User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Location hypotheses of Atlantis

Who gives you the right to play with somebody's work? If you don’t agree with it it’s your problem. There are forums for debates not in here. You have been reported to the Wikipedia moderators and your action will not be tolerated!!!

New here are you? Your attempt to copy my username was banned, that's what isn't tolerated. I've got every right to edit the article and bring it into line with Wikipedia standards. Since there are no moderators, I doubt you could have reported me to them, especially as you seem anonymous.--Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am new and I know what the Wikipedia standards are. They have nothing to do with your opinion. My paragraph is legit and referenced. You reference the opinion of someone whose work is banned from this page? Who are you to think that your comments are appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italianboy101 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference, the only one on the web I can find to you/Nikas, was by Georgeos Diaz-Montexano whose name is mentined twice on the page with a reference. So I have no idea what you think you are talking about. --Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My name is not nikas, I am just a fan of Mister Nikas. you have to learn how to search better. Here if you want a ref: http://atlantisinmalta.art.officelive.com/default.aspx

It is not my job to find references for you. And your putting a pdf on Wikipedia was a flagrant breach of policy.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor, doctor

Hey, Doug, the good doctor has contacted your French talk page saying he doesn't want to have a discussion with Americans because they're "dishonest and lack erudition" [1]! (The message was blanked as vandalism shortly after by another user). Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This reply to you by D. A. A. Boubouleix (he must have trouble remembering his password judging by the number of new accounts he creates) is one of funniest moments from this whole affair: "I see, you are only a little undergraduate of Yale ... IJTS is managed by a Welsh and an Italian .... I have nothing more to tell you because it seems you dont come from a well educated 'milieu social'; so little undergraduate stay where you are; all you say is diffamation, proofs of your lack of education: so stop and stay in your cultural idiosynchrasy of heavy saxon". Yes, stay right there! He's desperately trying to get his French Wiki bio deleted but keeps falling foul of the anti-vandal squad. Maybe we should tell him it's easy enough to get rid of the article if the subject is non-notable and there are no reliable sources - which is more than true in his case. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now he has deleted my comments and says he is going to take legal action against me! [Dominique Boubouleix]--Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I really don't see what you are trying to achieve on phayul.com. Your time is your own to spend of course, but you come across like a man trying to teach a pony to play the piano. But I respect your equanimity, of course :) dab (𒁳) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:-) Well, it will get listed on Google, I thought it would be useful to set the record straight. I want to pull out of it but they keep posting the most outrageous lies!--Doug Weller (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fasold

I confused you with the other guy editing the article with a a name that started with "D" named "Dab". I apologize. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Solutreans "refuted" ?

I see you've made several edits citing the recent AJHG paper's claim to have "refuted" the Solutrean hypothesis.

However, as I have written at Talk:Haplogroup X (mtDNA), reading the paper it seems to me that it does a persuasive job of showing the Solutrean hypothesis is unnecessary to explain the observed data. But I don't think the argumentation is developed to actually refute it - at least, not in the paper itself.

I'd welcome your thoughts, on that talk page. Would you be happy that this would be a good way (a bit more cautious, and a bit more informative) to report the study's conclusions? Jheald (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed, and I'm changing the quote I'm using to another one from the same paper that is more cautious.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More about merging

Hi. :) I note that you recently performed a merger of material to the article Grayson Space Navy, and I just wanted to drop you a line to point out a few things about the merge procedure. As Help:Merge sets out, when we merge material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary, because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Merge from [[Sourcearticle]]". Then, we note the merger as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material merged to Grayson Space Navy", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been merged remains. If the merge is complete and the article becomes a redirect, we add it to {{R from merge}} just to make doubly sure. :) In this instance, I will correct the edit summaries, but I wanted to alert you for future reference. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea about how merging works and in fact also wasn't aware that contributors retained rights to authorship (although from my experience a lot of contributions seem to have been more cut and paste from other sources!). I will keep that in mind and make sure I don't make that error again. There's a lot to learn about editing (and I'm discovering that the most frustrating thing is dealing with people who know nothing about editing). --Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little known facet of Wikipedia, I know. :) I know in my early days as a contributor, I had no idea that I could not simply copy text from one Wikipedia article to the other; in spite of the GFDL link, I basically presumed I was releasing anything I wrote into public domain. But the way GFDL works, we still "own" the right to have the text we create credited to us, although we have no control over how it is used, modified or spread. Somebody could publish an article we write in a book as long as they give us proper credit. We really need to find some way to clarify GFDL for all contributors, because this is a common mistake that we probably often don't catch. Anyway, evidently consensus has emerged to remove the merged material since the AfD closed as "delete". I just wanted to point out to you that there is nothing wrong with creating a new section in the article using different language. I have no doubt you know that copyright covers the arrangement of words, not ideas, so as long as the text is not duplicative we don't have any issues. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to be at the same stage as you were in your early days. Yes, I can copy the idea -- a bit like a recipe (although there you can copy the exact ingredients). I need to be careful as I've been editing a Sumerian mythology article and deleted something that was copied from another article (the original had a reference so I'm sure it was the original), got someone to edit the original as it seemed to contradict the original, and now I know that what he's written should go in the first article. So, I'll reword it and put it in but I won't just cut and paste.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One more stage in this: given concerns expressed at AN that the closure of the AfD depending on the information being present in the article (and the circular concern of GFDL concerns), I have completely revised and placed the text myself. :) I leave it to you and other editors of the article to determine if I've put it in a good place. It can, of course, be mercilessly edited from here. As far as the Sumerian article, you can cut & paste as long as you do it properly. You just need to include a direct link to the source article in the destination article and include a direct link to the destination article in the source article (of course; you also mention in those edit summaries that you're merging). If you decide to go that way and aren't sure you've done it right, just let me know. I'm happy to help out. The procedure is not complicated, but feels like it is until you've done it a time or two. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Atlantis, Copying Text, and the GNU

Hi Dougweller. Thanks for your comments on Talk:Minoan_eruption about the proposed Atlantis section and the issue of copying from one article to another. I then read the various conversations and links in your talk above which was very educational for me. Anyway, I think that I've come to the following conclusions:

• it's ok to copy text as long as the source is accredited, which by wikipedia policy, is best done by a simple link in the edit summary.
• the general guidline is to avoid duplicate information on multiple articles. This is best done by splitting important subsections of articles into their own articles and using the main: template to link back to the original. (see also Wikipedia:SS)

Specifically for the Minoan Eruption theory of Atlantis, this presents an interesting case. The orginal text was found on Santorini#Thera_hypotheses. I then came across Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis. This seemed like a more logical place for the theory, so I copied the text with reference in the edit summary to the original source (although I didnt put an active hyperlink). Now it appears that there are other pages which might go into some detail on the theory including Minoan eruption. In the future, its possible that still more pages may want to go into the theory such as Minoan civilization or Akrotiri...

I see from your discussions above that you've found your way into a bit of a merger mess, so I'd appreciate any insight, comments, or advice you might have. At present, I'm thinking that the best path forward on this atlantis thing might be to either 1) slit the section from the santorini article into its own article, which can then serve as the main article for the others or 2) utilize the existing Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis article as the main article for all of them including the Santorini article, merging that specific subsection into the main article (maybe already done). Anyway, again, I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, Dspark76 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First, how do you use the main:template (and where is it?). Ironically, I've actually ordered a book to help me with Wikipedia. Anyway, I've been thinking about this for a while, ever since the Santorini/Crete section was deleted from Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis. Your comments have made me think some more. Of all the locations associated with Atlantis, Santorini has probably received the most attention, particularly from the mainstream. Do we want to reflect that attention in Wikipedia? I think we probably do specifically because it has received so much attention and thus, unlike (my opinion here) other locations, warrants it. Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis is, in my opinion, not the proper place to go into any great detail on any one location. And neither is Santorini or Minoan eruption or Crete because it would overbalance those articles.

This brings me a bit reluctantly to the conclusion it warrants its own article. That way people like the classicist John V. Luce (usually known as J V Luce) and the other scholars who have written on it can be covered. I've said locations associated with Atlantis, because Rodney Castleden in his book Atlantis Destroyed puts forward an argument that although there was no Atlantis, Plato drew his story of Atlantis from proto-historical elements about Minoan Crete & Cyladic Thera -- see my review of his book On Amazon.co.uk or .com. I'd better say right now I'm no expert on these civilizations.

Anyway, for what it's worth, those are my thoughts. Should we be discussing this somewhere else as well?--Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, thanks for you response. To answer your questions:

• The main article template is pretty basic, it just points back to the full article(s). Details can be found here Template:Main.
• I was thinking the Minoan / Atlantis theory might deserve its own article as well. That would make including info in other articles easier. However, I'm not sure there is enough info already written to create much more than a stub. Still, it might be a good idea. I don't personally have enough source material (yet) to do much of an expansion, however, it sounds like you might?
• If you/we want to take the new article spin out futher, lets move that conversation over the the Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis page.
• If we want to have any discussion about GNU, copying, or template formating, it's probably best done here (or on my talk page).

Again, thanks for the consultations. - Dspark76 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get back to you in a few days. I've got some source material, but not J V Luce. And thank you.--Doug Weller (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hi Dougweller, you left a message on my talk page a couple of weeks ago. I responded here for you. Acalamari 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Acalamari 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orion Correlation Theory

I know your interest in this kind of thing, so I thought I'd alert you to this entry I've just set up. Basically a page to link to was needed from both the Archaeoastronomy and Astrological Ages pages, so I did a quick cut 'n' paste from Hancock and Bauval's pages. That way it won't overwhelm the two AA pages, but at the same time we won't lose any information from Wikipedia. I'm not up to speed on the latest in the rebuttal/counterbuttal arms race, but I thought you might be. If you're not interested please ignore me. :) Alunsalt (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Civ1

[2] The current wording is fine with me, the issue I saw wasn't that it was based on the megalithic yard. It's the judgment that I think is original research - that the book's premise falls if other works are disproven. On the other hand, if a reliable source points this out for you, it's 100% legit to add this to the page. WLU (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that paragraph is still not right (or in fact accurate), but I'm off for a couple of days. That bit about 1% needs to be replaced, or just cut as it does refer to megalithic yard which I've tried to improve with proper references.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nibiru

My edit to Nibiru was not unconstructive and was made as I needed more information on the planet and had to visit the Planet X article instead to which there is no link. It is not generally accepted to refer to the planet Jupiter which was depicted as a completely different planet to Nibiru in Sumerian astronomy. I will not dispute that it may be associated with the god Marduk though I have yet to see that this is always the case. As it is it's not accurate and to be frank, actually leads the reader on a wild goose chase. I do not mind discussing what you disagree with but please don't make allegations of unconstructive edits when my edits were made purely to be constructive. Thank you. 83.138.172.79 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sumerian astronomy only had 5 planets besides ours. The disambiguation page is correct as it is at the moment. See for instance [3]. Perhaps you were trying to be constructive, but what you were adding was wrong -- where are you getting your information from?--Doug Weller (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandal

I wasn't the one who blocked that particular IP, but I did leave the 4im warning on his/her talk page. Note that before you make WP:AIV reports to give an appropriate number of warnings, and ensure that they vandalize after the final warning. Procedure is important. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Megalithic geometry

I replied here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Megalithic_geometry_%282nd_nomination%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little sawyer (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So you mean to say that different people, without knowing each other, and at about the same time, all decided to build what is known as henges or stone circles, all across Britain, just by chance??? And by another miracle no one else in the world ever built any henges anywhere. Sorry, but that's bloody ridiculous and not even one scholar in the whole world thinks like you.--Little sawyer (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I certainly don't think that, or that all megalithic monuments in the British Isles appeared at the same time or look alike, it is a ridiculous concept.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(about The Times:) Thank you, I didn't know that. But at least they talked about it, and didn't ridicule it, which is a form of (indirect, perhaps) endorsement, as opposed to just any lunatic Internet theory they would never have mentioned.--Little sawyer (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Times didn't say a word about it, they just let the authors publish an article in the Times -- what the financial arrangements were we don't know. And as it was in the entertainment section....--Doug Weller (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)