza Bal. You have no difficulties with those, nor with their links to amazon. If they are in compliance here, I am sure we can be too. Please advise me how you would like the reference to this important book to appear here. If there is a special formula, please show me. The presence of a link to a reliable, up to date and well researched history of Roza Bal is much needed here. It does not have to be linked to amazon or the self-published version. But it is important that it be inlcuded here for other scholars and researchers. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I always have difficulties with self-published books and links to Amazon. When I see them I delete them. It's unusual for a book to have be both self-published and properly published. I suggest you just list the book with both publishers and put a note on the talk page (and in the edit summary say 'see talk page'. If you include the ISBN13 number users can click on it and find the book - you need to do it this way -- ISBN 978-1413304541. dougweller (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Deep sigh of relief here. I will go back and redo the page(s) as you suggested. Thank you and Happy Valentine Day.OH! By the way, the aforementioned book with the same title Roza Bal was also self-published in America and became a best seller that was picked up by an established publishing house in India...seems to be a trend nowadays.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues Just Arose

Doug, I just checked the page on Roza Bal and on Fida Hassnain...I am going to continue checking various pages at Wikipedia. It appears someone is again going around inserting derogatory statements on Wiki pages. His ISP is I traced this ISP to a suburb of New York, but I expect it did not originate there. Paul Smith lives in England. Due to ongoing legal problems, he is very careul about ISP's being traced to him. What he inserted on the newly created Fida Hassnain page was this line: "However, many genuine historians are skeptical of the imaginery claims of Hassnain. " This is typical Paul Smith, whom many of you knew here as Wfgh66 who was permanently banned from Wiki. There is no one else who would zero in on all things bloodline sucvh as Loremaster's page, which he had previously been hacking regularly, and anything Jesus in India, which he regards as heretical. He will also be hacking pages of people such as Laurence Gardner, where some Paul Smith derogatory remarks still remain, Kathleen McGowan's page, and others. I have been hesitant to make the corrections myself although I have seen his trail in and around wikipedia.It might be necessary to protect the Fida Hassnain page from now on.. Your call. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor has interests very different from Paul Smith's, I really don't think they are the same person. I see someone else just reverted him. dougweller (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Here is a link to a new thread about this king which is not very informative. While it does not offer much information, for some reason it comes up with Google links to it while your article on him does not. The possible reason is that your articles start like this User:Rktect/chedarlaomer and thats what Google see's. If you could correct this somehow, you might save a lot of repeat posts about the same subject matter you address as people duplicate topics because they don't realize you already have one.

I don't contribute because I find Wikipedia's edit options difficult to understand and even finding the option to communicate with you was a bit difficult.

Anyhow, is there another way you could credit yourself as the person posting the article with maybe your nick after the title? Google would pick up on all of your articles more easily then which is the whole purpose of Wikipedia...the free exchange of knowledge and if we can't find your articles, then there is no exchange.

Not trying to be difficult, just can't find your articles when I do a search using Google and other search engines.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armorbeast (talkcontribs) 01:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi - ordinary articles aren't written by any one editor, anyone can add/delete/change them, and who does what is shown on an edit history page. Sometimes people keep versions of articles in their own personal space, which is what Rktect has done. I have to say that Rkect has been banned from editing because he broke one of our main policies, which is that articles should be about what reliable sources have to say about a subject and that users should not be adding their own personal research to articles. So anything that has Rktect's name in it is probably not very reliable. A good article will have every important claim referenced to a reliable source, eg for history articles, academic books and journal articles.

A lot of the old Chedorlaomer article has been moved to a new article - click on this Battle of the Vale of Siddim. I hope this helps and doesn't just confuse! dougweller (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Why don't you want information relevant to Atreus included on his page? This is vandalism in my opinion. Wikkidd (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to learn about Wikipedia considers vandalism. WP:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". It goes on to say "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.


You added four paragraphs which was basically an argument about planetary orbits changing, Velikovsky, etc. Although Plato mentions Atreus in his Statesman, the mention is just coincidental, a quarrel between Atreus and Thyestes being mentioned briefly as a 'hook' to hang a story on. The story itself is not relevant to the article on Atreus. You are using it to insert material about Velikovsky, etc.


Hi, I saw that your the one of the first to write a message on the Persian Revolt page, and have an important question to ask you, its on User:Mathsci talk page, I didn't want to retype it here, I skipped user foconoway, because he responds late to the messages on his talk page, therefore you were my next choice to contact. I am about to go somewhere tommorow, that is why your the third person I have contacted so far. Sorry, I'm just in a hurry. And by the way, I just recently joined Wikipedia. Thank you Doug.--Amerana (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Amerana talk

Hi again, thanks for the message. I have searched some of her activities on Wikipedia, and found that most Users did not like the articles she was creating. Is it possible that some of the articles (once edited or created by a an knowledgable person) be created? Please don't take this the wrong way, I totally disagree with the tactics she used to create them. But, think that a dedicated user (like me) could remake some of the articles with carefull precision and include the actual known information about them. Not only that, I will also create my own articles.

But because here "proposed" articles have now caught my attention, I think that I am responsible enough to work on them ("her articles" are technically not even her's, she didn't even make half of them). If you check my userpage, I am mostly eager to improve or create Military History articles that pertain to the worlds greatest conqueres, Cyrus and Alexander. I am currently taking a class on them in school, and I'm working towards a degree on Classical Antiquity. I read the Wikipedia guidelines, and do not need a mentor. I wanted to contact her because I found that she has great knowledge about Cyrus's battles, that I am now only studying.

It's too bad/ironic she packed the articles with excessive OR and had CIVIL problems, I guess if she was more mature, she could have been a good contributer to wikipedia (as well told me were she got here info from). I am very eager to engadge in article making soon, that is why I when I found her proposed "ideas", I thought that at least I could save them for the time being, so I put them on my drafts, its only one draft. Here it is, (on its talk page) User:Amerana/TigrisKapisa, I made a mission statement there, and seeing how unpopular these articles are, I promised to change everything, the titles, make total rewrites, and I'm thinking to put the battles and sieges that have too little information for an article, on a large "Campaigns of Cyrus article", a good example is the Siege of Thassos. It has it's own section, but its part of a larger article in the Greco-Persian Wars article. So finally, do you think my proposition (to revamp the articles) is good enough to be undertaken by me? Respond on my page, Thanks.--Amerana (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Amerana talk


What have you been working on, friend? I got bored with sectarian arguements over at the Christianity projects, so I figured I would move over to the Ancient Egypt projects, where the gods and goddesses are all dead. I already feel like I scored some points by finding that bogus Neteraantmwmw.

Can we get Great Pyramid back to GA? It does't have far to go. -- Secisek (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on Tale of the shipwrecked sailor and Tjekker (and Venetian People but that's not AE, just pov nationalistic OR.

I will see if I can add anything to those articles. -- Secisek (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Take a look at the history of both. I can't recall, have you ever run into now indef blocked for OR User:Rktect?

I looked him over and I don't think we have crossed paths. Can I be of any help? -- Secisek (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I do want to make sure all his etymologies are removed as I know from elsewhere that when he discusses such things with professional linguists they -- well, they ridicule his lack of understanding. dougweller (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What professional linguists are involved here on wikipedia? Levalley (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
I'm not sure, why? Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Return of Ariobarza?

Hi there, I strongly suspect that User:Amerana is none other than our old friend Ariobarza in disguise. I first suspected that he/she was back on Wikipedia last week when I saw the edits by this IP address [8]. It wasn't so much the edits themselves, as the rambling, self-justificatory edit summaries. However, one of the edits was a classic Ariobarza edit - compare: [9] and [10]. Note that these edits took place about 30 minutes before Amerana's account was created (not that that proves anything). Today, I saw another very similar edit [11], which made me think that Amerana is Ariobarza. Everything I have subsequently found out seems to confirm that hunch!

The evidence:

  1. Amarena's strange fascination with Ariobarza and Ariobarza's orphaned articles - why, when it is clear that they were universally disapproved of (and based on OR), would anyone try and re-instate them as articles? Unless that person was Ariobarza?
  2. Second, and this for me is the clincher, Amerana has transferred Ariobarza's stub user page articles to his/her own user page. Ariobarza's user page was deleted on the 23rd January. Amerana joined on the 15th February (as he/she is keen to stress in their messages). Although Ariobarza's talk page still exists, and lists three of the user-page articles (User talk:Ariobarza#One Final Clarification..., it does not list "Battle of the Tigris" User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris. Yet Battle of the Tigris is one of the rescued articles on Amerana's user space User:Amerana/TigrisKapisa. There is almost no way of finding User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris unless you already know the page exists - i.e. you are Ariobarza.
  3. The style of writing and use of English is very similar (though he/she hasn't STARTED USING BLOCK CAPS yet)
  4. Although Amerana has gone to some length to say they want to know how to contact Ariobarza, I suspect this is just a smokescreen. And this (quoted from above) is just weird: "It's too bad/ironic she packed the articles with excessive OR and had CIVIL problems, I guess if she was more mature, she could have been a good contributer to wikipedia (as well told me were she got here info from)". Especially since you never mentioned WP:CIVIL in your reply to Amerana.
  5. For someone who claims to be new to Wikipedia, Amerana seems to know a lot already about processes and past disputes. For instance, on her user page:"Remember, Wikipedia is as reliable as its editors and many of its editors with regards to social sciences are not reliable." She has also marked herself out with the "This user rejects using notability as an inclusion criterion on Wikipedia." banner. Pretty strongly opinionated for someone who has theoretically not yet had an article deleted.
  6. After approximately three hours of having a wikipedia account [12], they wrote: "Eventhough I have contributed to different articles in Wikipedia, I will still be somewhat busy." Amerana currently has made 1 edit to an article (today). This suggests that they are not a new user at all, but someone trying to evade a block.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the general idea. I know there are ways of checking this kind of suspicion out, but that is the limit of my knowledge - I thought I would bring this to your attention because of your previous experience with Ariobarza. I apologise in advance if this turns out to be a wild-goose chase, but I'm there's something very suspicious about it all. Cheers MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll give it some thought. dougweller (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'll add to that list:
7. Same fascination with the Thermopylae infobox: [13]
8. Same inability to correctly add up numbers in from Herodotus
9. Same angry, ranting style of responding to messages here
10. Same paranoia as Ariobarza:
"But because your head is too clouded with getting back at Ariobarza, you'll do anything to make sure her work stays buried. I for one, plus some other users agree that Ariobarza, though given a lot of chances to improve herself, was ultimately treated very badly by some users on Wikipedia." (Quoted from the message they left on my userpage - I'm not sure how they managed to reach those conclusions based on the message I left here).
Me think they doth protesteth too much. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate warnings

Just noticed your warnings to User_talk: - all of their vandalism had been reverted by the time I'd given their first vandal warning, and they hadn't made any edits since then. If we notice that someone's quickly vandalised four different articles, we just warn them once for all four (either a friendly level one warning, or a harsh level4im if it's seriously abusive) and wait for them to react to that, rather than doling out four escalated warnings at once. --McGeddon (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad, although I admit to seeing it as a record for other users more than anything else. But thanks, I'll remember that. dougweller (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight Tag Mistake

Hi, I was looking at the article 2012 Doomsday Prediction and had noticed that you had inserted a "citation needed" tag incorrectly. I've corrected it now, just wanted to let you know. Thanks, Darrenm540 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. More haste, less speed, (and preview!). Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mistakin Identity

Hi, I think you should check this out, [[14]] scroll down to my message, sorry it's a little long. Please read it carefully once, I don't feel like typing twice, also User Ministers additions now have been refutted in a new message on his page too, you'll know the ranting and paranoia first started with his theoritical speculation. Thanks.--Amerana (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Amerana talk

Fascism article

I wonder if you could look at Fascism#Political spectrum. The introductory sentence of this section is not supported by the footnotes, and much of the section is devoted to "left-wing fascism", which is not described elsewhere in the article. There has been discussion, but it has not been resolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but I just don't have the time to spend on this. I do see that the problem has drifted over to the article Left-wing fascism. I suspect that a better source can be found for the introductory sentence, and because of the very differing ways the term fascism is used, it's no wonder that people see it all over the place (and others have presented it as, for instance, a center position to win popularity/votes, whatever, in my opinion. dougweller (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

There is a picture (Image:Jerusalem Ugglan 1.jpg) reappearing that depicts some kind of megalomaniac version of the temple at issue. Could you please remove this propaganda piece for good? Cush (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

G. Vancouver

Please consider partly protecting George Vancouver's article here: [15] I just had to revert vandalism with my anon IP (forgot to sign in) and notice it has been the target of a large number of anon IP vandalism in February 2008 due to his profile. George Vancouver is the origins for the city of Vancouver, BC and the site of the 2010 games. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank You for protecting George Vancouver for 1 month. The amount of vandalism in February 2008 to his article was really sad and it was likely frustrating for a registered user to repeatedly hit the revert or huggle button. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the clarification. But I'm not sure whether they're vandalizing or just trying to draw attention to the fact that they're still editing the page. If they're really a professional geologist, it's more likely to be the latter. Gail (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he is really a geologist (Australian), who wrote the book (he says, not me) to make money. dougweller (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that he continue developing the article is his userspace, but after reading the AfD, I'm finding it unlikely that it will ever qualify as encyclopedic. Gail (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Evidently a she, not a he, spamming her book all over == a discussion of Ronald Reagan? Why not. Pakistan? Why not... dougweller (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The True Furqan

Hi. I can assure you I have nothing to do with the book. I copied the info from amazon. It is a quite controversial book and I was surprised to see it is not on Wikipedia. I had put a proposal in village pump earlier on.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. But it doesn't belong on Wikipedia as it is a self-published book. Also see WP:BK. dougweller (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


FYI: [16]. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Thank You ...

  • Jeff (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Now I'm on the damn #cvn-wp-en greylist :( --Closedmouth (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are, and I didn't even know it existed. Is there a way I can get you off? Stupid dog nudged me as I was going after a real vandal. dougweller (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it's fine, it expires in about five minutes. It just keeps pinging me every time I make an edit :P --Closedmouth (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Is there anything you can do to discourage 'Chrisbom' from vandalising Hatshepsut's article here. It feels like a vandalism only account and the kind of gross stuff he places there is terrible. 4 of his 5 edits are on her thus far. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He's had two warnings and then stopped. If he continues, report him to WP:AIV. 06:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jeff Griffin's threats

Hi, thanks for all your help in stopping this guy. I have left a list at User talk:DarkFalls of other user names and IP addresses that he has used to harrass me. It seems that he has far too much time on his hands! Best wishes, WWGB (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again Doug. You admins have my sympathy for having to deal with this stuff on a regular basis. Regards, WWGB (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Hi! Wow, I want to thank you for pointing this out, and want to say I'm really sorry that happened. I had assumed that when seeing the link in the siege of halicanarssess, I guessed that the paragraphs had been copied from, so I later copied info from that site to created the siege of miletus. But now after carefully looking for the rule I broke, plus your warning to me, I promise I will never do that again. As it was a wrong way to make a good faith contribution on my part to Wikipedia. Much appreciated.--Amerana (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help with arbitration or deletion of biography

Doug, you checked in on my father's biography a couple of times and moved my comments about article bias to the talk page. Sorry that I'm not proficient in wikipedia but I could use some help. The biography is currently dominated by an anonymous user who is clearly one of a small number of detractors who participated in extensive usenet discussions with my father about the propagation speed of gravity. This is an extremely contoversial topic but the tactic he's employing to to personally attack my father and delete all references to the speed of gravity (replacing them with distorted and out of context claims about aliens and free energy). There's a clear agenda here and the article clearly violate NPOV. I'm not a wiki expert and I need help. I'm not looking for a piece that glorifies my father's work, there are plenty of articles like that on the web. Rather, I'm looking for a minimal statement of the facts with links to the appropriate information (both pro and con). Can you help me? As the article stands it's slanderous. I'll need to continue to make that clear in the text of the article as other media sources are attaching the wiki article to biographies about Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talkcontribs) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Agnon's two comments today on the talk page. I am not at all clear why you think that comments about extraterrestrials and free energy are slanderous, and as I said on the talk page, he is notable for claims such as these. Btw, my own web page probably still links to an article by him debunking Sitchin. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Triple Goddess

Hi Dougweller. Thanks for "completely agreeing" with me on Talk:Triple Goddess. I knew if I kept editing wikipedia, eventually someone would agree with something I wrote! A small aside - would you mind to sign the comment? Anyway, that made my day! --Davémon (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi there,

Thanks for the update! I'm just glad to know that I wasn't seeing things! I initially came to the conclusion on the basis of not very much evidence, but it just seemed too unlikely to ignore. Anyway, I figured that eventually they would "out" themselves as Ariobarza, given enough time. I almost contacted you earlier in the week, when I saw this edit [17]; it was too much to believe that two people could willfully misinterpret Herodotus in the same way [18]! I'm glad it's all sorted now though, and I'll keep my eyes open for any future avatars <sigh>. Thanks,MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that edit was pretty much a giveaway and probably the thing that spurred me on to do something. dougweller (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this. I agree that this was clearly a sockpuppet of Ariobarza - the editing and language made it very clear. I deleted the redundant copy of the old "Battle of the Tigris" article in userspace. One thing I'm curious about; was there a request for checkuser made somewhere? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, an CU was done and Amerana blocked by the editor who did the CU, it's in the block log I think. dougweller (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


If you looked, I have not been reverting back to exactly the same version every time (unlike the two of you combined), and notice, the 3RR rule does not consider two people reverting to the same thing, as separate people, but as one. (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You've misread the 3RR page entirely. It says "The rule applies per person, not per account." And it doesn't say anything about same version, it says "that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". But I won't block you if you revert again, just report you and let others decide. dougweller (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your last two edits

The source [19] explicitly states: "The Achaemenids’ role in universal history lies in their fashioning a model for centralized rule over various peoples with different customs, laws, religions, languages, etc. to the advantage and profit of all and their achievement of a unified Iranian nation for the first time." and "Within a few years he founded a multinational empire without precedent—a first world-empire of historical importance, since it embraced all previous civilized states of the ancient Near East."

I am assuming that you did not bother reading the source, so please undo your edits and restore the sourced items. --WrongDude (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AGF. Two things - the link I found was [20]. Also, the article says "In universal history the role of Cyrus and that of the empire he founded lies in" which is not at all the same as what you quoted above. dougweller (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think I did not WP:AGF with you? I could have undone your edit, but instead chose to notify you of your mistake and politely ask you to correct it. I am not sure how or where you found that link, but that's a separate article, and not the link that was cited by the previous user. [21] --WrongDude (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Because you claimed I didn't read it. My fault is that I found the wrong link, which I did read. dougweller (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you hadn't read it. I didn't mean to offend you or anything, I had no way of knowing that you had read a different article by mistake. --WrongDude (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation. dougweller (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks Edit

I am new to editing Wikipedia so forgive me if this isn't the best way to contact you. I have seen your notes on the editing of the wikileaks page. It was me that did them, I changed the link to a site which linked directly to the wikileaks article directly from it. Whereas the article currently there mentions the articles yet doesn't link to them. I have not intended to link to "racist" websites. Do you have any examples of racism in said website? Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximumrebel1 (talkcontribs) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link prominently displayed on the website [22]- and another 'useful link' as it calls it [23]. One a scurrilous attack on Martin Luther King, another anti-Jewish. The February archives have a disgusting cartoon about the Holocaust followed by a letter 'In defense of the white man'. I hope you see my point dougweller (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the MLK link is in anyway "racist". It provides the facts and although those aren't heard in the mainstream media doesn't negate them as facts. Secondly, the Real Jew News is written by a Jew and is the World according to a Jew who had converted to Christianity. I also fail to see how an article that defends the white man is a bad article. It is from hardly a racist website so don't let the title throw you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximumrebel1 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The MLK site is hosted by, you don't get much more racist than that. There is really nothing to discuss here. dougweller (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So because it is hosted by, that automatically negates the facts? There most certainly is something to discuss here, I will leave you with a quote and hopefully some food for thought from a great American.

"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it."

Anything supported by Stormfront is likely to be a tissue of lies. Patrick Henry I understand, at least during the years just before he died, was an opponent of States rights and a Federalist. There's no point in quoting him unless you also support him in that. dougweller (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well since this is wikipedia, how about citing a source on the Patrick Henry Federalist issue. Also I find it very short sighted to say the least that since Stormfront promotes pride in white heritage than everything they support must be a pile of lies. Facts are facts regardless of who happens to host a website. I challenge you to refute any claims made on or on

If you cannot I see no reason why the truth should be censored here at an "unbiased" site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximumrebel1 (talkcontribs) 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to, you need to justify itthat those sites meet our WP:RS policy. That's the way Wikipedia works. Go to WP:RSN and ask if you can use them. So, someone's not been telling you the truth about Patrick Henry either? The article Patrick Henry references Moses Coit Tyler's biography -- I've just read the relevant pages and fixed the citation, and it verifies it. So does the article The Republican Party in Virginia 1789-1796 Harry Ammon The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Aug., 1953), pp. 283-310 -- eg Among those whose afterthoughts led them to regret their previous posi- tion were Henry Lee and Patrick Henry. By 1792 both had abandoned their opposition to assumption and adopted the view that it was necessary to support Hamilton's program in order to avoid civil disturbances. By the way, what you originally did was remove a reliable source on the story, replacing it with a source full of lies which only led to the Wikileaks site anyway. There was no point in that except to publicise the site, as it would have been easy to link to the Wikileaks site instead. dougweller (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So your source is someone who was born 36 years after Patrick Henry died. How reliable. I am being targeted because I present facts that aren't nice. The current link in the wikileaks article is nothing but an attempt to get pageviews as well, his article doesn't even link to the relavent wikileaks page. The article is far more relavent and links right to the article in question. However obviously I am in a battle I can't win with a close minded moderator, I won't waste my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximumrebel1 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironic. And Patrick Henry ran and was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates as a Federalist just before he died. But that's an inconvenient obviously proven fact that gets in the way of your beliefs. Yes, you are wasting your time, Wikipedia will simply not accept a hate site as a reliable source. dougweller (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO talk page vandalism

Hey Doug, I just reverted more vandalism on the talk page of the IP you blocked for a week here. I don't know if you want to sprot it or what, but I thought I would let you know. Cheers. IronDuke 17:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended the block rather than prevented editors from using the talk page, I thought that was more appropriate as the edit made it pretty clear that when the block is released we'll get more. Thanks for letting me know. dougweller (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Jews

What is the purpose of such lists on WP?? List of West European Jews, List of French Jews, List of East European Jews.

Hi Cush, you forgot to sign. :-) I hate them. But see WP:Articles for deletion/List of Jews. I suspect an AfD on these would result in the same result, but who knows? dougweller (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I misread the date, that's old. More research needed I guess. dougweller (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Lacy

I am a Lacy family descendant and have worked really hard to help maintain this breed and it's rich Texas heritage. We work very hard to keep Internet information accurate regarding the history of the breed and it's originators. The author of this article is not just on wikipedia spreading misleading and false information with links back to their other web pages. I thought wikipedia was for accurate information. I tried to edit by striking through the incorrect information. That has already been reversed. There are legal actions pending on this authors group and this is just another attempt to try and gather credibility when there is none. The State of Texas has the true facts on the breed and if the page is to stay up, this is the reference and material that should be applied to the page. You can also reference the Atlas of Dog Breed of the world. Lacy do not have English Shepard and wolf.

The Lacy have not been accepted in the CDHPR or UKC at this time. There is much more and to a Lacy lover, this is just crazy. I feel wikipedia would want the true facts. Please let me know what is the next step to keep this information on wikipedia true and correct?

We are not seeking any group for reference, there are great references already with the State of Texas links and the Atlas of Dog Breeds of the World, ect… without trying to give credit to any Blue Lacy group. This new group is a fraud and I have documented proof if it is needed.

What can be done to help the Blue Lacy not to be misrepresented on wikipedia? --Bluelacy (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is basically about reporting what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about an article, which is not quite the same thing as trying to represent the truth. You need to read WP:Reliable and WP:Verifiable to understand what these terms mean. Certainl the State of Texas would be accepted as a reliable source. It might also be ok to quote what kennel clubs other than the AKC have to say so long as it is clear that that is their opinion. Disputes as to what should be in the article should be on the talk page of the article in an attempt to gain consensus among editors. dougweller (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

Irish clover.jpg

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiramisoo and User:GodivaCake

Note that following voting twice at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_12#Category:Digital_Revolution, User:Tiramisoo decided to do this. I'm not sure what to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tiramisoo. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ura lifesaver

Thank you, thank you,thank you. Phil_burnstein (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

your question

I completely rewrote the article Jewish commentaries on the Bible in my own sandbox. Instead of junking the old version, I decided to bury it somewhere underneath where my new version would be, blank it out and then move my new article to where the old one was. I asked at [helpme] over a month ago and whoever answered said I can just use <x,<c,<v. I left a note on the articles talk page saying where the old article could be found. I'm not sure what I did, and I don't know what should be done. Enlightenment is always welcome. Phil_burnstein (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

your question

Hi Doug Weller, I added the page "Scott Herford" that has been deleted without References from National Geographic Channel and Variety Magazine, Hollywood Reporter, I ask that the page be re-enstated. I have produced feature films distributed internationally and I hope this can be done.

Many thanks Scott

Scottherford (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cooking dinner right now - look at your talk page in a couple of hours. If I just undeleted it it would be deleted again, I shall put it in your user space and on your talk page explain what you need to do. dougweller (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've explained on your talk page now. dougweller (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR

I have nominated Noah's Ark 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Hiya Doug,

This is in reference to that Zodiac article. While checking its history, it seems the writer (CPlot) of that now deleted section originally wrote it as the Zodiac being around 4,000 years old. Then someone made it 5,000, and then later another made it 10,000. Then finally you and that other guy deleted that section altogether.

(As a sidenote, I believe CPlot largely wrote the main section "Zodiac celestial coordinate systems". I don't know if you'd delete that as well.)

However, my main concern is this: How can we detect micro-vandalism (a change of a date, name, number, formula, etc) especially if it gets BURIED under several days' (or even weeks') worth of multiple edits by different people? :-( Titus III (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That worries me too. I almost always revert unexplained changes like that, especially if it's an IP who is editing, eg at List of Empires but also smaller stuff. I've asked if the new abuse filter will help [24] but that won't catch the buried stuff. I'll take a look at Zodiac again, thanks for pointingout about CPlot. dougweller (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The Zodiac stuff is OR but I'm a bit loathe to delete it right now. CPlot was wrong about 4000 by the way. I may put a few sources on the talk page. dougweller (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for the heads up. By the way ... any chance you would be willing to work on the "culture and language" section of the "culture" article? I put as much work into it as I could and there is where I ran out of steam. The trick is not to make it a section on "linguistics" of even "language," just what one needs to know to understand the role of culture in language and of language in culture ... without being too detailed! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I really wish I could help, but it simply is not my field and I've got too many other things I should be reading up on (and have bought books to read for) to add this. Apologies. dougweller (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

There's a related discussion in this section on ANI that is related. The discussion wasn't referenced on my talk page, but I thought you might want to know. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More Wikkidd?

I see you've been active with this. Per this diff, it would seem that User:OBlackthorn is a tad suspicious as another puppet. Tim Shuba (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's using an IP now: User: - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked him earlier. Thanks, if you see him again please let me know. dougweller (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV board

Thanks for correcting my note. On a completely unrelated issue, the BLP dispute at Gilad Atzmon is mentioned in an increasing number of places (BLP board (which is how I came across it), NPOV board, OR board, RFC, RFPP, etc), with so far very little success getting additional input. Any suggestions? Rd232 talk 13:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Using various forums is usually considered forumshopping, and the main place is the BLP board, so I really don't have any further suggestions, sorry. dougweller (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I know - it wasn't me that did that (apart from the RFC). The user that did it even posted at WikiProject Israel... I thought to ask (or perhaps just wonder out loud) as in 2 BLP posts I was the only new person to contribute. Rd232 talk 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Rd232 has initiated an RfC on the Gilad Atzmon article, and your comments are welcome. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Doug. I see you've come across this user already. He seems some kind of Iranian chauvinist judging by his edits. I've asked him not to keep adding the Persian names for Najaf and Karbala irrelevantly to the middle of the article on Shah Ismail I but he's just done it again [25]. Could you revert this as I'm worried about crossing the 3RR threshold. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. While you're at it, we have another editor User:Jackiestud adding some really cranky scholarship to the Berbers, Amazons, Mosuo and Kabyle articles (among others), trying to prove Berbers, Amazons and an ethnic group in China are all related and all matriarchal (it's all in the "Ama" of "Amazons" and "Amazigh" apparently). I've tried to explain this isn't exactly scholarly but she isn't having it. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I use Google Chrome to edit (I always have huge numbers of windows open so my other browsers are not really 'available' as they have so many windows open'. Upgraded to the new Beta, no edit summary which is bad, bad, bad. I'll have to sort that first. Silly eh? dougweller (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been following this Spider guy around and I've never seen such a blatant nationalist disregard for proper evidence. He just seems to make random stuff up to promote the glory of the Persians (e.g. [26]). I'm not sure any of his edits have been worthwhile. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Iam sorry, I Provided many, many sources for all those articles. What you mean by wrong? Jackiestud (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, as in not right. I see one of your reliable sources is a web journal studying Xena, the tv warrior queen. You really need to learn about reliable sources. dougweller (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The german and french Wps DO NOT accept the amazons as "no breasts" --not at ll: "L'étymologie populaire admise pendant l'Antiquité décompose le mot en un ἀ- privatif et μαζός / mázos, « sein » en ionien : « celles qui n'ont pas de sein ». Elle ne repose en fait sur rien[1]. On a proposé de faire provenir le terme du nom d'une tribu iranienne, *ha-mazan, « les guerriers »[2], ou encore du persan ha mashyai, « les Peuplades [des steppes] »[3".
Are they also WRONG? Jackiestud (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You left a new msg, I didn´t revert anything. Another provided source: (no Xena here). Jackiestud (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, the English WP doesn't accept the 'no breasts' etymology either. We don't use other Wikipedias as sources though, or assume that they are right. We don't assume our articles are right either. But the etymology in our article clearly does not argue for a 'no breasts' meaning. You are at 3RR at Amazons, read WP:3RR carefully. Avoid the article today. dougweller (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Iam not at risk with the WP:3RR, since I no longer reverted the page. Iam discussing it. I offered the Wps, two acholar sources, and two articles --and only picked the xena thing. Are these scholar, articles and Wps WRONG? Jackiestud (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
These are all wonderful sources and studies made by people who spend their life, money, time, energy to research with honesty --don´t you think it should be made available? Jackiestud (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This discussion belongs on article talk pages, please. And we have to follow WP:RS, not our opinions of how hard working people have been. dougweller (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This very academic, scholar philologist may helpe you forget Xena: Philology is also not without its interest in this matter. Mr. J. C. Prichard, quoting M. Venture, says that the Berbers (of unquestioned Asiatic origin) inhabiting the Northern Atlas call their language Amazigh, which has been translated as "the noble language." There have been some authors who trace the word Amazon from this term. However that may be, it is certain that these tribes of Northern Africa have bred many valiant fighting women. When in the seventy-seventh year of Hegira the Moslems under Hossan Ibn Annoman captured Carthage and sent the Imperial troops packing in hot haste to Constantinople, they suddenl.... Jackiestud (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Which bit of 'this discussion belongs on article talk pages' don't you understand? An early 19th century author (Venture) who thinks the Berbers are of 'unquestioned Asiatic orgin' is clearly not a reliable source. Please go to the relevant talk pages if you want to respond, I am going to start removing your edits from my talk page if you persist. And please be sure you understand what WP:3RR says. dougweller (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. There is little difference between this sort of willful ignorance and trolling. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
At the moment I will AGF and assume ignorance. But the editor has been pointed towards WP:RS several times, and if this continues we will need to refer it elsewhere. dougweller (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm not sure the situation really warranted anything more than a month. Still, I'm not contesting your change. bibliomaniac15 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

external links

I'm not related to the website, just found the articles interesting in a sense that provide information about the political affiliations of those individuals. I read the WP:EL still, thanks for pointing it out. You were right about some of the sources. Just a note, although it's easy to scream about anti-semitism, I didn't see any hate or vulgar language anywhere. Unless of course is prohibited to state that someone was in fact one. I hope not. Wikiboomboom

Responded on your talk page with a note about one article in particular. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


This article does not seem to be notable. Can you check it out, see if it is notable or speedy deleted???? Teeninvestor (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't touch that sort of thing, but it was only Myspace, etc, so I've speedied it. Got the book but it is disappointing, the articles are not comparative, just about a specific aspect of one empire. I'll look in more detail but that is the design of the book. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad. in the meantime we improved the format of the article a bit; there's no hurry. I'm involved in writing user:Teeninvestor/sandbox/Economic history of China anyhow.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)



Just1Word is NOT a social networking site -- it is something new on the web. It's a mashup of the Bible, social networking elements and a topical search engine for the Bible. Unlike some of the other bible sites, Just1Word is completely a ministry site without a theological position that it is trying to advance. It is not attempting to bring new community to people like social networks, but merely utilizes tie-ins to the social networks to allow people to discuss the bible.

In addition, Just1Word does not push a particular version of the Bible but rather has all of the popular versions available and uses a random one for new visitors. Unlike most of the other Bible sites which are owned by for-profit entities, Just1Word is not-for-profit and has no ads on its site.

Neither does it post teaching or allow others to post teaching that can be seen by everyone on the site.

I hope this helps explain the background. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to figure out the best way to provide helpful additions to some of these posts -- but in no way do I want this to be perceived as spam or some type of commercial outreach.

Any advice that you provide would be appreciated. Thanks.

Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpmiller (talkcontribs) 16:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First, if it is your site, read WP:COI and don't add links to it. Secondly, it is still a social networking site, almost all social networking sites have other features. Debate started here [27] Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth Hour

Earth Hour has been taken over by AGW activists and they're using it to advance their partisan POV. The are undermining the credibility of Wikipedia by deleting "opposing" contributions. Thus I am attempting to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia by adding balanced content related to the topic. If you believe that my addition is POV, then you're supporting the POV of the surrounding content and the actions of the WP activists. Or possibly you are being contentious, which is contrary to WP's intent. I'm going to replace the wrongly deleted content, so please leave this content within Earth Hour because it is factual, notable and balanced. I really don't like arbitrary censorship, especially on Wikipedia. Bushcutter (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't censorship, it is saying you need to follow our guidelines and policies. This has had an insignificant amount of coverage in comparison to Earth Hour, thus it is barely worth a mention if even that. 'pov edit' is really shorthand for breaching WP:UNDUE in most cases and in this one although it was also a comment on your deleting a section and calling it nonsense. 'Balance' depends on weight, and the weight of HAH is insignificant. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it is indeed censorship. It was clumsy, ham-fisted, ignorant censorship. All Wikipedians should be ashamed of such ignorant and boorish mob behaviour. Bushcutter (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yawn. It gets really boring hearing people on the losting end of the process cry censorship. And you really should be careful about what can be construed as personal attacks. There's a process hammered out by long discussions, and it's being applied. Calling people names and whining won't impress, nor will unscientific assumptions that those you don't like are young. And you are treading on very thin ice right now, I suggest your rein in your rhetoric. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, Dougweller, you were entirely innocent of such low, immoral, dishonest, and scurrilous actions and you should be praised for being such a paragon of Wiki-virtue. It was probably other villains who are clearly lacking in any moral direction who were responsible for this disgusting act. We all thank you for being so helpful in sorting out such a nasty problem, and we are begging your forgiveness for causing you to be exhausted and tired after thinking about this issue so much. I know that you wouldn't be like the other partisan admins who are just itching to ban anybody who complains. Wikipedia would be such a sensible place if only we editors would stick to approved topics. Please don't ban me, I beg you! I will never write on unapproved topics again! I promise to never again contribute to incorrect topics not approved by senior Wiki administrators. There's entirely too many people contributing to unapproved topics. I humbly implore you to use your high position to help me to stay listed as a humble and respectful contributor to approved topics. I will make every effort to stick to approved topics only. Please, I'm imploring that you forgive any who incorrectly complained about the ignorant, disgraceful deletion of the unapproved Human Achievement Hour article! I should have known that Human Achievement Hour was not an approved Wiki-topic. I'm on my knees, and tears are running down my cheeks, begging you to allow this simple uneducated scribe to continue editing. Please don't ban anyone! I promise to confine myself to supporting approved topics such as Global Warming only! I know that you are powerful and can ban anyone with a snap of your fingers, so I promise for the next 12 months to only write supportive statements about Earth Hour and never again mention Human Achievement Hour if only you will not take me to admin-court! Please! I beg you! Bushcutter (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad that you realise that whining, attacking other editors, and then shooting yourself in the foot is a bad idea. It's reassuring to know that if you want to be blocked or banned you know exactly what to do. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Human Achievement Hour

Your deletion of HAH is based on a previous page that had no notability. A brief even callous glance at the new page placed up today would make it very, very obvious that the event is notable now. It appeared in the USA TODAY this morning, and two national news papers yesterday. This is censorship at it's finest. Especially being that the event is tomorrow. It needs to be reinstated now. Thelobbyist (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Reinstate. thehondaboy (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It was deleted through the correct process. It should stay deleted unless the next process, DRV, overturns the original decision. This is nothing to do with censorship, this is to do with Wikipedia processes. And looking at the DRV right now, it looks as though the original decision will be endorsed. DRV is not a means of getting 5 days more exposure for an article, or a repeat of the AfD, it is there to review the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth Hour

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop redacting criticism entries. Don't you get that there is already enough suspicion about your actions? Your the worst most biased admin on this project. A criticism section is there for, you guessed it, criticism. Trying to make it look small as possible and erasing counter information is censorship. I'm suggesting you be put up for review because of your actions on Human Achievement Hour and your censorship in Earth Hour. Thehondaboy (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny. You are trying to bypass the AfD and DRV process and when other editors (plural) don't let that happen you get all shirty. You also need to read WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
No, Thehondaboy your edits are irrelevant and not constructive to the article, you are skating on thin ice, pal. If you put him up for review, I will testify for him. Your doing fine Dougweller Creez34 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
DITO and thanks (Dougweller) for cleaning up the article a bit since yesterday. ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani nationalist IP (talk · contribs) is insisting on adding irrelevant mentions of Pakistan to historical articles which have little or nothing to do with the term. I caught him at it on Nader Shah (18th-century Persian ruler who invaded India) where the relevant contemporary states and regions are Safavid Persia, Mughal India and Afghanistan (then a region divided between the two). Post-1947 events in the sub-continent have little or no bearing on this piece of history and vice versa. Judging by his contributions log and a message I've received from User:Gurkhaboy, he's been at it on several other articles. --Folantin (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel

Hi, thanks for your remarks. I wont revert her anymore. I may raise this at the Fringe theories board, but it is a difficult issue. Hammerschmidt-Hummel is a relentless self-promoter (if you can bear reading the article she has written about herself you will see what I mean). Art historians completely reject her approach, which contradict all established methods. But to rebut her additions would just take yet more space devoted to s fringe source. She does have a genuine, if relatively minor, academic career but is mostly good at getting herself into newspapers and magazines, which means she can cite her own promotional statements, often published uncritically by magazines. Demonstrating the fringe status of her views is a thorny problem within WP policy. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

talk page

Doug, I appreciate what you are doing but it looks to me like Populares is a classic disruptive editor using a SPA, and also clearly making personal attacks ... you are removing evidence of this and maybe the thing to do is get to the root of the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It has to be removed, but it is still there in the history and my diffs are easily found if necessary and will be evidence if it comes to that. And it sends Populares a very clear warning -- I'll take him to ANI if he does it again (I'm involved, so couldn't block him myself). Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pyramid construction

I realise that Houdin's theory on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques has only been published for 3 years, but a huge amount of work, by trained architectural minds and specialist 3D CAD builders has gone into it. It's already been re-published with another author. It's far more significant than either the kite-theory or (almost certainly) than the limestone concrete theory. If you don't like some of the evidence for it (other pyramids have internal ramp, the notch, shadowed ramps) then by all means put scare-quotes or similar round them, but don't simply take them out. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put it back, for some reason I thought it was longer than it is. However, I've also added some citation requests which I hope you can meet, and removed the word 'significant' as it isn't our role to decide what is significant or not, just to report what reliable sources have written. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Religion

hi Doug, I have left a note on the articles talk page regarding the edit you have just undone, hopefully you can point out the error of my ways. Taam (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

... for fixing this blunder. I think the problem was that instead of writing "{{subst:DATE}}" for the date parameter in the {{fact}} template, I apparently wrote "{{subst:date}}" instead.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wittenberg University

(Samual890 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi, I was wondering if Wittenberg University can have their article back to editing. Currently it is semi-protected and I don't think it should be blocked to the public for as long as it has been.

I don't see any sign on the talk page that the edit warring will stop. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have stopped. But other people are not able to edit anything on there and that's just not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samual890 (talkcontribs) 06:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I still see a lot of argument about possibly copyvio pictures. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)). Oh haha, I wanted to add some pictures and I needed advise on how to do it. And there were some pictures I asked if I could use and he told me I wouldn't be able to post them. That's all. Nothing serious. I promise no intention to do any copy right.

Alan Cabal

To save the discussion clogging up ANI, I've sent it to DRV where you might want to comment. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30#Alan_Cabal. Black Kite 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It should have gone there instead of being recreated anyway, I thought that 'new information' was a good reason to ask for DRV. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Offer of help re neutrality

I tagged an article, Nathan Salmon, for neutrality because it contends that he successfully argues against Kant (and Fripke, too, I think), but there are no objective citations beyond his own work for making that claim. I think it would be better to state "he argues against Kant," rather than that he bested Kant (I'm butchering the language of the actual article, but if you have time, go look at it - I am practicing my biographical skills here). I did an article on John Collier (anthropologist) that I do not believe has any neutrality problems, but I have gone from occasional grammar-checker to article-editor and need all the help I can get. Thanks for any you can give!--Levalley (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

From Twinsday

Can you please clarify what article you were refering to? Page moves are automatically labeled minor, not under my control. I tried to undo a page move one time, but it didn't work. I think you have to ask an admin to do it. --Twinsday (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All of your edits are marked M, check your preferences, it's a tick box there. And the article is Giza Necropolis- I've raised the issue on the talk page. I presume you think that that is it the most common name used? Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Please put ISBN numbers in book citations and not links to Amazon. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou - can you show me the proper way of dealing with all of this by reference to the MOS? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have pointed you to WP:Cite - which doesn't mention the Amazon bit, that's elsewhere. I've rewritten the Houdin article a bit, it read more like a publicity brochure than a biography I'm afraid. There's also too much bio in the pyramid articles, which should only have stuff about his hypothesis, not about any of the history of how he got to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If I have this right, I should leave out these links entirely, because I don't have copies of these books and I'm not citing them for anything. I agree that the Houdin bio was badly written. It's well referenced that he stopped doing regular architecture and one of my references describes his subsequent work as an obsession. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Your references to Houdin's books where they are just general references need to go author book publisher, etc with the ISBN 13 number which allows people to click on it to find it. Where you want to make a specific point you'd need to cite the book similarly but with a page number. If you want to use a quote with 'obsession' in it from a WP:RS you can, but you shouldn't use the word without a quote or I guess a citation to a specific source (page number if a book, no page number if an article) - the ref could come after the word obsession. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand now, the two books should be in the Bibliogr aphy at the end, not amongst the references/notes. They're there because, as you say, there could be too much biography in the explanation of the theory. But I'm not sure how much you can take out without upsetting the narrative of a rapidly developing piece of science. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

366 degree geometry

So why do you keep the article "Civilization One"? It doesn't make any sense since this is just part of a broader subject, i.e. Megalithic geometry. So according to your logic "Civ. One" should have been deleted for a long time. --Little sawyer (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. The logic isn't quite right, as I was talking about Wikipedia processes, and probably you are talking about notability. I haven't looked at that article for a long time, but I'll look at it again. They are different issues though. Remember, I'm not saying no article, I'm saying that the original issues need to be dealt with, and that WP:Fringe is relevant and would need to be applied. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this article really current and objective?

I can't really imagine an unbiased article failing to comment on or direct a reader to this page on the Chronognostic website:

I'm not a wiki member and I don't add edits, but the absence of this reference in the article is, to me, conclusive evidence of its bias. I find it hard to believe anyone can read it and still find a colonial origin for the Newport Tower credible. Is that why it isn't in the article?

On the basis it says the tower was "probably not built in the 17th century"? Even they aren't willing to say more than that, despite a convoluted argument that it may have been a complex form of observatory (although there is no evidence of any pre-colonial community or agriculture that would have made it useful). There are two links to the website in the article and a mention that having failed to find any archaeological evidence they were concentrating on astronomical alignments (and we don't 'comment' on websites). Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No-one can make a cogent argument that the alignments in the tower all happened by accident although the article now says they could have been with no support. Certainly your use of the term convoluted is not neutral, there is nothing convoluted about the piece at all. It is very straighforward and all the measurements are replicable. This wiki article inherently assumes that all of these alignments happened by accident the probability of which is impossibly small. I really believe the neutrality of this article should be in dispute.

Of course they could be there coincidentally, you can find all sorts of alignments in buildings. The Chronognostic people don't deny the possibility it is 17th century. If you don't like convoluted, then complex. There is no way the argument can suggest that they are correct, that's not the role of an encyclopedia. I also suggest you read WP:Fringe. I don't see much interest in their argument, certainly no WP:RSsaying that they are correct. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi there, Doug! I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Hey - you deleted my contribution, OUTSCAN does infact detect the Conficker Worm and I added a source - this should not have been removed. Why did this happen?

Lokacit443 (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, not a how to do it website. Everyone would be advertising on Wikipedia if they could (not saying you work for them). If Outscan were notable, like Norton, just maybe, but the article isn't a directory - see WP:NOTADIRECTORY for virus checkers. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

your question

If you do start deleting single handing, do not be surprised if I check every delete that you do. It won';t be meant personally. The overwhelming consensus has been against this in the past--you might want to check the CSD talk archive. DGG (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'd only do it for something like a blatant attack page against another school kid. Normally I'd just tag it myself and let another Admin make the decision. That is, of course, why I asked. The guidelines do seem to say it's ok though. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
that sort of thing is another matter. I do it then too and so do all admins--I hope. Even if we changed the guidelines it would certainly permit such deletions. The question is about doing it routinely. We can do a great many things that are actually unwise. BTW, you left a note on my talk p. that I do not understand. 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Refers to a G4 speedy. I take your point about the difference between 'can' and 'it's a good idea to do it'. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Dougweller -- This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty regarding an issue with which you were tangentially involved in February 2009 -- see Can a book in Chinese and only available in China be used as a reliable source?.

To clarify, you are not the subject of this ArbCom process, but the thread in which you participated was identified as relevant by one of the parties -- see here.

You have no obligation to do anything in this context. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Francesco Carotta

OK, I will heed your warning. In fact I stopped reverting to the mini version when it became clear that it was not supported by the third, neutral user. I do tend to get carried away sometimes. Iblardi (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted

my edit per this diff? I'm rather puzzled by the decision to undo a well-sourced contribution.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Weird, I remember the wording of my edit summary, something about Chambers not being a good source for this and needing sources from Biblical scholars. Especially as it contradicts the Info box, did you notice that (although if you see my User page, I really don't like Info boxes. I think my edit summary -- which clearly didn't work although I always try to use edit summaries when not dealing with blatant vandalism -- also said something about needing some discussion. What I didn't point to and should have is that there is a discussion of the dating, and your dates don't match with that discussion either - so we might have ended up with 3 conflicting statements about dating. I'd be interested in how details the Chambers discussion is about the dating and if it at all matches with the discussion in the article. I guess if Chambers does give some detailed reasons naming names of scholars, it could be used as a source for what they have to say, does it do that? But the article does need to be consistent. Dougweller (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs to be consistent, but what it needs to be consistent with is the sources. I think that if there's genuine controversy about the dating, as in this case, the article should contain a frank discussion of the controversy including well-sourced statements for different mainstream points of view. I certainly feel that removing a sourced statement because it conflicts with other sourced statements is POV (because it promotes one side of the discussion over another).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think Chambers is a reliable source for this specific biography? That does give some reliable scholarly sources, what sources does Chambers use? I don't see this as POV as I don't see the argument as trying to give a specific date or prove historicity. This should be at the talk page of the article, I think I'll move it there now. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That's reasonable, I'll respond there.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


I fixed your edit to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 5. ;) Verbal chat 14:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Payback, eh? Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Three Mile Island accident

FYI, User:Cde3 seems rather to have misinterpreted your civility warning. [28] Rd232 talk 16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Um. Cde3 response to your clarification. Rd232 talk 19:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


First of all, teh artciel doesnt offer any source. Why should I ? The links posted tehre are NOT from acedemic source...So... There is this Dictionary: --it´s much better than the offered source posted there. Is it good for you? Jackiestud (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ransom Everglades

Doug - I don't understand your comment on the Ransom Everglades talk page. I guess I blissfully assumed you would agree with me. Weren't you amused to see the '59 yearbook ? Distinguished editor ? So, how about letting me revert this guy's edit... GroveGuy (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss seeing this message ? GroveGuy (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a minute to consider this issue ? GroveGuy (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You really don't want to mention Miami? Why is that? That's brilliant that you found that picture. There were only 11 of us (and I was at least a year younger than the rest and it shows). The staff -- I was taught French with a southern accent (with quite a shlur (a slur under the influence) and a history teacher who simply read us the textbook. I still managed to get into Yale though, so they must have done something right. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read all the stuff I put on the RansomEverglades talk page. I think the telling point is that RansomEverglades own web site says "Coconut Grove", no mention of Miami. For example: By the way, when did you live in the Grove ? Your uncle lived on Leafy Way; didn't you always live in the Gables ? I am amused you thought that picture was "brilliant". How about this one: Anyway, the RansomEverglades article was fine the way it was and doesn't need a reference to Miami. GroveGuy (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) GroveGuy (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

When I was a kid, long before Ransom, but really this is getting into a lot of personal information that really doesn't belong here. I'm quite happy to chat with you via email so long as you tell me who you are, otherwise, and I mean this in a friendly way and I really appreciate these photos and am intrigued as to why you have them, can we please stop this chat as it's inappropriate? As for the website, it doesn't have Mami in the address, no issue there, but it does talk about community service to the Miami community and has this statement "This partnership has really built a leadership class for the city of Miami-bringing new leaders of Miami together." Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchy: hebrew word

...but attested in the 4th century for the headship of a Jewish community, from the Hellenistic Greek term for such a community leader, πατριαρχης. Jackiestud (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Jackiestud (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This paragraph has a source, a footnote. Jackiestud (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't even have that!

I've no personal opinion on the subject. Regards.--Againme (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem then, just leave it out as there's no sources linking the phrase with the authors in the article or that I know of. If you find some of course, great. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR report

Are you preparing it or shall I? --Folantin (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Wait to see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It usually takes a couple of hours. --Folantin (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian national anthem You can read our anthem, teh translation shows that PATRIA is homeland. Jackiestud (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is irrelevant. You've been reported for edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
portuguese is latin, as much as french, italian and spanish. If dictionaries, and teh natinal anthem can´t prove the etymology of pater >> patria >> homelad >> country >> paese (which we say país or pátria) >> pagan...who else could do it? Jackiestud (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


I believe a long block is in order, given that he repeatedly added links to that BLP-violating gossip site despite being warned. However, indef seems a bit too harsh considering he hasn't been blocked before. I'm willing to cut the block down to a week, with a warning that the next block will be indef if he does this again. That sound reasonable? Blueboy96 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I only indef'd because I thought just a block wouldn't change his behaviour, I didn't see it as a long block. If he shows that he understands why and agrees not to by all means reduce it or just unblock - I've said that on his talk page. But so far, he seems to think he's done nothing wrong. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Carotta promotional tour continues

The Carotta circus of IPs from Germany has now moved to Divus Julius.--Folantin (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Schidel's book

If you have time, would you mind adding a few citations/text from that book? thanks. I've been working on another series of articles that will be done in about a month(Economic history of China), so I didn't notice the storm in a tea cup at Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Good thing it's taken care of now.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU” by Wendy Kaminer

I hope I am entering this question in the appropriate place and manner. If not I apologize in advance. Did you add the Kaminer book to the ACLU's page? It was my understanding that you said you would. However I can't locate it. I would also like to request that the page be unlocked so that I, and others, can make my own/their own edits. Can I unlock it or does it take an administrator to do that? Thank you for your assistance. I have also reworded my entry on the talk page and am requesting to know if any other editor has the right to remove my entry there. Thank you. Sennasay (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also in trying to understand what happened on the page I now see that you wrote on the talk page "I see no reason why the book can't be added, if I have time I can do that today." I totally agree. Of course there is no reason that the book can't be added. However, the book is not on there and also your comment was removed off the talk page, which led to my misunderstanding of what had happened on the page. Sennasay (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to do that. I didn't protect the page but I can edit it. Only Admins can unprotect it. I'll have to look at the talk page again. I myself sometimes remove obvious soapboxing about the subject of an article, and as I recall some of your edit was that, but the request isn't an unreasonable one. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection on ACLU

Hi, you recently unprotected American Civil Liberties Union which had been semi-protected for some time, mostly to guard against a single IP-hopping vandal. Well, a couple of hours after the wall went down, he returned. Other than permanent semi-protection of the article, what would be the best course of action with this vandal? AI/V doesn't work as he changes IPs with each post (although they are all within a certain range, it's far too broad of a range to block entirely). --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who protected it last as well. I think permanent semi-protection is the only option here, I don't know of anything else that can be done, especially with the sort of edit summaries he leaves. So, I've semi'd it indefinitely again. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer

"Sponsors" are a secondary source which give the subject notability. Other notables: Jewish-American but pro-Palestinian, a rare combination. You shouldn't assume "you don't want a welcome template", just like to keep my talk page clean after reading. Would like to continue talk some other time. Henry Delforn (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but they still fail WP:EL. BUT -- if they mention her, you might be able to use them as references within the article. If they don't mention her, then they are of no use. Have you read our guidelines on notability of people? You are using notable in its everyday sense, but for her to be notable for an article, she has to be notable according to our guidelines. Fine to keep your talk page clean after reading, it is understood that by doing that you have read what was there. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about your deletions in chronological matters

From Chronic2 (talk) Greetings Doug. I see you want PiCo to emend several items regarding Biblical chronology. From what I have seen, PiCo is not knowleadgeble in this field. Perhaps you are not aware that the significant advances in this field have all come from "conservative" scholars. Are you familiar with the work of Coucke, Thiele, Kenneth Kitchen, and McFall? The work of Thiele and Coucke that discovered the basic principles of the Hebrew (and ancient Near Eastern) chronological methods has been verified by several discoveries that have appeared since Thiele formulated his chronology. I know of no such success by the "mainstream" chonologists (who are they?) whose views you want represented here, in contrast to those who you label as "Creationist". I can list the successes of the conservative scholars, these are verifiable and falsifiable, and recognized widely even by those who share PiCo's bias against anything that might lend authenticity to Biblical accounts. If you want an example of PiCo's lack of knowledge in these matters, please refer to his "scholarship" in entering statements that are not even backed up by the one reference he gives in, for example, the article on Deuteronomy. PiCo is not aware of, or chooses to ignore recent and well-established scholarship because it conflicts with his POV. Can you justify this? I myself am cognizant of recent scholarship in these matters; because I present this, and because this recent scholarship favors in many aspects the evidence-based approach of Coucke, Thiele, and others instead of the presuppostional-based approach, should I therefore realize that this proven scholarship is excluded because it can be assigned what to you is a pejorative label?
If there is any appeal in these matters, I would request it be to someone besides yourself. Meanwhile, check out, as an example, the paragraph in the Deuteronomy article beginning with "More recently" that was entered by PiCo. The only citation he gives is to a Web page that apparently was a draft that never got published and never went through a peer review process, and furthermore his one citation absolutely does not substantiate the sentence it is attached to. Why not quote somebody who has really done a study on the matter of ANE treaties such as Kitchen? You may not read much in this area, but are you aware that Kitchen is cited more by Egyptologists of every kind when it comes to matters of chronology than anyone else, no matter what their views? Have you read the SCIEM volumes where this is shown to be the case? Will you rule out Kitchen and McFall and probably myself because you have an idea that anything contrary to your POV is not mainstream? Is there any point at all of my entering properly cited scholarship, only to have it rejected because it does not fit your POV?
Because I think it is important, let me conclude by asking again: Can you cite any demonstrable and verifiable success in the field of chronology by those scholars you favor that compares with the successess of Coucke, Thiele, and McFall that you want to denigrate as "Creationist"? Their accomplishments in this field have been verified by subsequent archaeological findings, unlike the basically unfalsfiable circular reasoning of those who follow the ever-shifting viewpoints of the documentary hypothesis and its offshoots -- or would you also rule out what Cyrus Gordon and other scholars have said in this matter? Chronic2(talk) 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC):

Correction from Chronic2 (talk) -- Sorry about this. I realize now I should have put this on your talk page, not your main page. Please feel free to delete this from here and put it on your discussion page instead. Don't just label my concerns as "tendentious"; they need an answer if general readers are to have any confidence at all that there is fairness in this area of Wikipedia. Chronic2 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that anyone but Young was a Creationist? Why shouldn't the article cite what Lipinski says about not knowing the length of Solomon's reign for certain? Have you read WP:NPOV? Has someone found archaeological evidence for Solomon's birth and death dates that I've missed? Have you noticed I asked several people to get involved, hopefully all with different viewpoints? Thiele, Ktichen, etc must be included, but so do those who aren't 100% with them. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
From Chronic2 (talk) Thanks for mentioning NPOV, which of course I have read. What I see is repeated abrogations of this policy in order to establish just one side. I have no objections at all to quoting Lipinski; I do have some questions about citing questionable scholars such as Aardsma that PiCo used in order to counter the views of Bryant Wood in the article on Wood. Aardsma's views on chronology are that there are 1000 years missing from Israelite history; do you know of anyone besides Aardsma who advocates this? Yet you allow this to stand, and even defend it if anyone tries to change the Wood page. There too, PiCo gives a quote that "Wood is wrong on all four counts". This is left to stand as if an authoritative statement on the matter. What if I were to enter Wood's answer to these four points, as published in BAR, and not just available on a Web site like Aardsma's view? Wouldn't PiCo speedily delete the citation as "tendentious", and wouldn't you support him? If PiCo can make such generalities and they not be excluded as unsubstantiated or violating NPOV policy, why then can I not enter properly cited answers in order to balance PiCo's view?

I agree with the NPOV policy. Now look at the Deuteronomy page. Third paragraph: two viewpoints of what "scholars" think are given: either (1) the bulk of the book was composed in the late 7th century BC, or (2) it was composed later than that. Where is any presentation of the alternate viewpoint, presented by many first-rate scholars from the 18th century until now, that there is concrete evidence that favors a date in the mid-fifteenth century BC? Will they be ruled out a priori as 'unscholarly'? Would not fairness dictate that at least their viewpoint needed to be presented in Wikipedia, in order to let the reader decide which is the more reasonable position, and thereby truly have a NPOV? What will happen if I put in citations from such scholars -- will they not be deleted immediately?
Also in the Deuteronomy article: in one place a conservative scholar is mentioned, in the paragraph beginning with "More recently." No citation is given to his work. The language is condescending: he "wished to restore the case for the book's Mosaic provenance," implying that the case had been lost to the erudite scholarship of Wellhausen and followers, and here was someone trying to "restore" it. Where is there any recognition here that the case for Mosaic authorship had never been "lost"; it was defended, and still is, by eminently qualified scholars? But these are apparently not to be read, or not to be considered as "scholars." There are about 4000 members of the Evangelical Theological Society and if they were not hypocritical in signing the membership statement, none of them believe that the book of Deuteronomy is a lie fostered on the people by fraudulent 7th-century writers, as De Wette and Wellhausen taught. Full members of the ETS have a ThM degree or higher; they publish extensively in peer-reviewed journals and write books published by the major publishing houses. Are not their views entitled to a place in Wikipedia if NPOV is to be maintained? Let me repeat: it is such scholars who have made the major contribution to the chronological aspects of Hebrew history, not those who follow Wellhausen.
Look again at the same paragraph; do you respect the scholarship that says "Wenfield's position is the more commonly established"? The citation given does not mention Wenfield anywhere; how then can it support that statement? Was the editor who put this in unaware that Wenfield, in the face of evidence, later changed his views so that they no longer support what the author of that Web page is saying? Why has there not been some objection to this kind of writing in the Deuteronomy article, but instead the objection is against anything that tries to balance it?
In the same article: "Polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age." A citation is given from John McKenzie. This is only one side of the question; how can this be defended as NPOV? A very cogent argument can be made against this, but again will not anything contrary be deleted?
You apparently realize that the Rehoboam article presents concrete evidence from scholars like Frank Moore Cross, William Barnes, and Gershon Galil for the correctness of Thiele's method of arriving at the date of Solomon's death, and some of this evidence, starting with Liver in 1953, is an independent verification of the basic correctness of that date. Why do you think this needs emendation by the kind of scholarship that PiCo brought to the Deuteronomy page? Should not Wikipedia users have the right to become informed on such important developments that substantiated the scholarship of Thiele and those who followed him? If something is wrong with the scholarship, the have someone qualified discuss it on the Talk page, but don't just arbitrarily delete what is well documented just because it does not support your POV. Contrary arguments are welcome, if properly cited. But Wikipedia readers need to have a fair presentation of the reasons and solid scholarship that went into establishing the of dates for Solomon and Rehoboam.
I know you can summarily dismiss these objections and tell me to stop being so wordy. But please answer the question you did not answer before: do you think that PiCo's entries in the Deuteronomy page are defensible and NPOV, and that they are consistent with asking him to change pages on chronology and ancient history so they will be consistent with his view?
Again, sorry I first put my comments in the wrong place, and thanks for fixing it. Chronic2 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have that page on my watch list and really have enough on my plate right now. Cross, Barnes, etc. should be included, I agree. But I don't want to be dragged into an argument about a page I'm not involved with, and I have no intention of defending any particular editor including PiCo. I just know him as an energetic editor who I sometimes agree with and sometimes don't. I simply posted to 3 editors, one, not PiCo, has responded. Wikipedia probably works best when people with different points of view are editing. Ignoring the chronological stuff, the Rehoboam article was written from an in-universe pov and needed work to make it NPOV. It also needs to show every significant opinion. And I hope you are not saying that Lipinski should not be used but Young should be used. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads-up. The article could certainly do with some attention, and I might look at it soon. PiCo (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for reminding me. -Zhinanzhen (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the parts you reverted by providing notes. -Zhinanzhen (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

o. I know. -Zhinanzhen (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Doug, the person attacking the Hassnain page has left a message stating he believes Hassnain is anti-Islamic...or words to that effect. I see we have a major problem escalating here. He has been posting from the New York Public Library so he cannot be traced or blocked. I am asking you to freeze the Hassnain page (after being sure the attacks are removed) I have checked the page half a dozen times today and removed the same remarks again and again. This is definately another Paul Smith kind of mentality at work. The same poster has been prowling Wiki and making similar posts everywhere.. Please advise and help us. Thank you, Doug.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Doug...every day same attacks on Hassnain page. I am asking you to please freeze the page to prevent this ongoing vandalism. Thank You SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Swift half

Some Irish nationalist IP is het up about Jonathan Swift and violating Godwin's Law like there's no tomorrow. Objects to the existence of "Anglo-Irish" even though we have a dedicated article on the subject and the description of Swift as thus is clearly referenced to Britannica. See article talk page and my talk page for details.--Folantin (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore. He's just been blocked. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sea glass & user

Actually what that user added a few days ago were external links to which were deemed spam by other editors, what the user deleted was an acceptable EL, please see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Please_Help_With_the_Sea_Glass_and_Sea_Pottery_page. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the tiny number of hits on Google, it looks like it falls into the category of "Links mainly intended to promote a website". But go ahead, put it back if you want. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'll leave it as it is. there's enough edit warring going on there. Thank. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion logic

Okay, that works, too. (Talk:Logic) --KP Botany (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat disappointed to find he's on the side of evolution, though. --KP Botany (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Too often I find myself blocking or reverting when I agree with them, but that's life with Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hassnain Vandalism

Doug...every day it is the same...I just removed another vandal attack. Pleease freeze the page...otherwise this will never end. Thank you.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't do it. That's nothing, it would have to be much, much more than that for protection to be appropriate. Sorry. It really gets very little vandalism in comparison to a lot of other articles. Dougweller (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As the Wiki-Kapo Dieter Bachmann has censored my answer to you, Doug, please find it in the sci.archaeology Google Group. Vive the Liberty of Speech ! And Happy Eastern ! Template:Marie-Rose, April 12, 2009

francesco carroti

Can you please check, I think user 78 just violated 3RR Slrubenstein | Talk 21:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As you probably know, blocked and refusd an unblock. Doesn't understand or care about consensus, but the main problem is that the editor is (AGF here) on a dynamic IP. We'll see what happens, but I presume it's the same editor making all the personal attacks, a customer of Kabel BW. As I was involved, it's better that someone else did it anyway, besides the fact I wasn't around. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jean Faucounau

You've got to hand it to this grapheus character, he means business. I don't think I have been called "Badman" since the Hindutvavadi trolling opera back in 2005-6. And not even they went as far as composing an acual Níðvísa. I think that people who are mad enough to air their anger in the form of poetry deserve some sort of respect. I think the last time I saw this sort of poetry was in the Rydberg case back in July, where I see I noted the similarity of character in the local crank there, one William P. Reaves to Jean Faucounau. Although in the case of Reaves, the Níðvísa was all at the expense of Reaves. These characters seem to thrive on Usenet, and if nothing else Usenet seems to find its justification in giving a purpose to picturesque crankery such as this. I find it remarkable that perfectly sane google groups users should indulge in playing hide-and-seek with Jean Faucounau over the question of his identity with "grapheus" literally years after any reasonable doubt has been cleared.

Now Wikipedia started out in 2001, full 22 years after Usenet. If Wikipedia has grown into an extremely useful repository of information while Usenet remains the same shapeless heap of random flamewars it is because we stop prancing around with the Reaves and Faucounaus of this world when we run out of reasonable doubt that they might yet contribute anything useful.

Now since we are already plunged back into JF's world, it may be worth reconsidering the merit of the Proto-Ionians article. It was created in an attempt at "appeasing" grapheus by covering his stuff somewhere on Wikipedia. Applying WP:NOTE in the light of day, however, we find that the entire article derives its claim to notability from two scholarly notices. I enjoy the mentinon of grapheus in article space, wryly;

In a less academic mode, the internet troll "grapheus" has advocated Faucounau's theories over Usenet, becoming notorious in the process. Posting from Luxembourg, and admitting to personal acquaintance of Faucounau, he has been suspected to be an alter ego of Faucounau's,

But I do not think this is really in any proper sense Wikipedia-worthy. --dab (𒁳) 08:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been dealing with Grapheus since at least 2001 on Usenet. As for their identity, this 2004 exchange might amuse you [29]. There was an exchange last year between Grapheus and Eisenberg (calling himself antiquarian but not trying to disguise who he is). [30]. As for Proto-Ionians, Google books seems to show up enough so that the article should exist, but why does it credit the idea to Faucounau? This [31] dates it to 1887. Maybe it just needs to be rewritten. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that 2004 thread. Doesn't grapheus just glow with pleasure as soon as he finds himself in the center of attention. This is why WP:DENY works. The troublemakers usually just want to be noticed. Roll them back without comment and they will bugger off sooner or later. Even Ararat arev seems to be bored now, and even grapheus would have a hard time matching that sort of dedication to the cause. Seeing that Wikipedia's note on grapheus was useful to Eisenberg in the 2008 discussion, maybe we should keep it around. But you are right that we should put the article on proto-Ionians on its feet. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence, "Proto-Ionians" seems to have been a concept briefly involved in the "origin of the Greeks" debate, apparently introduced in 1887 as you say, and surviving into the 1920s until the decipherment of Hittite had become universally accepted. The term of course also crops up incidentially in discussions of the Greek dialects, simply denoting the earliest point in the Ionic Greek dialect. My suggestion would be that we need a comprehensive origin of the Greeks article, which will of course include Ernst Curtius. Faucounau can be a humorous footnote to Curtius in that article. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a very good idea - would it end up as a battle ground? And I have to admit I know nothing about the origin of the Greeks. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks! "Young at heart", I'm sure Wetman meant to say. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas redux

[32] Just to note, I don't think anything was added prior to this change. It appears that the persondata was never removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Alexander the Great image

Originally there was a mosaic at the article, and User:Kurt Leyman said that it wasn't accurate, and put a bust image instead, but many editors (myself included) didn't like it, so we made this RfC which had quite a good support for using the mosaic instead of the bust. Now Kurt has found a new bust image and is trying to use it instead of the mosaic.

To make a long story short, Kurt thinks that articles about historical figures should have accurate images, which, according to Kurt, means having a certain bust on the infobox. The problem here is that Kurt has been told repeatedly that there are no accurate depictions of Alexander and that those busts are fugly anyways while the mosaic is more famous than any bust, is cool-looking and depicts a famous battle.

From a short look, it seems that Kurt is also trying to push his favourite images in other articles like Justinian, see User_talk:Kurt_Leyman#Image_at_Justinian, and Claudius image change first revert second revert.

Personally, I think that Kurt is trying to impose his personal aesthetic preferences over the consensus of other editors who don't like some of his choices. /me thinks that Kurt makes a good work, it's just that he keeps trying to make an image changes at certain articles when he is told that it's not a good change and that he should leave the original image. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: I opened a RfC on the image at Justinian I and left a message on Kurt's page here about abiding to RfC results, please correct my post if I came out too harsh or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now what's happening. By the way, please, please, 'faggotry' shouldn't appear on talk pages, right? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

your recent revert

Hi, You edited a page and changed "ancient" to "greco-roman". I think Ancient is correct and most likely refers to pre-Roman era. And the source you gave there does not use "greco-roman". Would you please give source for "greco-roman". --Xashaiar (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have changed that to Greek, although that's what the Romans called it also. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI fails again

Hey Doug. If you're around please try to do something about this [33]. Another triumph for ANI inactivity. Five hours and no response. --Folantin (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

request for advice

I'd appreciate advice on some articles in which you've had some degree of involvement. You recently indicated (on the serratiopeptidase talk page) some level of agreement with a suggestion that it might be good to have a main article about proteases in medicine, along with redirects from names of individal examples of the materials. After all, I might have enough time to try and do something useful about these subjects. But I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia, and overall, this would end up as a sizeable number of edits, changing relationships between articles. In view of this, I'd like to steer a course that won't contravene WP policies or points of WP-custom or etiquette.

As an example, would it be ok to create, first, a new generic article on 'Proteases in medicine' or (perhaps more descriptively) 'Proteases in medical and related use'? (Btw, I looked at WP:SINGULAR, it seems 'proteases' here may be ok as a 'small class' plural title, but have I got that right?)

The generic article would have to be provided with relevant citation-sourced encyclopedic content, of course -- and perhaps a talk-page explanation why it is notable? If that could be an acceptable way to start a revision-process, then maybe a next step would try to slim down unencyclopedic material in the articles about the trade-name examples, and to link them using cross-references to the generic article, before initiating discussion about whether they deserve to be kept? Or should such change be started some other way? I'd appreciate a steer on this. Thanks in advance, Terry0051 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Start it in your user space. If you copy and paste from other articles, in order to maintain a history link for the GFDL licence, put the linked name of the article you are copying from in the Edit summary. The article itself should have references showing it is notable, the talk page is for discussion of building the article. I'm not sure about Protease vs Proteases, but that can be changed when the article is moved into article space. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. There's a draft in User:Terry0051/Sandbox, and any views would be appreciated. Terry0051 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Can you help us with this?

Oops. Can't think of anything, that was a problem before I think. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

would you please comment

Hi, there was a request here. I was warned and the other user not. I looked at some wiki policy/guide pages and I could not understand why the comments like 1: So I appreciate being able to make a few improvements without some little <valued editor> throwing rocks at me. and 2: ..I'm sick of having to deal with this harrassment, bad faith and ownership from someone I suspect is a diehard "Persian nationalist" (he seems to have a problem with Turkic influence on Iranian history - always a telltale sign), who is often incapable of communicating in clear English. can be ignored and the user is not warned? These comments are uncivil and accusing me of being nationalist.., aren't they? Thanks.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so you're still following me around. Turkic? Why else would you remove this [34] when it's perfectly well sourced (if you could be bothered to read the second paragraph). Plus, this reference to "turkic world" completely out of the blue on the entirely irrelevant subject of not using Modern Persian script for Parthian and Sassanid kings [35]. I wasn't born yesterday. Every editor with a clue knows there's a big feud going on between "Persian" and "Turkic" POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis, Northern Spain

Thanks for the deletion and the notice ("these are your personal comments and thus don't belong in the article")

The comment is directed to Paul H. I have already referred to his discussion page, with complete text and all the arguments and references to values. --Pacoortunno (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Qadisiyyah

hi, please check my response to your post. Thanks[36]

Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mehrdad Izady

He is a controversial figure, a bit of a revisionist, and certainly not a reliable source on historical issues. Not long ago, there was a detailed section on him on the fringe theories notice board with many examples. [37] --Kurdo777 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is no thread there, there is only one person's commentary. What I see here is a pov nationalistic argument, Mehrdad Izady clearly has more credibility among academics than say Kaveh Farrokh, who is used as a reference on Wikipedia. Being controversial or revisionist doesn't make him not a reliable source (remember, we have our own meaning of reliable source). I've never heard of him before yesterday and so far as I'm concerned if you can use one kind of nationalist as a source in an article, you can use another. The funny thing is, the editor who added McKiernan didn't notice that McKiernan uses Mehrdad Izady as a source. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the commentary in question is supported by evidence, and I see nothing nationalistic about it. I am not sure who you are directing your comments at, but Kaveh Farrokh should not be used as a reference either, nor should McKiernan who is a photo journalist. I have never argued to the contrary. Bottom line is that Kurdistanica (a user-generated non-academic private project) is not an academic source, and does not pass the requirements of WP:RS. --Kurdo777 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It may or may not be supported by the evidence, I just meant it wasn't a thread, it was just what one person said. The problem is that Farrokh is used on quite a few articles, and when I removed McKiernan I was accused of pov editing (weird as I have no pov on this). I presume there is a basic difference between Kuristanica and the Encyclopedia Iranica (if I have its name right)? Thanks. I wasn't directing my comments at you but at the editors who reverted me. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Farrokh isn't a WP:RS either, so he should be removed. Encyclopædia Iranica is a peer-reviewed academic project of Columbia University, and a published Encyclopedia with over 50 heavy weight scholars from major universities contributing to it. Irannica is not in any way comparable to Kuristanica which is some random user-generated website with a nationalist agenda, and only an Encyclopedia in name. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought the Iranica was very different, good to have it confirmed. Trying to remove Farrokh from articles where he is used as a reference - see [38] runs into a lot of opposition from nationalists, who insist he is a famous scholar. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Farrokh is not a reliable source on historical issues , I removed him from the history-related articles. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw that. Good work. One comment, after fact, put the month and year, thus: {{fact|April 2009}}, I can fix that tomorrow. That means if someone comes along in a couple of months or so, they can remove the unsourced statement (which could be done anyway of course). Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll fix the tags. By the way, check these links [39] [40] . The actual number of contributors to Iranica is over 870 scholars[41] from a variety of world's major universities. They have over 40 consulting editors too [42], such as Stronach, Boyce, Schmitt etc. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Is Populares' latest comment on Talk:Francesco Carotta, in which he writes that "you should consider that you are now no longer quoting a libelous statement but making one yourself", a personal attack for which he can be warned? Or is falsely accusing someoneone of libel not grounds for an npa warning? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the warning. I know for future reference I can warn for that manner of comment. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, see the blocking Admin's comment on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


I notice that you recently blocked Davidx5 (talk) for two weeks. This person also operates without signing in. He made at least a dozen stupid, vandalistic, and anti-Italian edits to the Castle page. Most of them were taken in good faith, because they constituted shoving in the mention of as many Spanish buildings as possible, regardless 0f whther it was appropriate to the sense. It was vandalism of a subtle sort. I suspect he needs watching all the time, but if he doesn't sign in, it's difficult. He is extremely cunning and gives very friendly innocent responses. Amandajm (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


I see you were fast too. I nominated Goran Marsic for CSD one minute, and the next minute you've already speedied it and blocked the user indefinitely. I'm nominating one of the user's other articles, George legget, for AfD as non-notable and a probable hoax: I'd love to CSD that one too, but it makes a doubtful-but-I-can't-prove-otherwise claim to significance, and the rest of the information may or may not be true, however non-notable the subject is. Let me know if I'm wrong on that one. Sheesh, you don't waste time, do you!

However, his article on Mark Nielsen (tennis player) was about an actual New Zealand tennis player who got caught up in a drugs scandal. There should be news articles about Mark Nielsen on New Zealand news websites, but I'm not sure how well he'd stack up against WP:NOTABILITY. Let me know about that one, too. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I speedied that as an unsourced attack page. If it had had sources, I would probably have left it or taken it to AfD, and of course someone can recreate it. I did look up Leggett and could find nothing, but the key thing there is that the links were all fake. There is an oops there, it was prod'd while I was in the delete page. I hate it when that happens, it's happened to me before. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I can't be bothered collecting sources to restart the Nielsen article, so I'll leave that for someone else. Thanks for the Legget article though – one less thing I have to worry about. Cheers again. Liveste (talkedits) 11:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic

Doug, you contributed to today's BLPN discussion about Darko Trifunovic and Scott's stubbing of the article. Could you please - as an uninvolved outside party - take a look at my comments at Talk:Darko Trifunovic#Stubbing and let us know what you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

anything wrong with the IP tracking system?

I received messages that said I've done destructive edit to pages Ozymandias Sovereign state Belfast and Pharaoh, where shows my correct IP ( Of all the pages I only touched Sovereign state and corrected a crosslink to the Chinese page (and it's not been reverted as claimed). You can check history of other pages for sure. The thing is that I am sure this IP is mine and is not dynamicly assigned, I did not shared the address with anyone either. What could be the reason for those nonexit "disruptive edits"? (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Operator error, sorry, removed. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug

User:Markacohen's block is going to expire in a few hours, and i hope you keep an eye on him. What makes me think that he is not a Jew at all but a kind of "agent provocateur" is his claim Leuchter is an engineer [43], a claim that has been debunked several times in court and elsewhere and is held up only by fellow Holocaust deniers ([44]). Cheers, --RCS (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, did you see my edit on his talk page? Only that one link makes me unsure. Interesting about the engineer bit. Anyway, I will definitely be watching him. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Electromagnetic therapy

Thanks Doug. I was about to blow my stack. Thanks for having a look, I'll go and calm down! Apologies and thanks. Verbal chat 17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Patents! Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
But wait - Einstein was a patent clerk. Clearly this means that everything approved by any patent office ever represents the highest caliber of scientific research and the pinnacle of human understanding for all time. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Umayyad Caliphate

Dear Doug,

I updated some information for the above topic. I added some information about Umayyad administration. Since I'm new here I don't know how to add citations. However I got the information from a book that I read. Title: Arab Muslim Administration Author S. M. Imamuddin D.Phil. (Calcutta), D.Phil. & Litt. (Madrid) Professor of Islamic History and Culture University of Dacca

I would like to know if information from books can be added. If not I can remove what I've added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisenheimer2 (talkcontribs) 11:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Umayyad Caliphate

Dear Doug,

I updated some information for the above topic. I added some information about Umayyad administration. Since I'm new here I don't know how to add citations. However I got the information from a book that I read. Title: Arab Muslim Administration. Author S. M. Imamuddin D.Phil. (Calcutta), D.Phil. & Litt. (Madrid) Professor of Islamic History and Culture University of Dacca

I would like to know if information from books can be added. If not I can remove what I've added.

Sorry forgot to sign.

Wisenheimer2 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see no problem in using the book, but you'd need to put the relevant page numbers in. So, <ref>Imamuddin, S.M. ''Arab Muslim Administration'' Kitab Bhavan, 1984 ISBN: 9788171510566 p.123</ref> It's the 113 digit ISBN number you should use, and surrounding the name of the book 2 apostrophes on each side, not quotation marks, so it shows up in Italics. Some articles use a different citation method and you should make sure you use whatever has already been used, see WP:CITE. Let me know if you need any more help. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman society article

OK I figured this out. The Ancient Roman society article was a part of a bold edit I made to the Ancient Rome article by splitting it. The split was reversed and a discussion begun. It was determined that even though an automated suggestion had been made to split the article, it was not needed. Both myself and the editor that reversed the split failed to remember to have the new portion of the article deleted after the reversal. For that I will take responsibility, but it was not a copyright violation nor a copy paste from an outside source. It was a simple situation that is in no way related to the merge issue being discussed. That is a seperate issue for Admin to decide.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am awarding you this barnstar

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
While I disagree with some parts of what just occured, it did help to figure out why a duplicate article was still around. It can now be cleaned up and reduces unnecessary articles. Amadscientist (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I had a problem with the business of how to attribute copy and paste when I first started, now that I understand the problem and reasons I'm more aware of how often it happens. Dougweller (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Pater familias Patriarch and Paternalism

I'll see what I can do (don't have much time available now, though...). I've also contacted User:Velho (he knows his Latin). See you soon. The Ogre (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It´s the same meanning you can find on Oxford English Dictionary. Jackiestud (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
pls do check the same source at the Oxford English Dictionary. Jackiestud (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The OED in my lap says the English word pater comes from the Latin word pater and that pater familias comes from the Latin meaning father of the family. It does not link either with the word 'pagan' which you are trying to do, it says 'pagan' comes from the Latin 'paganus'. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but where does pater come from? Comes from patris, which in latin and in my mother language, portuguese (latin), means country, village (pagus, pagan)!! In portuguese we say patria or pais (or paese, or pagus) for country! What for you may saound strange or new for me is obvious. Jackiestud (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
But even your source does't back that up [45] -

the English word pater

derived from the Late Latin word pater (father)

derived from the Greek word pater, πατήρ (father; a 'father' (literally or figuratively, near or more remote))

using the Proto-Indo-European prefix pəter- (father) You still haven't undone your edit, and if you don't you will probably be blocked. --Yes but you can slo see there are many derivatins, and they all point to patria (or country) or paese. Jackiestud (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC

Look again, you have it backwards, patria comes from pater. Pagan is from a different rootăgân.html Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. --As ou can see country for paese
  2. --For pagan --pagus (village; country district, community, canton)
  3. --And pagan from paese also --paganus (pagan; countryman, peasant; pagan; of a pagus; rural). Jackiestud (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC) --Here, ou can see it better: the Late Latin word patria (native land; home, native city) derived from the Late Latin word pater (father) Jackiestud (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC) -Patria, pais (country) are synonymouswith pagan. Jackiestud (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Patria comes from pater, yet you wrote in your edits "The word pater comes from latin word patris so is this a change of mind? You then make a jump to paese which is not so far as I can see etymologically related to pater. You don't seem to have found an etymological relationship, and paesa comes from pagus, not the other way around. And right or wrong, you broke 3RR and I am asking you to revert so you won't be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"Patria comes from pater." Yep, just as the English word "fatherland" comes from "father" not the other way around. I know of no etymological relationship between "pater" and "pagus". --Folantin (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Hello, I saw this popping up on my watchlist. I am not sure what exactly this argument is about, but pater (and derivative patria) and pagus (and derivative paganus) are not considered relatives of each other. The first is a basal word that appears in many IE languages (Greek pater, Gothic fadar, Sanskrit pitar etc.), while according to the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae the second derives from the same root as the verb pango (to fasten). Paese in its turn comes from pagensis, an adjective deriving from pagus (as does paganus). Iblardi (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. And if either of you can please help sort out Patriarchy and Pater familias where in both cases Jackiestud has breached 3RR I'd appreciate it. I've put some of the earlier stuff above on the talk pages of both. I presume all this etymological stuff was constructed to make some sort of pov point. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't get back earlier, but I see that the problem is already being managed. Iblardi (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The word pater also means territory --what we call territory is nothing else but country or paese. Jackiestud (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The link ibetween these two words is the LAND, the territory, the country --or THE EARTH. The jews were the first ever to appear with this word due to the religious persecutions they suffered (check Joseph Campbell) --they lost their territorial identity. Jackiestud (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
He says patriarchy is a Hebrew word? Look, you can make all the connections you want, but without a reliable source, please don't put them in Wikipedia, and please take this to the article's talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It´s written on the article: it first appeared among hebreus. It´s written on the article. By the way another source Paternalism and country. Jackiestud (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Another source we can't use, see WP:RS. And the article does not say the word appeared among the Jews. Again, this should go on article talk pages, you need to revert as I'm getting tired of asking, I'll just report you. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchy: hebrew word

...but attested in the 4th century for the headship of a Jewish community, from the Hellenistic Greek term for such a community leader, πατριαρχης. Jackiestud (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Jackiestud (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete this? Jackiestud (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't answer for Doug, but it makes no sense to randomly list every language that every translated the word "patriarchous" from the Greek into some word in their own language. That would be maybe 2000 languages, each with a different date. What matters is the origin of the word and in English Wikipedia, when it came into English. That's why it doesn't belong in the article, footnoted or not - it's off-topic. That's my view, and I think it's based on lots of copyediting and wishing there were fewer tangents in Wikiarticles.Levalley (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Etruscan civilization

Stop reverting, i'm adding references and sources to the article and i'm also merging stub and clean up pages that fits perfectly in the article. This is a new layout, yes. But its better written and better referenced and sourced. + you're reverting back to an article which have has its own page, all the former information of the origin section has its own article now. Stop please, this is a plea. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever read your talk page? I'm not the only one expressing some concerns about your edits. You need to add citations as you edit, use edit summaries, not copy and paste from other articles in a way that bresks the citations, not copy and paste from other articles without an link to the article in the edit summary, etc. I'm reverting because I don't think you are improving the articles. Please also read [46]. I'm glad to hear from you here, as I was wondering what would be necessary to get you to respond on your talk page. Hopefully now you will start to respond. I'm trying to add material as well as reverting what I see as bad edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added more references, check for yourself! in total their were 5 references in the culture section in your revert now its over 10. Why is this? its because i'm adding references NB! I don't copy and paste from articles, but articles that are "badly written," "stubs," "un-referenced," and "needs serious attention from an editor" should either be merged or worked on! You can re-establish those articles if you want to!! This page needs its short badly referenced and lacks any meaningful information. Yes its a historu article, but compare to other history articles. Its not in "shape". I'm not merging articles because i "like it," but because their is no need for articles which are short enough to add in a section to the "mother page." As said before, you can re-establish the page when you expand it and add meaningful references to the page. Okay? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You simply can't do mergers like this, read WP:Merge. I'm not arguing against the mergers, yet at least, but the way you are doing them isn't allowed. So, I'm undoing them. Don't revert me, merge properly if you want to merge.
You can't remove contant, wiki rules. Remember what you TOLD me! --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at the etruscan civilization page now, i keep the my own section headings okay? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't thought much about the headings. I will say that DBachmann has a lot more experience of editing historical articles than either of us. Dougweller (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WHY IS MY USERNAME AND MEMBERSHIP BEING DRAGGED INTO THIS????? I have nothing to do with merging articles. Mr. Weller, your bringing up my suggestion of spliting the Ancient Rome article from last july as suspicious or in someway related to what happened to the Etruscan Origins article is incorrect. I hhave nothing to do with this current situation and I would ask that you look closely at this situation as I am not involved.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok now I gather, thanks. Of course you had nothing to do with the current situation, the article was mentioned by the editor merging the Etruscan articles. Dougweller (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The headings comes frmo the Ancient Rome article which is a GA, i'm modeling the page after it. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
They are probably ok, the Origins ones are not. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay no problem, i'll try to be more friendly. One question, if i keep up expanding and cleaning up the article would that mean that the article could stay? Sorry for the bad english --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The origins article? I think it depends upon what it contains and what other articles do. I can't say more than that right now because everything seems up in the air a bit. Have you read WP:CFORK and, more to the point here probably, WP:Summary which discusses splitting articles. I've dealt with pov forks before where someone wants more or less a duplicate article but from a different (usually fringe) point of view, but that's not the issue here. Read them, see what you think. I haven't a definite opinion right now. Oh, don't forget to start responding to comments on your talk page in the future, please. And next time you want to do a split, bring it up on the talk page, maybe even the appropriate project page. Could save a lot of hassle. Wikipedia's a learning curve, right? Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay i understand. And yes Wikipedia is a learning curve! --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


I appreciate your concern, "busybody" may be too personal a term to use (though I do feel there are better things to do on Wikipedia than object to perfectly fine five year old article) but next time, lose the patronising tone of voice. "welcome to wikipedia indeed. --Martin Wisse (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that's Twinkle, not me. Shame it says that, maybe I should suggest a better wording. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

but, I think we should link his ZO History Book( free),BURMA-AND-INDIA.pdf in the ZO/Chin related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmlug (talkcontribs) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Democratization of the Afterlife

I wasn't sure where to ask about this, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of Ancient Egyptian expertise on Wikipedia, but you're a member of the Ancient Egypt project and are an academic of some sort, so…

I'm trying to write about Egyptian afterlife beliefs, but I hit a roadblock with the "democratization of the afterlife"— the process in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom in which the Osirian concept of the afterlife gradually extended to all classes of society, and not just the pharaoh. The trouble is, it's difficult to write about this without talking about what the Egyptians believed would happen to deceased nonroyals before the democratization, and I'm not clear on what those were. Courtiers had their own mastabas and even commoners were buried, so they must have had some beliefs on the subject. I've looked through Google, but what little information I found was vague and sometimes contradictory. (My worry is that even the experts are still arguing about this, in which case I'm really in trouble.) Anyway, if you know anything about this or know of any sources on the subject, please let me know. A. Parrot (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Join this mailing list: [47] - be sure you read the charter (it specifies how you sign it, etc). YOu should get help there. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Your response is awaited at Talk:Love & Gravity. I suggest you help me build the article to good status rather than defacing it. Constructive criticism is welcome, but I consider mass deletions from misinterpretation of policy as nonconstructive. I feel I have made progress on the article after stumbling aross the stub. I am a new user, however I have been a reader for years and have edited anonymously, so I understand policy and how things work around here. Perhaps instances of unnecessary original research exist in the article, but the concerns about excesses of information is not valid. This is explained on the talk page. Thank you.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point to where I made a "personal attack".--Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I stand by the statement. I do not believe it was necessary to add that many "fact" tags. And I believe that this action defaced the article. This was not a personal attack. On a side note, you really should archive this page, it is difficult to use.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to get through to this editor that their additions are almost entirely unsourced, laden with original research and so forth, but they won't listen. I was the one who put on all the {{Fact}} tags, which I think were appropriate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many ottersOne hammerHELP) 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You know...

Instead of filling up the edit history with a number of small edits, you could have edited them in one big edit...2012 Doomsday prediction --Ssteiner209 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You must have the wrong editor, I have no idea what you mean. One reason for small edits can be to give an adequate explanation, of course. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


A request for your consideration at Talk:Cro-Magnon. Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

I would like to resubmit this article once I have sorted out the issues with the references.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first! I won't do this again.

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have...

...mail :) WilliamH (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Uruguayan Civil War

Could you keep an eye on this (it's not the greatest article but I have it on my watchlist)? Anonymous IP (talk · contribs) edit-warring to remove reference to the Italian Legion which fought in this conflict, claiming (on the basis of no evidence I can see) they must have all been "Piedmontese" because Italy didn't exist as an independent state at this point, therefore Italians didn't either. News to the combatants, I imagine. I've added a clear reference but he simply reverted it. IP seems to have a troublesome history judging by the talk page. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Figueira da Foz page. Technical Help.

The page Figueira da Foz has the edit buttons for first and second section at the the end of the second section and I'm unable to work out how to put right. Can you help? Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Only by asking the question myself, it's a real pain but I've never bothered to try to sort it. I've raised it here [48]. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, It got done. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very tidy!

I'm glad that the archiving system worked for you. :) I think of these things as magic. LOL! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, isn't it - thanks to you. I see you have lots to keep you busy right now. :-) Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Younger Dryas event

Hello, I want to point out that I disagree with your categorization of my contribution to Younger Dryas event as OR (and have therefore restored the content in question). Reread the paragraph and you will see that I have stated some facts that are obviously discrepant with the hypothesis, without advancing an argument or stating a conclusion. Even if you don't like the first sentence which puts the facts referred to in context, there is no justification for deleting the second sentence which is simply an unadorned statement of these facts. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just me. I was responding to another editor's concerns, and a 3rd editor has now reverted your edit as original research and explained why on the talk page. Please read our policy (note not just a guideline) at WP:OR and especially the section on synthesis. You can also respond on the talk page if you want, but please don't replace it as besides being OR you now have 3 editors saying it shouldn't be there. Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
And, in all fairness, I have one other editor who says it should be there. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd missed that. He's wrong too however. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Doug, re "Dougweller (talk | contribs) protected 2012 Doomsday prediction [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)) (Excessive vandalism) " -- it doesn't appear to be protected. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - it's semi-protected, so no IP or non-autoconfirmed edits are allowed, and there haven't been any since I protected it. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary didn't say semi-protected -- I understand now. Thanks for explaining. Also, the cute little semi-protect icon is missing. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So how do I get the icon? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug,

but if this doesn't make you cringe, it should at least make you laugh out loud. Cheers, RCS (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen that and replied, but please, please, cool it. See the email button to the left? Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I did not appreaciate your threat

Doug--for you to come into a discussion that you know nothing about and say no threats have been made and then threaten to ban me is incredibly rude. Please refrian from such behavior in the future. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talkcontribs) 18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hardly much point in repeating myself, but I will. People aren't threatening you, they are warning you of what will happen if you continue the way you've been going. That's what I said. You appear to be ignoring that. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


By WP:ADMIN/WP:BLOCK standards I think you are an uninvolved admin. However, having you and not someone completely outside the matter make the block will likely just further Theo's blossoming persecution complex. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don't think it would have made any difference. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Another IP on talk:Francesco Carotta

Hello Dougweller, could you take a look at this user? Iblardi (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. But the edits have been permanently deleted now, they aren't available in history. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Triple Goddess / IP / Moonie

Hi doug. thanks - I'd have missed the misaimed "moonie" reference if you hadn't pointed it out to me! I tend to get bored of editors who can't seem to do even a minimal amount of research to support their opinions. Hopefully we can encourage the IP editor to actually add something of interest to the article. --Davémon (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the editor may have meant Funk & Wagnall's online encyclopedia, but when he talked about getting them to create an article... Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug- I've posted a (rather lengthy) reply on the Triple Goddess discussion page for you to peruse whenever you have time. tcob44

"Persian Imperialist" editor

Chae jung (talk · contribs) is the latest incarnation of the "Persian Imperalist" SPA (so-called because this editor, who uses various throwaway accounts to add the phrase "Persian Empire" to as many articles as possible). His latest edits at Afsharid dynasty have crossed the line, expunging any reference to the Turkic origins of the family. I think we need to crack down on this guy. I'll try to post his other likely incaranations in a bit. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Others? Emperor 2345 (talk · contribs), Emperor of world (talk · contribs), Oghuz turkish (talk · contribs) - all probably linked to the Spider 2200 (talk · contribs) account (which, again, is probably someone else). --Folantin (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've encountered Chae today. I see none of the others have edited this month. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Narmer Palette

transferred from my talk page for your convenience:

A little while ago you did a light edit of this article. I've just reverted this to an earlier pre-OR version, adding back as much of the good referenced stuff as I could (the OR editor is now indefinitely blocked for OR). I wonder if you'd like to look at it again? Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquiry -- I will, a quick look indicates some areas I would rework or restore. Hope to get to it soon. ---- 83d40m (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical prophecy spam

Hi Doug. If you're around you might want to look into Tjwatgmxus (talk · contribs) and his talk page contributions. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the spam he's adding (and re-adding) to talk pages which is the main problem (per WP:TALK and WP:EL among other policies). --Folantin (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Final warning. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Good. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Now back in IP form: (talk · contribs). --Folantin (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Both are blocked now. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/joseph has been restarted. LadyofShalott 13:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What an incredible collection of unreliable "sources". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a joke. Well, worse than that maybe. I see one of its sources is by Betty Rhodes, see some more of her racist website here: [49]. He also doesn't realise he's using our article on Imhotep. He's also got a stub here: User talk:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/joseph. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Do you think it's time to suggest page protection? I can deal with disagreements, incivility somewhat, and even a complete disregard for actually providing sources, but editors changing information so that sources are misleading, then it's time for more serious measures. It's clear he's not reading and editing for neutrality but just soapboxing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


IHO means it means in honor of, I laughed my ass of silly reading that stuff, it's simply beautiful. What are you doing on my userpage anyway?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC) You know of a better abbreviation or what ever you call it for those words?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of IMHO. IHO works for that. I'm on everyone's userpage, I'm Super Admin! Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt

Ok, but let's cut all links to a minimum. (I think we need the official website as a minimum though)PiCo (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up unfinished business.

Doug, just something that I forgot to do. I forgot to edit Dogon where we read: 'From 1931 to 1956, two French anthropologists, Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen, spent 25 years with the Dogon. After some 17 years they were both initiated into the tribe,'.

This is inexact. I don't know about Dieterlen, but the total amount of time Marcel Griaule spent among the Dogon, from memory, was 3 years. The dates refer to first and last contact, and an inference is made from this (25 years) that the two spent two and a half decades there. They didn't. Hope you can reword this. ThanksNishidani (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Time consuming but I'm getting there. Even harder will be putting Dieterlen's visits in, which of course were not as frequent. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have three questions

I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've replied at the 3RR report. I'm also concerned about the BLP issues there, it's a shame that the talk died down at BLPN. You made 7 consecutive edits today which wouldn't count as 3RR. I don't think you need worry about being blocked right now so long as you keep cool, don't make personal attacks, and don't edit anyone's edits again, if you see a BLP violation on the talk page you might want to go back to BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Sorry, I think I have it as default. I'm certainly not doing it on purpose. I'll go change it now.Drew Smith What I've done 15:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I assumed you weren't, but I did run into one editor who was doing it for some bizarre reason I can no longer remember which was just a misunderstanding. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)