User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Marburg72 at Walam Olum, again

184.21.53.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), at least I am 99% sure it is Marburg, they are editing warring to revert to one of his 166 range socks and it geolocates to near his physical address in the Mandeville/Covington La area. Heiro 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I left you and Dianaa both a message, as wasn't sure who was online and it seemed like Marburg was sitting there waiting to revert me over and over, lol. Guess the world not ending yesterday or the aliens coming back really upset him. :-) Happy Holidays, Heiro 21:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Scot Wolter

Doug,

Why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated by Nielsen's falacies and why did you decide to post this on the eve of my new show? This has all the appearance of malice on your part. The papers you cited are based on a 3D study on the KRS he won't allow anyone else to see and including the Runestone Museum who he tricked into letting him do to the study in the first place. Why do you think it is appropriate for him to comment on my geological work in the first place, he's not a geologist? Have you asked yourself why he has reversed himself on the work he once endorsed? This is clearly a personal vendetta that you apparently have been sucked into.

Your post is inaccurate and inappropriate, please remove it.

ScottHookedx (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Scott, it isn't mine, it's Deb (talk · contribs)'s. And Deb is definitely NOT Nielsen, look at her edits. The editing is not part of a personal vendetta. You need to read WP:VERIFY. You can complain about a source at WP:RSN or your article at WP:BLPN if you think it violates WP:BLP, but what you can't do is simply remove criticism because you think it's wrong, part of a vendetta, etc. As the subject of the article you need to be very careful what you do, and this sort of editing will end up with you being blocked. I'm glad you stopped removing the material. Hopefully one of the volunteers from the Foundation will reply to your complaint but as that's handled by volunteers and it's Christmas it's hard to say how fast they will respond. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Doug,

I am tired of this; please remove the entire listing and any reference of my name on Wiki. I will not have my name or research questioned based on fraudulent research. It's not Deb's fault, but I don't care to waste anymore time on anything related to garbage. Please remove my name from Wiki completely.

Thank you.

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookedx (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, I assume the above is not the real Scott Wolter, is it? Deb (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that it is really Scott Wolter. He's complained to the Foundation as he said he would. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hope he's not expecting an apology. Have a good Christmas. Deb (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I think his comments above are verging on libellous. Deb (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy! May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go. -- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I was surprised to see in the editsummary of this edit that you called that vandalism? I almost did that myself, because I think the tag was placed unjustly. Just that I decided to first resolve the issue on the talkpage. But to call it vandalism? By the way, since you were there already, perhaps you'd care to comment on the talkpage? Debresser (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A deletion by an editor with other contributions with an explanation wouldn't be vandalism. A deletion by an IP where that's there only edit and there is no explantion, it's hard for me to see it any other way. If they'd explained it I probably would have not called it vandalism, or if they had a decent number of contributions. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments would make it a possible POV edit, possibly by a registered user who didn't want his name attached to it. Still a step away from random and destructive vandalism, I think. But I do get your point. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

Please see this diff it may change your mind in reards to User:Eshwar.om's not engaging in Vandalism ?

RTPking (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Since he is contributing to the talk page and asking questions, I'd say that he is acting in good faith whatever the merits of his edits. I hope you aren't editing logged out but there's a pattern of edits that suggests you might be. Whatever, I think you have to contribute to the talk apge first. There's a language problem that might get in the way. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What is my necessity to be logged out to edit when I am editing the article myself ? Please make you required tests and be sure whether I have / heve not edited by logging out. I am willing to undergo the test.

RTPking (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Pradesh Raj

I had my suspicions, but basically I was too busy to check, especially as it was prodded anyway. Thanks for deleting and letting me know, merry Christmas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Dougweller! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"OK, who brought the Christmas Tree?"

All the best for the season, from dave souza, talk 15:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a great 2013! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your wishes though In Israel it not considered a holiday nevertheless I wish you happy holidays and a good year!--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the holiday wishes. Merry Christmas and happy new year! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yuletide greetings

And thank you for the message. Hope all is well with you, four family and friends. Be safe!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings to you, Doug, and yours, thanks to timely technical assistance from Nableezy!
Nishidani (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

All the best for the holidays to you and yours from me too, Doug! Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

• News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest

• WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire

• Featured content: Battlecruiser operational

• Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A request

Dear Admin,

If you look at the archives of the talk page of Richard Dawkins you will see how much effort has been put on trying to achieve an agreement for inclusion of criticism. Many experienced and unbiased users have posted their comments there. Many notability criterions for inclusion has been proposed. However, I doubt the consensus is ever achieved regardless of how reliable the source of criticism and how notable the content is. For instance, you can look at the last piece of criticism that was added from a book published by the Yale University Press and was cited by an academic secondary source. The edit was reverted on the sole basis of lack of consensus by an editor who -until a few days ago- thought the ciriticism of Richard Dawkins is mostly driven by conservative christian dogma and who is unaware of the necessity of having criticism in the article per WP:AUTO and WP:CRIT. I am writing this to ask you to reconsider your decision of redirectng Criticism of Richard Dawkins to avoid all this waste of effort and study for finding reliable sources and notable material in the last few years. The way I understand Wikipedia, opposing an ideology is never a good excuse for banning the inclusion of independently published academic texts.

Yours Truly --User 99 119 (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin powers aren't used in content disputes. And we virtually never do 'Criticisms of X person' in any case. But I've said that already and hopefully you read it. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Where in Wiki do you suggest is a good place for content dispute? And by the way, what is your opinion on the inclusion of this proposed text?

Dawkins attack to mainstream was followed by responses from different authors. For example, Terry Eagleton wrote: {{blockquote| Indeed, Dawkins seems to nurture a positively Mao-Like faith in faith itself - in the hopelessly idealist conception, for example, that religious ideology (as opposed, say, to material conditions or political injustice) is what fundamentally drives radical Islam. By contrast, Robert Pape's well-researched study of the subject, based on every suicide bombing since 1980, casts consierable doubt on this assumption.

User 99 119 (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Chariots of the Gods?

I think it is more appropiate to indicate at what point in the text one should refer also to some other article... --Againme (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the guidelines say. Why not try to change the guidelines? Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

'cause it is a remarkably bigger task... :=) --Againme (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Then please don't ignore them. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Madurai

I'm glad that someone with experience has managed to get round to looking at Madurai. As I said on the talk page, if it had been me reviewing the thing at GAN then it would not have passed in its then state. I fear the same may apply to the recently-nominated Tirunelveli. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I truly hate sfn references. Hard to check, you never know when someone's added a reference to the reference list without adding an inline citation. Is there some sort of push to use it? Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming round to them for articles that attract few contributors & are lengthy, but otherwise I think they are bad news. In any event, Malleus put me on to the idea of the {{r}} method and that is even better, provided you know what you are doing. And there's the rub ...

I have Ucucha's tool installed - see the link at Talk:Madurai#Sfn_citations - and it seems to show a sea of red on many occasions due to misuse of {{sfn}}. It was one of the several point I made in the immediate aftermath of the GAN. That article is still a mess: mutton dressed as lamb. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Boxing Day

Hi. Thanks for the card. Belated best wishes to you and yours too! In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Del sort

I think Leveratto needs to be added to a deletion sort notices. I am not sure which are the best, but that may generate more input. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright to Photo of Hank Harrison

I am sorry. I misunderstood the copy right en re a conflict of Interest rule in a "close relationship" with the subject. " I do not have a close relationship with Hank Harrison. I Just took a snap and assumed I would be able to post it. I would like, at this time, to withdraw my request to post a photo of Hank Harrison. zendogg@gmail.com (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the polygraph results as long as Mr. Harrison is under attack by Courtney's minions. He told me he does not need a wikipedia page and wants the entire page removed.zendogg@gmail.com (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So you don't have a close relationship but are in touch with him and in effect acting as his agent, insulting other editors (I never heard of Courtney Love before seeing her mentioned in his article), and insisting that we use material that could have been photoshopped? Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to archaeologist Sarah Parcak. See View History of wp:Tea. (",) 72.185.16.86 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kickcensorship

He's back. See the diff [1] on my talk page, his only edit so far. --Drmargi (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Offensive username

You blocked ערבי טוב זה ערבי מת (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious JarlaxcleArtemis sock. The user name is Hebrew for "A good Arab is a dead Arab" , and I think this should be hidden. My request to UAA was rejected as the account is already blocked. Could you please handle this? RolandR (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK; I thought I'd seen it done before. I received 45 billets-doux from the charmer this morning. RolandR (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and likewise

The best of greetings to you and your family too Doug!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Second message from Jean-François Monteil. About my text reverted

(84.100.243.163 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)) Dear Dougweller, the text in the article devoted to the De interpretatione you reverted on the 22 d of December was no paste/copy. Save perhaps in the last four lines that are blackened, no original research manifests itself . This I propose to you as a compromise: the removal of the blackened passage. I draw your attention to the fact that the logical hexagon is something known now in the literature. Gregbard created the corresponding article some months ago in wikipedia.  

The logical square, also called square of opposition or square of Apuleius has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning, as follows: 1. "Every man is white" - the universal affirmative 2. "Not every man is white" (or "Some men are not white") - the particular negative, negation of "Every man is white" 3. "Some men are white" - the particular affirmative 4. "No man is white" - the universal negative, negation of "Some men are white". Robert Blanché published with Vrin his Structures intellectuelles in 1966, and since then, many scholars think that the logical square representing four values should be replaced by the logical hexagon which by representing six values is a more potent figure because it has the power to explain more things about logic and natural language. The study of the four propositions constituting the square is found in Chapter 7 and its appendix, Chapter 8. Most important also is the immediately following Chapter 9, dealing with the problem of future contingents. This chapter and the subsequent ones are at the origin of modal logic. [ Perhaps Blanché's hexagon is particularly useful in the domain of modal logic, in so far as it explains clearly the nature and importance of the bilateral possible. The notion of "bilateral possible" is crucially important to understand both logic and natural language when applied to modal values.]

Focus

Please don't distract discussions by introducing strawmen, as in this edit: [2]. Nobody had suggested that I or anybody be given special consideration as an experienced editor---certainly not the license to block indefinitely editors without needing to provide evidence enjoyed by administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. I said it, I didn't say anyone else did. And another editor agreed with me. 21:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At least it wasn't as long as your Hamlet meets Lucky soliloquy---to assume good faith, that is the question, or is it more fun to attack and invoke IAR.... Let us be thankful for small improvements. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

explanation of edits

Dear Dougweller:

You are right that I have a connection with Riane Eisler, and this is why i updated and corrected the page (I had not seen it before). There is a definite need for updating and correcting this page, and I did this precisely because i am familiar with her work.

I do not understand where there is a conflict of interests in this, and would greatly appreciate it if instead of just deleting what i spent a great deal of time and effort on to make the entry more informative and accurate, you would let me know what you object to in the edits. I will then proceed accordingly. I look forward to hearing and wish you all the best, David Loye — Preceding unsigned comment added by David loye (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

PS. I am a novice re editing on this site, and would appreciate your response re what i need to do. Here is my email;

[Hidden by Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)]

I have just spent another half hour bopping around this site trying to figure out: 1. how do i sign this message (it says unsigned) 2. where do i enter my email 3. how can i retrieve the edits I made 9I did not keep a copy and they took a long time and lots of effort0 4. most important, what is needed to legitimize my edits thank you, David Loye — Preceding unsigned comment added by David loye (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

1. Type four consecutive tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message. The server will convert it to a linked signature (like mine), with a timestamp, when you submit your edit.
2. Check the box in the User Profile panel of your Preferences page that says “Enable e-mail from other users”. I have hidden the URL you supplied above, and I suggest you delete it: as a ‘public place’ any page on this site may be trawled by spam-bots.
3. If your edits were simply reverted or overwritten, they will still be in the page history. I wouldn’t recommend putting them back without discussion, but you can copy & paste the content to your own system (or perhaps to your sandbox). If they’re not accessible from the page history, you’ll have to ask an administrator for help: there’ll be a log entry showing who did the “RevDel”.
4. Sorry, I can’t give much advice here, except to refer you to the conflict-of-interest policy.

—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Early greetings for the new year

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

You're always a good guy. That's saying a lot. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved

Orangemike took care of Cherokee calendar, so problem solved. Happy New Years! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yep, that did it. Stupid article, but Cherokee Moons Ceremonies needs fixing, too many moons, title should probably be changed, and what's the bit using the Western calendar months? 18:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to stay away from indigenous religious articles but will check it out. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Earthquake prediction

You said you'd come back to do some editing of this article based on a source you found. Do you still plan to? --Elvey (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, I've got other things to do of more interest to me. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User_talk:Elvey apropos Earthquake prediction. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. In particular, I have looked at your warning on my talk page, and appreciate the input, but it looks to me to be misuse - quite out of line. Such warnings should be used with due care. Sentence one of EDITWAR:"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."
I'm going above and beyond to do the latter - "resolve the disagreement by discussion." I've actively engaged in discussion, whereas, in contrast, all other recent reverts were not accompanied by talk page comments, but did you warn those edits' editors? What warning would be appropriate? And I've put forward various solutions to try and reach agreement. It's not much of a discussion when I'm the only one talking on the talk page, but I've done my part and then some. Only to the extent that I need to be aware of 3RR when reverting even when it's clear there's an unwillingness of the other editor to engage in debate, I do see the warning as potentially apropos, but I don't think I've even violated 2RR, even in that situation. If you disagree, please let me know where my reasoning fails, OK?
I and other editors have not only provided a ton of evidence of notability (~5-6 RS citations) for the Coren research I added. Furthermore, I've painstakingly explained how the ton of evidence provides the notability required by policy, despite confusion of other editors regarding something else, "scientific notability" being the appropriate metric, and where I see they've gone wrong. Lastly, but importantly, take a look at the content of the edit that I'm defending, and the additional sources I added to the talk page. The implication that I'm pushing pseudoscience as The Truth is just baseless when one looks at the content I've actually contributed. So I'm doing better at following policy both with respect to how I'm editing and interacting with other users and with respect to the content of the edits than the other editors I indicated. Couple more things: J. Johnson is alienating many editors of this article, and several have laid well-founds accusations of OWN violations; maybe I should take a break, but if anyone needs warning or more, it's JJ. Final point: my last edit to the article was not a revert - in whole or in part - BUT for some reason the edit summary indicates it was. Elvey (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I used the warning with due care. [3]"Revision as of 21:41, 28 December 2012",[4] "Revision as of 02:03, 29 December 2012", [5]"Latest revision as of 15:31, 29 December 2012". Which, since the last revert says "(Undid revision 530265298 by Mikenorton", appears to be 3 reverts within 24 hours. Two points. Most importantly, it's the second paragraph that discusses 3RR - it doesn't matter how much you discuss it, 3RR still applies. However, there's something wrong here as despite the automatic edit summary this doesn't appear to be a revert. This is where WP:AGF comes in - instead of asking me why I warned you, you've accused me of misusing the template. Since the edit summaries clearly indicate 3 reverts, the template was justified. I'll ask elsewhere about the edit summary. (you noticed the edit summary as I was writing this edit). Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, appears to be, and you're right - of course 3RR still applies, but as you now see, I didn't break 3RR, and I didn't break 2RR. (Though it looked like I may have been a revert away from breaking 3RR - but only if you didn't bother to look at my edits.) As I explained above, you falsely accused me of edit warring, and you haven't disputed that and yet you haven't withdrawn the accusation. So even if I had violated 2RR <sic>, which I hadn't and you acknowledge I hadn't, you abused the template by using it to accuse me of edit warring.

In short, You *DID* abuse the warning template. So I wasn't wrong to say so, or required to not say so and instead ask you if you did. If you're going to keep complaining about me doing so AND ignoring the bulk of my post above, I don't see much point in continuing the conversation.--Elvey (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are responsible for what you say whether you use a template to say it or not. --Elvey (talk)

(talk page stalker) (munching popcorn) This is getting interesting. Doc talk 11:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Or boring. I've ignored the bulk of his post as I'm only concerned with the 3RR. Obviously I was mistaken and I've raised that at [6], but denying 2 reverts is at best a misunderstanding of 3RR (he was reverting 2 editors who removed material he'd added). I've tried again to explain 3RR on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reverse immigration in the United States

The article Reverse immigration in the United States has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


Just FYI. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

After also taking a quick look at Illegal immigrant population of the United States, I'm convinced that User:Nanoatzin needs a topic ban on subjects related to illegal immigration, if not an indef block for deliberate disregard of bedrock WP principles. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm, have you seen [7]? Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had already seen that. Any time I hear about editors or edits that purport to "correct" Wikipedia by showcasing ideas or arguments that cannot be traced to an RS, warning bells go off. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Carlebach

Thank you for taking an interest in this article. I originally, years ago (2007, I think), introduced the Lilith material, without the caveat about the controversiality of the timing of the allegations. An edit war ensued. An admin User:MPerel helped work out a consensus. Over the years, although I personally think the allegations need no caveat, I've tried to maintain the balance established by my initial edits and the caveat.

You're right, the refs backing the caveat, as you found them, were inadequate. I've reintroduced the caveat per a quote from one of the existing refs (which I've referred to in my edit summary), and one new ref, which I've similarly summarized in my edit summary, and one new ref where I've "hidden" the quote I'm relying on in the code.

If you start a new thread on the talk page and can help achieve a new consensus for removing the caveat, I'll agree. Happily. But short of that, please consider leaving things as they are, with the new refs you've prompted me to find and add. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

please help agains vandalism

Hello dear Dougweller,

as a user i have a problem, and i hope you can help me. I have uploaded a map, which is made by Professor M. Izady, Columbia University, USA. This map is describing the linguistic composition of middle east. And I have added that to wikipedia (Article: kurd ) or ( kurdish language ), in all languages in wikipedia. But a turkish fascist user, who hates kurds, delated my map. I did “undo” but now my commons picture ( the map ) is removed “becoz of licenzing”. I think, it is done by the same fascist user ( takabeg ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Takabeg

And now I don’t know what I can do against this vandalism. Here you see my scientifical source and the link to Professor Dr. Izady’s work in Columbia University.

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.jpg

example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language

I thank you for your help and info. Best regards, SagapaneSagapane (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to the first Gulf/2000 link above, permission is required for publication of their maps. I suggest you e-mail Dr. Potter as instructed there; you will then need to tag the image showing the copyright owners’ permission for WP to use their work under a suitable licence. Whatever motivations the proposer may have had, removal of unlicensed material is quite justified. (I note the map itself bears a copyright notice.) Finally, please observe that Commons is a separate site. You should contact a sysop there for administrative help, if required: perhaps the one who deleted the file.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your explain, i just have sent a message again to dr. Izady, it will work :-) new happy year Sagapane (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Philip Coppens

I decided to create the page so that other editors and anonymous can find the page more easily(?) and edit/expand it. If I did something against Wiki policies, I'm sorry. BTW, the text from that page is copied from his facebook page, I guess.--Hydao (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If you search for Philip Coppens on Wikipedia, you'll find MANY articles with his name (external links). Curiously, there is nothing(?) about the other Philip Coppens (chemist). --Hydao (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Which means we have a lot of people more interested in fringe stuff than chemistry. But you'd expect that. So far as copying material another person has written, we all have copyright for our own text, which is why copying material from article to article (or draft to article) is a copyright violation unless it is made clear where it came from, usually by a link in the edit summary. Of course if the material is from elsewhere, than both of you may have committed copyright violations. I know the new editor copied material directly from Coppens' website, which I removed. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I linked many pages, you can see them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Philip_Coppens_%28author%29 ... there are probably more Wiki pages that uses his site and etc as a reference, I'll check them later on. I don't know why no one created a Wikipedia page about him before... oh well. Also, it would be nice if you helped a little bit with the page, my English is not the best. :) Cheers. --Hydao (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

Doug, would you help with a developing edit war on the article Ecclesiastes? There's an editor who insists on reverting to his own version and makes very little attempt to discuss on Talk. Havensdad is the problem - two other editors have posted on Talk, but they haven't been edit-warring. PiCo (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ibbetson

Re: this comment by you, Denzil Ibbetson is one of "my" rescue jobs, improved from some mostly unsourced stuff. For the full monty of Raj social engineering, H. H. Risley is more complete example. What a bunch of twits; and no wonder I tend to reject Raj sources in Indic articles! - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Latchford ownership

Please, come on. Stephen Latchford is my great-grandfather. What I'm trying to do is shed some light on his history, on his life. The reason I took out some personal information is because some of his relatives weren't too pleased about that stuff being online and wanted the article to be about Ste3phen Latchford himself only and not his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abmaoja (talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please review the recent edit history of this article. I'm trying to explain myself in edit summaries, but I have no wish to see this devolve into an edit war and the other editor seems to be ediing his relative's article with a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP David in DC (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Get this for wiki-commons?

Doug, is there any way to get this diagram of the ancient Israelite cosmos for wiki-commons? I'd like to use it for articles like Biblical cosmology and Genesis creation narrative. (You'd be surprised how little I know about the mechanics of Wikipedia).

And yes, I'll stick with the Talk page on Ecclesiastes. PiCo (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's copyright to Logos Bible Software or something like that, so unless they'd release it, can't do it. Fair use wouldn't apply so far as I can see. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's on flickr - I'll see if I can contact the person who put it there (maybe the copyright owner) and get his agreement. PiCo (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

scandal at Richard Montgomery High School

I'm reasonably close to this incident, so let me lay it out a bit better. Jerry Weast was very controversial in his day; it's not surprising that people take potshots at him. That said, I would tend to read what went on as a bit of percussive sublimation: I wouldn't take the findings seriously and would understand that he was kicked upstairs and made to get rid of his business in order to snuff out the scandal. I therefore am inclined to reduce the material a lot, but not necessarily excise it entirely. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Cut the Examiner.com stuff which can't be replaced now as it's blacklisted, and a bit more. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unicorn144

As suggested, I read through his userpage; also his talk page.He certainly seems to possess very firm ideas, which are perhaps some way away from the norm of thought, even for those of us who subscribe to a mainstream religion. I feel that so long as he restricts himself to his own pages we should take no action - you could make a case for deleting his userpage as being outside the policy guidelines for a wiki userpage, but as it is essentially incomprehensible dogma I do not see it doing any harm; and his talk-page is, of course, his own. But I do agree that we should be very rigid in preventing any OR or POV content from slipping into mainspace, and should be fair but firm in warning or blocking as appropriate should his editing overstep the mark.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

No, those IPs are not mine. One is from Brazil, the other I have no idea. --Hydao (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think they were you, but I know I've edited logged out by mistake in the past. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrase

Of course close paraphrase is out and using the actual copy-paste as a starting point is a total no-no. I din't mean to suggest that in my edit summary, although, as you point out, it could easily be interpreted that way. In any case WP:SPS already disallows almost all of the content in whatever form it was presented. Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was pretty sure we were actually on the same page with this. Thanks for telling me. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Uyunid dynasty

Ashrf1979 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Ibrahim888 Deletes a photo of the currency because it proves that the Uyunid dynasty was a Muslim Shiite This behavior is very bad And damages the credibility of the article and its neutrality words written on the currency is (Ali Wali Allah) It is a proven Shiite faith of the Uyunid dynasty It's like a cross for Christians All other Shiite dynasties wrote the same words(Ali Wali Allah) on their Coins (Fatimids, Safavids and Buyids) I'm sorry because the source is in Arabic & My English is weak But you can verify the validity of these sources from neutral sources

http://up.arab-x.com/Jan12/vaM04902.jpgfmt

http://arabic.rt.com/forum/imagehosting/27443_01301471123.jpg

http://www.jasblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bahrain2_thumb.jpg

We can't use an image as a source in this way. We need reliable sources. Your English doesn't seem that bad. I've just deleted some material from the article and placed it on the talk page as I can't understand it. Take the discussion to the new talk page - but if they were supported by the Seljuk I'd think they were Sunni, why would the Sunni support a Shiite dynasty? It doesn't matter to me, what matters is that we have reliable sources per WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem You do not speak Arabic In fact they allied themselves with the Seljuk for a short Time But they turned against them And killed Bakosh Seljuk Sultan's brother (Malikshah)Was mentioned on Ali bin al Mugrab Al Uyuni in one of his poems. Abdullah bin Ali Al Uyuni Arresting and killing Bakosh Then the extermination of the Seljuk garrison ,After that Sultan Malikshah sent two thousand troops to punish Abdullah bin Ali These forces surrounded Al-ahsa one year But in the end, Abdullah bin Ali defeated those forces and expelled from Bahrain, Ibrahim888 The only display one page of history To say that this page is all history This is a wrong thing.

I'm sorry, my sources in Arabic and I will try to find the source of the English language But I think it's good that someone neutral Check my sources and other Side sources

(بعد الانتصار الكبير الذي حققه عبد الله بن علي العيوني على خصومه، أحس بأن القائد السلجوقي (البقوش) ينافسه على السلطة، حيث بدت مطامعه السياسية تتمثل في رغبته بإزاحة عبد الله بن علي، وانتزاع الأحساء من يده، فوقع الخلاف بينهما، وتطور إلى الحد الذي دفع بالأمير عبد الله بن علي العيوني إلى أن يقبض على القائد السلجوقي (البقوش) ويسجنه، ثم يأمر بقتله بعد ذلك.

أثار نبأ مقتل البقوش حفيظة الخلافة العباسية المتمثلة بالسلطة السلجوقية التي اعتبرت أن قتله تهديد لسيادتها ونفوذها على بلاد البحرين، التي تعتقد أنها أصبحت جزءاً من ممتلكاتها. فما كان من الخلافة والدولة السلجوقية إلا أن سارعت بتجهيز جيش قوامه ألفا فارس بقيادة القائد السلجوقي ركن الدين[11] ، الذي وصل إلى الأحساء وحاصر عبد الله بن علي لمدة عام كامل استمرت خلاله المناوشات بين الطرفين، وبعد أن مل جنود السلاجقة من طول الحصار، خرج لهم عبد الله بن علي ومؤيدوه الذين تمكنوا من إيقاع الهزيمة بهم، وإبعادهم عن الأحساء[12] .

يقول ابن المقرب ذاكرا هذه الواقعة:

والشركسية إذ جاءت تطالبنا

دم البقوش وفينا تَقْسِمُ القسما

كما قال أيضاً:

ضربنا وجوه الشركسية دونه

وأقفاءها بالسيف حتى تثلما)

Sources:

نايف بن عبدالله الشرعان ,نقود الدولة العيونية في بلاد البحرين ,صفحة49,مركز الملك فيصل للبحوث والدراسات الاسلامية 2002/1423 Nayef bin Abdullah Craan, coins of Uyunid state Bahrain, page. 41, King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, 1423 - 2002.

---

د. فضل بن عمار العماري، ابن المقرب وتاريخ الإمارة العيونية في بلاد البحرين، ص 23. D.fadal Ben Ammar Amari, bin al Mugrab Al Uyuni and the history of the Uyunid emirate Bahrain, p 25.

I'll try to get some help with this. Meanwhile can I remind you about WP:Edit summaries when you edit an article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Hello, I am an Arabian historian who has been studying the Uyunid dynasty for more then 15 years. Al though my English is not the best, I try very hard to make sure that, wrong or fake information does not go out there which then gives people the wrong idea of what the Uyunid dynasty was really all about. Which was what this person Ashrf1979 was doing.Most of the information I have put in the article are translated from arabic.

I have valid documents and many reliable sources that indicates and shows that the Uyunid Family was Not Shia. When they defeated the quainins they negotiated with the Shia minority that lived in Bahrain that they must obey the rules of the Uyunid dynasty, who lived in al ahsa were it was a Sunni population.

The Uyunid family was a Sunni family from the start of Islam to this day. It's like the Bahrain royal family and the Bahraini Shia population. It was exactly the same, just because they ruled over Shias did not make the family it self Shia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim888 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Ibrahim888 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Burdi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Durham University people

Hi, saw that you had removed some non-links from this list. I notice that there are quite a few unlinked people still listed. Presumably those should be removed too? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to be careful. Check to see if there actually is an article. Being the author of a notable book is probably enough, athletes who meet the criteria, being a professor isn't enough, a high court judge or a senior general would be, etc. It's good to be familiar with our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am, of course, well aware of those criteria.--ukexpat (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest you weren't - quite a few people read my page so I try to make my responses explicit. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Uyunid dynasty

Apparently this article needs to be locked down. My reference stating they were Sunni was removed without explanation. Such edits usually initiate edit wars. I see no reason why User:Ashrf1979 can not use the talk page to explain his/her edits. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree! But I think that he should be blocked if possible, so that people can see that Uyunids are infact Sunni. Thank you.Ibrahim888 (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)I provided ​​two sources confirm my opinion And I can provide more And you remove a photo coin And you remove the image coin because they reveal the falsity of the claim. Ashrf1979 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)I also have sources confirm they are Shi'ite Muslims These sources are authors Saudis and Sunni Muslims Because we did not agree I suggested to ignore there religious beliefs I proposed to delete the reference to religious sect I suggested that writes in the article that they are Muslims and Arabs.

Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Armenianism#Cemetery_vandalism_in_Jerusalem --Երևանցի ^talk 21:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Another concern

Judging from this edit[8], it would appear that Bahrani people needs to be protected and the talk page utilized. I have yet to see user:Ashrf1979 post anything on either talk page. It appears user:Ashrf1979 and user:Ibrahim888 are edit warring over the Uyunid dynasty, Bahrani people and List of Sunni Muslim dynasties articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree! But, that is because Ashrf1979 would not prove any if his points nor will he/She talk on the talk pages. When Ashrf1979 edits he does not say why he changed this thing that I have a very clear and verified sources of, he would delete and change it without explaing why he did so. He has a wrong understanding of the subject and he is very keen in his idea. Ibrahim888 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Theresa Spence

Dougweller I fail to see how you draw the conclusion that I am involved in an edit war on the Theresa Spence page, when I have performed only one revert on that page, hardly a war!. Please explain how one revert is classed as an edit war? You have also chosen to deleate my reverted text without providing a reason other than the "edit war" excuse,please explain why you deleated the reverted text?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Three reverts the way we count them:

02:13, 6 January 2013‎ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_Spence&oldid=531549924

03:50, 6 January 2013‎ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_Spence&oldid=531562172

04:05, 6 January 2013‎http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_Spence&oldid=531563932

My edit summary didn't say anything about an edit war, it said "why do we care about the finances of her husband? looks like a BLP violation to me, a possible attempt to tar Spence".

Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The first two instances were not reverts, they were failure to provide reliable sources, there was no undoing/reverting. New text was entered and a reliable source was added after the second failure to provide a reliable source. So only one revert so far. I did not get any notification, on my email or my talk page, that you had edited the Theresa Spence text even though it is on my watchlist. I dont know if that is an error on Wikipedia's part or an error on your part. I will address your edit later, once you agree that I have only made one revert to the Theresa Spence page--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone reverts you, you replace the material slightly reworded or in a different place, someone reverts that and you do the same thing -- 3 reverts or edit-warring, take your pick. I wouldn't take the chance of being blocked if I were you. I can't control your watchlist, and if you want to discuss my edit then I suggest you use the article talk page so others can't see it. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. In my case my first two edits were reverted due to technical errors e.g. lack of reliable sources, not because the other editor objected to the content of my edits. In my particular case I disagree in your interpratation of reverts/s--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you are claiming an exemption. That won't fly, see WP:NOT3RR. And not that it matters, but the 2nd revert was because they objected to the content, calling it coatracking. As I said, that doesn't matter, the 3RR warning was correct - none of the exemptions listed apply. Please also note that now that you've been warned once, any breach of 3RR in the future can result in a block without warning. Some editors assume that they would need another warning and I wouldn't want you to get blocked because you thought that to be the case. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, please advise me as to how I may appeal your decision.--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly a decision, it's a warning. You can ask why I am counting 3 reverts at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring and I give you permission to copy any of my post there. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Dougweller: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

The Invention of the Jewish People

There are plenty of scholarly reviews that not included in the article positive and negative it would be nice if someone improve the article with scholarly material [9].I can provide you the full text sources if your intersted.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you put that on the talk page? I really have a lot of articles that are more important to me than this one Shrike, I'm sorry. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I

Your thoughts

Since you were initially part of the discussion on the Uyunid dynasty article, could you give your opinion to my latest idea? I have proposed using the source I found and removing the "coin sources" and some obsure book by Al-Amari(which has no quote or page number), if no evidence is provided within a week. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yates' DNA of Melungeons

Here is a video of Yates being interviewed discussing the Melungeon results he conducted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyW0Y85lho The above interview was for the TV Station KCSG and here is a link to their website: http://www.kcsg.com/

Here is another link on it: http://melungeons.com/articles/jan2008.html

The above site was one of the first websites specifically for the Melungeon research back in 2002.

This is a link that goes to the DNA report in it's entirety: "Toward a Genetic Profile of Melungeons in Eastern Tennessee," the study was co-authored by Donald N. Yates" https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yMvCaOMHRigJ:dnaconsultants.com/images/Article_Toward_a_Genetic_Profile_of_Melungeons_in_Tennessee.doc+Middle+Eastern,+Native+American,+Sub-Saharan+African+and+Iberian+ancestry+within+our+Melungeon+descendant+sample.&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMq5_hu9yMQthoTRus7W4pPIlei34voS_XuvQpny3_TkafDjxVbARBz9razXGe9qaby2a33AL2wdvrbIT41acurq0i64a3RQFy05AOx0FKtiFetEYWFYa7mfFQxBTBMZ06kHsQ&sig=AHIEtbTZxf2Puj66uR3gSiI3C5TjHzpqYg

This was also in The Appalachain Journal Vol.38 num.1

Appalachian Journal - A Regional Studies Review

Appalachian Journal, founded in 1972, is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed quarterly featuring field research, interviews, and other scholarly studies of history, politics, economics, culture, folklore, literature, music, ecology, and a variety of other topics, as well as poetry and reviews of books, films, and recordings dealing with the region of the Appalachian mountains.

http://appjournal.appstate.edu/issues/volume-38-no-1

Here is another link to it: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/55796144/toward-genetic-profile-melungeons-southern-appalachia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not sure which of the links to use, the google docs one lets people see the article in it's entirety, the other link was article wrote by Yates talking about the report, and then we have the peer reviewed pubished link but it does not let us read it fully. The other link is right the news station but it is a youtube link so it can not be used. So which of these links meet's wikipedia's standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Racist, hate speech, forum-like comments in the article talk page

Hi. Can I clean up/revert such things from the talk pages? Do users/editors have right to clean/revert edits on the talk pages? Where should I report such behaviors? For example please see this talk page, this one, and this edit. Specially comments by these three users: 1, 2, and 3. Full of racist, insulting, hate speech, and anti-ethnic comments plus personal attack directed at editors (specially a specific ethnicity). How can/should I deal with them? Thanks. Zheek (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Hebrew Cosmology for Wikicommons

I want this diagram of the ancient Israelite cosmos for Wikicommons - it can illustrate Biblical cosmology and Genesis creation narrative and other articles.

The blog where I found it is kept by James McGrath, who is an academic in the field of biblical studies. That vouches for the drawing's accuracy, but only just.

The drawing was done by a graphic artist named Michael Paukner. Paukner has messaged me that he's happy to have it used provided he's identified as the artist/copyright owner.

Problems: being on McGrath's blog isn't really much good as proof of its authenticity, and I gather Paukner actually deisgned it for something called Logos 5 bible software], who might therefore be the real copy-holders now - I'm not sure how copyright works (I'll try and contact Logos 5).

Do you have any suggestions? PiCo (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Theresa Spence ANI Discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the recent Theresa Spence-related disputes. Thank you. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Do not collect was blocked as a sock

FYI--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Talk:Md Sabur Khan.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've got mail!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)

Howdy. "Marine" and "marines' is never a proper noun unless it is modified by some sort of modifier thingee. Further, I am not sure if ol' AJ said the quote or if he wrote it. I suppose it would make a difference. In any case, I will adopt my middle road default as I do on minor disagreements; I will not change it, but I will not object if others do.

In any case, my valiant fight against overuse of capital letters goes on. Thank you so much for noting my work. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Watch out for 'biblical' - I thought the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters meant that when the word marines is shorthand for Marine Corps it should be capitalised - it's understood that what Jones meant was the Marine Corps and thus should be upper case - and the quote should be reported as it is in the article in any case even if he just said it and didn't write it. I see you didn't get involved in the god debate. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Americas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Melungeon page

Hey, I was wondering if you knew how Asa Goins' picture became used as the picture for Melungeons on the wikipedia page? I wrote more about who the man in the picture is on the Melungeon talk page. The man was never traced to the Melungeons. Asa Goins came to Hamilton county, Tenn in "1843". His parents was Jackson and Jennie Goins of Georgia. The Goins of Georgia was never traced to any of the Melungeon families, there is no records of any melungeons in Georgia. There is no records of who the parents of Jackson and Jennie Goins either. All that is known is they was born in Georgia in the 1700's. Which would make them no relation to any Melungeon families. There is no mention of anyone in this family called Melungeon or traced to any Melungeon families. The first and only time the word Melungeon was attached to Asa was in a book wrote in 2001 which was based on assumption due to the Goins name. The picture itself was taken in Graysville,Tenn not Hancock or Hawkins county, Tenn. When people see this picture on a page about a family from Newman's ridge, it gives a false image. Directly under the picture of Asa Goins it says "Originally in the vicinity of Cumberland Gap (East Tennessee and Eastern Kentucky. Later migrations to throughout the United States)". You can check google or anything else on "arch goins" and "asa Goins" and confirm that this guy and his family was never a part of these Melungeon families or near the Melungeon area. I figured I would bring this to your attention since you watch the Melungeon page alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to trace the origins of that picture some more, the original submitter is still a unknown person who apprently passed it off to a barbara goins. It is not Asa Goins as originally thought. Barbara list it as Arch goins 1920, but other descendants of Arch says it is not Arch goins. I tried to trace these Graysville families to the melungeon families in hanockc county or hawkins county and closest i could get was grainger county without marriages to the known melungeon families. I added all i could find to the melungeon talk page. Personally I think the 1890 published and confirmed melungeon photo of Calloway collins would be a better photo since there is no confusion from any melungeon researchers as to where he was from and no question that Caloway was defiently melungeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Page 36 of North from the Mountains a Folk History of the Carmel Melungeon Settlement, By John S. Kessler, Donald B. Ball, http://books.google.com/books?id=7JIiaLRS4VMC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=%22a+typical+malungeon%22&source=bl&ots=Yxl3f3bh_Y&sig=GdpWlrtc2ZluhcsF82VZwHCrnys&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXjwUMu7HYb62gXv7oCgCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22a%20typical%20malungeon%22&f=false

This image of the newman's ridge melungeons should be used for the image of the melungeons since it is verified and was published in 1890, thus making it published before 1923. Will Allen Dromgoole (October 26, 1860-September 1, 1934) This means the life plus 70 years of author standard is met as well. What is your views on using the original image for the melungeon page? I have a copy of the original sketch.

It is also in "The Arena, Volume 3 By Benjamin Orange Flower, Harry Houdini Collection (Library of Congress)" on page 470-471 http://books.google.com/books?id=5m7XAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA470-IA1&lpg=PA470-IA1&dq=%22a+typical+malungeon%22&source=bl&ots=iRFB7aeBpP&sig=1MsDiXpjv5-f6v5MUm9RxU-9IrE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXjwUMu7HYb62gXv7oCgCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22a%20typical%20malungeon%22&f=false

You can also find it here: http://www.archive.org/stream/arena26conggoog/arena26conggoog_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.165.163 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Training event in Newcastle

Hello Dougweller, you indicate on your user page that you're a member of Wikimedia UK and I was wondering if you'd be interested in an event that's been arranged for February. Wikimedia UK is committed to supporting our volunteers and to encourage them to teach others how to edit Wikipedia, we are running a weekend training workshop that will take place on the weekend of 23–24 February in Newcastle. Also, if you know anyone based in Scotland or northern England who might be interested going to the training please feel free to tell them about it. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Email

Replied, ck ur email. Heiro 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Just a quick thank you Doug and to your fellow wiki admin editors that you have got to help out on the Dwygyfylchi page. Much appreciated, keep up the good work. Ta :) Only Stone tools? (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Genetic studies of Jews

Could you please help to protect this page from persistent sock puppetry. It has been targeted 5 times now by sockpuppets. Thanks and best regards.--Tritomex (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course, now it is really not the time... thank you for protecting our Wikipedia and doing great job.--Tritomex (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

On Nicholas Jarecki

First off, thank you for handling the situation with the legal threat. Quite honestly, I wouldn't have known what to do about it if I had seen it before you banned the IP address. I do have a question, though. What should we in regards to Innocence and Nicholas Jarecki working on it, or not working on it. IMBd credits him as the co-executive producer, but after looking for another source I came up empty handed. What do you propose? AndThenTheySaid (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews

Hi Doug. FYI the Ebionite duplicate/Fork page has been recreated again. John Carter is most experienced with this area so have left message on his Talk page, hope he'll pick it up. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to recall where Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel was in its previous life/title before reappearing (cur | prev) 18:33, 12 November 2012‎ Ret.Prof (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,930 bytes) (+75,930)‎ . . (Stub - Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel) ... most of it hails from here ..it's been coming and going like a yoyo. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

All I can find is when I look at his deleted edits is the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonical gospels. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems it was self-deleted and self-restored, the above article is different again. Anyway, other project editors will look at it I guess. We only need to look at what is there now. No biggie. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For all your complaining about not being informed, I see that you have notified only individuals who previously had a stake in the outcome. If this notice isn't posted on Wikiproject Religion and Wikiproject Christianity to get the perspective of the wider community, I will file an incident report with ANI. Ignocrates (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "I see that you have notified only individuals who previously had a stake in the outcome." - I notified those who had previously significantly edited the pages. Yes. You're welcome to try proving that Editor2020, IanThomson, Dougweller, StAnselm, History2007, JCarter are biased, these are just mainstream experienced WP:Religion editors. And Calliopejen1 was the one who left the merge tag. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you created the problem, not all those other editors, by not following an open and transparent process. If you try to end-run AfD by deleting the article with a redirect (again), I promise you I will take the matter to AN with the diffs to prove this is just the latest example in a long-running pattern. Ignocrates (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, you have a long and really rather remarkable history of abusing the talk pages of others to raise spurious and at times rather clearly irrational complaints about others. Your own regular posting to User talk:Jayjg with complaints about me some time ago is another example of it. You appear to have little if any grasp of the basics of acceptable behavior, and seem to have developed a pattern of harassing those with which you don't agree on the talk pages of third parties, perhaps as an attempt to divert attention from the very real possibility that your position is one which is likely to be found by virtually any neutral outsider to be untenable. I believe it might be appropriate to check the records of Jayjg's talk page to verify that this is not the first time this editor has made rather clearly baseless complaints against others in this way, and, honestly, if it continues, I think it might be sufficient grounds for a complaint at ANI or elsewhere against Ignocrates himself for this form of harassment. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try John, but I'm not about to be drawn into an ANI trap. Move on. Ignocrates (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I have gone back further into the mists of the page history and added PiCo Paine Ellsworth and Eusebeus to Editor2020, IanThomson, Dougweller, StAnselm, History2007, JCarter, Calliopejen1. I also got History2007 to do what I tried couldn't (intermittent ISP filter issue) and notify WP:Christianity. Now, you're telling me that because you and the article creator held a 2-man merge debate and no one's watchlist beeped 15 December 2012 (I was on a business trip) and spotted it till the close that the rest of the project cannot discuss a merge or AfD, and if anyone suggests AfD for an article which has already been self-deleted by the author you will take anyone suggesting AfD to AN?

The issue here is a quite normal WP:Religion/Christianity/Fringe one, and can be discussed on the talk page without generating further drama. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and you have tried to rectify the problem. Let's move on. Ignocrates (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You could have spent the time you took posting to my page notifying those projects, you know. If you don't I'm not sure what others might think if you report it to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I could have, but I'm not the one who reopened the discussion and then selectively sent out notices only to editors who previously were in favor of deletion. Ignocrates (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But you are the one who himself closed an earlier discussion in which he had been only one of two people who took part without notifying anyone yourself. So far as I can tell, you sent out no notices then yourself. I notice you seem to have taken on some of the characteristics of other editors, such as repeatedly raising smokescreen comments which have little if anything to do with the subject under discussion, but might help distract from what others might perhaps not unreasonably see as your own possible misconduct. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't place the tag for the proposal to merge, so as far as I'm concerned, I did the proposing editor a favor by facilitating a discussion. I took no position for or against a merge or deletion. As far as "raising smokescreen comments" and "your own possible misconduct", I suggest you look in a mirror before continuing down this path. Ignocrates (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary?

Do you think this qualifies as a misleading edit summary, possibly sufficient for the starting of an RfCU? John Carter (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. Meant to do that earlier. I haven't followed closely enough, possibly. Anyone else you can ask who has? Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Adjwilley might. He had also expressed concerns regarding misleading edit summaries to that editor before, and might be willing to at least consider verifying the basis of an RfCU. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussions on Conference Presentation as a reliable Source on Reliable Sources/Notice Board

Discussions are progressing . Please go through the logic and supports for dating Vedic Period, Rigved, Ayurved etc. as 10,000 years old. I would like you to comment.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussions on Reliable Sources/Notice Board on Conference Presentation as a source

You put the discussions on dating of Ayurveda on Reliable Sources/ Notice Board. Discussions are progressing there, please commentSudhirkbhargava (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your input requested

I would appreciate your opinion about a possible rename for article Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) which we are discussing on the Talk page. Editor2020 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne ADHD source

I am not sure that I understood the problem with this source. What do you mean by "copyvio" and the original one? This article is from Fairlady, July 2011's edition. It has been written by Leandi Cameron, with the collaboration of Dr. Jeeva. These informations are available on it. According to WP:NEWSORG, it seems pretty reliable to me, since both Fairlady ans Leandi Cameron are pretty well known and considered as professionnals. Would citing Fairlady's article "Can we have your attention please?" by Leandi Cameron, July 2011, p.60 instead of the website work? I don't see anything in WP:RS that goes against that. What would I need to provide for it to be accepted?

Pol9 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that copyvio means copyright violation. Yeah, that's right, it's not the original source. The original source, though, can be downloaded from the official Fairlady website and the index is available without download. If I cite the Fairlady article itself, it should be ok then? Am I wrong? What would I need to put in the ref tags? Pol9 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, borderline - I would very strongly suggest asking at WP:BLPN if the source is reliable enough for something about a living person. When you edit, do you see a templates drop down menu in the left hand corner above the edit field? Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

100 edit threshold

As Jimbo's page has now archived that thread I'll post what was going to be my reply to you here:)

I think that the village pump would be a logical place, it largely depends on how we implement it, one possible way would be via a bot message. I've started to work the idea up at User:WereSpielChequers/BotEditSummary, your collaboration would be welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 05:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.
Message added 06:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Leonel Fernández

Doug, could you please take a look at this and take whatever action you think is appropriate? I'm involved. (In case Doug isn't around and there are any talk page stalking admins who feel like looking at it ...) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Celts (modern)

I must admit that I'd forgotten all about that. I was still aware the article existed of course but as there's been no activity there for a while, so it faded away from my consciousness. Thanks for remembering and restoring the content. Paul B (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Having had a look at it, I must say the article is a mess. It's clearly dominated by the agenda-driven Celticist ideologue Jembana. Parts are barely intelligible. It looks like it needs a major overhaul. Paul B (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See [10] - latest version compared with what is was like before Jembana (except Jembana removed some unsourced stuff about Celtic identity waning as nationalism increases). Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

International Biographical Centre

Hi. I just reverted your revert on the IBC article and forgot to explain why. Sorry. I think it's great to have a picture of an IBC certificate and it seems to me that the poster's intentions were good. Having read the article the certificate refers to I don't think it looks at all promotional! Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Two points. It's huge, and I still think it is aimed not at showing the IBC but Hamid Behbahani - probably to attack him over a bogus certificate. So, BLP issue. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair comment. I've reduced the size of the image and removed the link to Behbahani. Have a look now and see if you think the BLP issue is fixed. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's probably ok now. We probably have a lot of articles that mention these awards as though they were the genuine deal. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Berzerker1982

Are you a Pagan or Heathen? 1. It was National News that Mark Stinson shamed Asatru by stealing from his own mother. 2. Bear Rollins practices Druidry and holds the Rank of Master Druid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzerker1982 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

One does not have to be a heathen or pagan to edit articles about them, one does have to adhere to our policies on WP:NOTABLE and WP:BLP, as Doug informed you at your talk page here [11]. Heiro 20:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

None of Ping Pongs statements are of value because he is not smart enough to mind is own business.

Bear Rollins did have a page, but some little Christian Nazi like Doug over here, deleted it. Then they said that someone who works with the Military is not important, that someone who helps Vets deal with PTSD is not important, that someone that the leader of a International Druid Order is not important, and that someone who works with the disabled is not important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzerker1982 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I advise you to go read WP:NPA immediately, using racist epithets is not tolerated here, nor is name calling. Repeat this one more time, and I ask for a block.Heiro 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for 12 hours. I don't like civility blocks, but this warrants one. It's certainly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I take a break to watch TV and miss all the excitement. Thanks guys. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've also blocked User:True Pagan as a clear sock of Bezerker here (continuing personal attacks). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't True Pagan the puppetmaster? Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tagged him as a sock of Bezerker just because the latter edited earlier. I admit I don't usually do the block and tagging of this stuff so if I've done it badly feel free to fix. I doubt he's going to be unblocked any time soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, first edit of True Pagan 08:04, 21 January 2012, of Berzerker 14:16, 21 December 2012. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And TP’s last edit was only two hours after the first! Blocked for a week a few minutes later, and doesn’t appear to have edited since.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Validity of article

KIMO Industrie-Elektronik GmbH The creator of this article is apparently the contact person at the company viz. http://www.alibaba.com/member/de112028362/contactinfo.html The article looks like an advertisement for the company. I was unable to find anything about the company on the German Wikipedia. Do we need this here?--Zananiri (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgot this, will look at it tomorrow. I've tagged it for notability, what can you tell me about the sources used? Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have looked at the references and they are a trades association by membership, and trades publications, based probably on the company's own PR and feedback. As the article has been created by an employee from India (his Talk-page speaks volumes), where the company seems to have a presence, and where Wiki means a lot to many people and businesses, I can see the motivation, especially as there is no mention of it on the German Wikipedia, unless I have missed something. Probably a question of notability. I believe you were in Rome recently. If ever you get the time (unlikely, it seems) 'The Eternal City' by Hall Caine is a wonderful book to read (about 600 pages). But I would say that, with my Manx connections, wouldn't I?.--Zananiri (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Answer

Over time a lot of articles on Islamic History have appeared on wikipedia that are very relevant to Islamic history and are important events in Islamic history and could do with having links from the main Islam page so that the main article flows and people could also click on the link and find out more. I have provided a lot of citations and most of the citations are from the Quran and authentic Hadith books from the early days of Islam and all denominations of Islam agree on these events. All I have done is weave everything that already exists on wikipedia together so that people could get a complete view. I have spent a lot of time and effort on research and linking things on Wikipedia together. I spent months researching these changes so that I could tie everything together and went through a lot of books. I would appreciate it if you could un do your delete of my changes. John

I'm very pleased you've started to communicate. Your sources are part of the problem. We don't use sacred texts such as the Bible of the Quran to prove something, we use reliable sources that comment on those texts, and not to prove something but to show a significant viewpoint (see WP:NPOV. So an edit such as "Muhammad advocated equality and justice as could be seen in the The Farewell Sermon and in the Quran" sourced to sacred texts isn't acceptable.

Are you saying that you've copied text from other articles?

I meant to post to your talk page that I raised your edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Hopefully we can sort this out with some help and advice. I'll certainly consider reverting if you can take aboard my comment about needing independent sources commenting on sacred texts rather than using sacred texts as sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I did not copy text from the other articles. Extensive content already exists in other articles in Wikipedia. I have just linked to the more relevant articles of these from the Islam article, after verifying it is correct and all the different denominations in Islam and the historian agree with it. For the sentence "Muhammad advocated equality and justice as could be seen in the The Farewell Sermon and in the Quran" I was trying to explain significant events and the reasons why divisions only surfaced after Muhammad passed away. I put a link to the The Farewell Sermon as this is a significant article on WikiPedia about Islam and talks about Equality of Mankind and shows how Muhammad managed to unite the people. There are many independent books on this and I could put in references. The quotes from the Quran also talked about equality. In the places where I put the quotes from the Quran it was not to prove something but just as a reference if some one wants to see where it said that in the Quran. I could change this and add more references, that is OK. I could change all the areas you want me to change. Thats fine. Its good that you are policing the article. The changes I made are agreed to by all the denominations in Islam and the Historians. Many of the books I used were famous books around 1400 years old.

Just get back to me when you get a chance. I could make the changes required. I was just trying to make the article flow better and be informative.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx

I just wanted to thank you for fixing my talk page. Have a nice day ;) btw: I will study those WP:BLP rules... Hamnavoe (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Another

Sorry, here's another one of those create-delete-reappear articles: Huon deletes January 2012 (previous edit is yours, as also your comments) the Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews back again June 2012 with a nearly identical title and content. Very time consuming. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability tag

Hi, I happened to notice you have tagged the article here , with notability tag , arent the reference provided suffecient enough ? (yes they are in different language but still a valid print from the magazines ? . Shrikanthv (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Training event for UK Wikimedians

Hi Dougweller, I left a message for you here a week ago. I'm just letting you know that there's been a change to the details of the training event if that influences whether or not you want to go. The response from the community is that a different location would be easier for volunteers to get to. As such the training session will be held in Manchester on the same dates. If you're interested please take a look at the event page for further details. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Moni Aizik

You reverted the whole version instead of editing the parts you are not comfortable with. If there is a controversy about a person usually it goes to a special page with an explanation. There is no real proof of M.A.'s controversy so please be objective and admit it. If you want to edit a Controversy part of an edit and you have links proving it, feel free. But you revert the whole edit you only show that you are not here for truth, but for promoting ambivalent and libelous edits offered by Moni Aizik's competitors. Romayan (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

But you seem to have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) and I'm afraid given you attempt to claim the ASA adjudication wasn't on the ASA site I find it hard to trust you. Others feel the same way. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Sigh)

You're an admin, so surely you must have a lot of experience dealing with cases of interesting IP editors... should it pique my interest that this one rather passionate IP editor on our favorite page seems to be quite familiar with the concept of OR? (see here: [[12]]). I know the term wasn't in my lexicon back in my newbie days, but I thought you might know better if that's a sign of something or if it's actually not that unusual. --Yalens (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly a sock. But I can't tell who it is. Might be someone active now, or a blocked user. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Christian Oral Tradition

Doug, Ret.Prof left an urgent message on my talk page, but I am tied up today with RL priorities (like playing with my grandson). Could you please patiently explain to him, on his talk page, whatever it is he did wrong and how to make it right. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy relief

Can you Speedy D the article page of this wip page Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip? I should have pasted the merge content to the wip talk page, and I have fixed that now Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose an RfC/U for Ret.Prof

If anyone would benefit from an RfC/U as an instructional tool, it is Ret.Prof. I don't think he is being disingenuous when he says he doesn't understand what he did wrong. I recommend that he voluntarily recuse himself from further editing until an RfC is concluded. I would not want to see him blocked, since blocks are used against people forever on this encyclopedia. I will initiate the RfC/U if you will be the second. It will give several editors with a history of encounters with him a chance to clear the air. I am proposing this RfC as someone who wants to see Ret.Prof do well and make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Ignocrates (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I try to block only when I think it's the only thing that will work, so yes. An RfC sounds a good idea, but have I worked with him enough to qualify as a seconder? Would you not consider In ictu oculi? Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You have mediated a number of disputes between Ret.Prof and various parties, so I think that makes you well qualified. I would like the two proposing editors to be individuals who have a sincere desire to help him improve. I'm not sure how In ictu oculi feels about working with him at this point, but I will ask him. Ignocrates (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'll help in any case, although I really try to stay out of this field but keep getting involved for various reasons. Just as I seem to be involved in a number of regional areas (eg India). Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Ignocrates left a message on my Talk page, and I've looked at Ignocrates' Talk and RetProf's Talk. Seems not too dramatic. RetProf saw your link to the facing version of Oral gospel traditions as it is now post Huon's delete merge and doesn't realise that his 283 edits are still there in the history. Looks like a misunderstanding.

As far as RfC/U, I don't see any likely benefit. There is a certain amount of cleverness in the way articles are being deleted/merged/reappearing which tests my assumption of good faith a little it's true, but the main issue is OR and FRINGE which we deal with all the time on religion articles. In terms of actual cleaning up the articles PiCo is now going at the mess with a machete, so that's where I think time is best invested.

And Ignocrates, despite what you said on your Talk page I have no personal "acrimony" with you, I simply agree with John Carter on the pages/sources you and he have disputed. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The benefit of an RfC/U is that it clarifies expectations. Any interested editor can express an opinion about the problems Ret.Prof has been having and offer solutions. Ideally, that discussion will converge on a way forward for Ret.Prof to put is problematic editing behavior behind him and make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. As it is, he has been causing a lot of extra work for, and wearing out the patience of, several editors. However, you can only lead a horse to water, so to speak. The flip side of this constructive dialog is the expectation that good advice will be followed. If not, that will probably lead to a rapidly escalating series of blocks and possibly worse. As for the rest, I'm really happy to hear that. Ignocrates (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with starting an RfC/U is that it requires at least two editors being able to verify that they have discussed the same basic "problem" (generally, like application of a specific policy or guideline) with the editor before, and that, after such discussion, the editor seems to present problems being able to apply the relevant policies or guidelines to their own work. If anyone wants to start an RfC/U, it would clearly be required for those two editors to be able to verify that they have fruitlessly discussed the same matter with him before. Is it the case that at this point two editors have discussed the same sort of editing problem, regarding the same basic topic, with Ret.Prof.? If not, any attempt to file an RfC/U will not be certified, and will be, basically, aborted.

There does seem to be some sort of difficulty in this case regarding two matters, whether content merits inclusion in wikipedia, and where, if anywhere, such content should be included. I am in the process of going through some of the basic reference works on various aspects of religion, but, at least to date, haven't seen a recent, highly-regarded one on "Jewish Christianity," although I have seen a few on early Christianity, which I just haven't gotten around to for the purposes of making lists of articles in them. It could well be that one or more of them might have some sort of article, or subarticle, which directly relates to RP's subjects of interests. Until I can get to creating such lists, however, maybe the best thing to do would be to just ask him to consult the various reference works available to him, and see if any have articles or subarticles with individual "names" which, basically, deal with the theories he wishes to right about. Given he says he is a retired professor, I think it not unreasonable that he both knows what a lot of those reference works are himself, and possibly/probably can access them, particularly if he still lives near an institution he used to work at. But I don't think anyone would be likely to challenge any content which meets those standards. Zondervan put out a Bible dictionary/encyclopedia in 2009, which I think is the most recent lengthy one on that general topic, and it might be useful to consult it. I will try to generate a list of articles, which can be edited down to missing articles, from it shortly, but I'm not sure how quickly I will be able to get to it specifically. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megalithomania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fringe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

False Flagging

Doug everyone of my edits are legitimately sourced, relevant to the article sections that they are being put in, and backed by others. Since you have a problem with my edits, why not address ANY of the issues that I've raised and points that I've revealed on the talk page? The childishness and biased judgements on your part needs to stop and I will talk to the appropriate officials if it persist.[13] Asante90 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. You are trying to use the history of the controversy article to prove something - it's the wrong article. And Bauval's ancient civilizations stuff certainly doesn't belong there. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Binayak Sen

I have added a note at at the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binayak_Sen. Please check.--MohitSingh (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi Dougweller, can you help me with the revdel of latest edit by user 86.179.66.208 on my user page? I consider this RD2. Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Page stats

Every few months I type in the names of 2 or 3 articles I've created just to see how many views they get. Just typed in Mississippian culture pottery [14]. The article on 2 separate days this month(16th and the 20th) got over 450,000 hits per day. Did I miss something in archaeology news that went mainstream last week or is there something I'm missing here, lol? Heiro 16:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great - I did check a couple of other articles to see if something might be wrong, but looks ok. The best way to keep up with archaeological news is through David Meadows Explorator, see [15]. Your article now has 8 watchers. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, will check it out. I think that article if its lucky gets 50 to 100 pg views a day(going by my other similar subject articles). That deviation is so strong you can't even see the other days on that graph now, lol. Hope this means people got something useful out of it!. Still wondering what happened last week to cause that spike though. Seems like it should show up somewhere, to cause almost a million viewer spike like that, but google isn't turning up anything new and exciting.Heiro 17:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Dear Dougweller, Thank you so much for being such a great collaborator last year! I really enjoyed working with you on our editor engagement projects and I hope we'll get a chance to continue this relationship in coming years. Your guidance and insights mean a lot to me. :) If you would like to keep in touch more often, I invite you to join our editor engagement mailing list, where we discuss initiatives that support new users and experienced editors on Wikipedia. We recently opened this list to the public, so we could have more frequent conversations with valued community members like you. To join us, you are very welcome to sign up here. And if you haven't already, I also encourage you to contribute to the current discussion on whether or not to deploy Article Feedback v5 widely on the English Wikipedia (see RfC). Because of your familiarity with this tool, you are in a unique position to present an informed perspective on its potential benefits. Note that we are adding a few final features recommended by the community, such as simpler moderation tools and better filters (see project update). Thanks again for being such a wonderful advisor -- I look forward to more collaborations with you, to help make Wikipedia better for all of us! Regards as ever, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP/User

Hello. The disruptive IP/User [16] in Archaeogenetics of the Near East has been causing problems elsewhere and exceeding 3RR. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_in_multiple_pages_.2F_3RR_.2F_Sock-puppetry Cavann (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thank you very much Mr.Dougweller, I was not familiar with the fact that there was a matter of copyrights, in the article of Akhtar Hussain Malik‎, anyway I am grateful to you for this favour of reference to Wikipedia policy, and I appreciate your help in this perspective! As I am new to Wikipedia, this will help a lot to become a good editor at Wikipedia!

Best Regards, Faizan Sarfraz Al-Badri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanal-badri (talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your question has been answered...

...here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You have another reply there, but, don't see it, it's just "You're welcome" (after your "thanks"). In case if you need to convert Crore (10 million) use c in place of l like {{INRConvert|10|c}} will result ₹10 crore (US$1.2 million). --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all; another newsletter.

• If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
• Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
• We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
• Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Johnleeds1's talk page.
Message added 16:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Johnleeds1 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Left a message regarding the Islam Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Nickaang's talk page.
Message added 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Many thanks for the advise and I need helps as I never wanted to misuse wikipedia for my own benefits. NickAang (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Salem Communications

Hi, I have reworked the whole article and was wondering if you could proof it for me. Networkperson Networkperson (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. You haven't edited it for about 2 months. Someone else has however. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nyland

Sorry I forgot to get back to you on that. Yea, the author was Nyland herself. I remember it being added some year ago. As I recall, she did publish some of her researches in a legitimate publication. I must admit, I left it in because it was interesting. All the other commentary on the book seems to be about the Hittite and Mitanni languages. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If she did, it wasn't in the article. Maryannu Press was her own imprint. Quite a few Kindle only books also. [17] Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

POV-pusher user

Hi. Please check this user contributions and behavior. All of his/her edits are just POV-pushing, blanking, and introducing nonconstructive edits/errors to the articles. You warned him/her before. his/her talk page and edits. Check and verify the articles he/she edited. All of them are reverted. Zheek (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yaboyabo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Los Lunas Decalogue

My understanding of External Links is that they are just that, and so create no COI. In a page on Ford automobiles, for example, one would expect an external link to FMC's own page extolling their cars, so long as this was not used as an authority for their superiority in the article itself. It could, however, be used as an authoritive source for the fact that they claim superiority in some dimension. HuMcCulloch (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:SELFPROMOTE, See also WP:ELNO which probably applies to the latest link you added. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wikpedia format guide calls for explanatory and citation footnotes to be in a section called "==Notes==", with "==References==" reserved for a list of referenced sources. If I change "==References==" to "==Notes==" and add "==References==", will footnotes still find their way to "==Notes=="? Or should I just try it and see what happens? HuMcCulloch (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Short answer is no, but where are you finding this guidance? I'm guessing that one refers to sfn footnoting. Can you give me a link to the guidance? All references should have inline citations. You will find articles that have a list of references with no clue as to how they are used, and that's always a bad idea in my opinion as since we are supposed to be able to very anything with a source, what use is a source when you don't know what it's used for, and since for books we want page numbers that's another problem. Have you read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS on sources? Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout? As I interpret it, when you mix notes and references, the recommendation is to use either "Notes" or "Footnotes.

You know that generally personal websites aren't considered reliable sources? See WP:SPS. I really think you should ask about this at WP:RSN, especially as you have a clear conflict of interest there. See also WP:COIN where you can discuss conflicts of interest. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking at Manual of Style/Layout. Right now the sources cited are embedded in the footnotes, but generally the footnotes go in a section to be called ==Notes== and the sources cited, if separately listed, in a section to be called ==References== (though these titles may vary somewhat). Uncited relevant sources go in a subsequent section to called ==Further Reading==. I'm guessing that {{reflist 2}} will contain all the footnotes, no matter where it appears in the source code.

Much in the article, including the entire first paragraph, the report that Hibben said he saw the stone in 1933, and even the claim that the NM land office sells access permits, is completely unsourced. Who says the illustrated stone is 35 miles S of Albuqueque on a mountain side? Who says it can be interpreted as the Decalogue in PH script? Who says YHWH appears 4 times? (It actually only appears 3 times in the decalogue inscription itself, according to numerous but uncited sources.) Who claims it is evidence of pre-columbian contacts? There are several sources on Sandia Man, but almost nothing on Los Lunas. (Prescott deserves to be mentioned as the author of the New Yorker article, BTW.)

David Deal's self-published book and Tabor's online article with Hibben interview (still available though the Wayback Machine) answer many of these questions authoritatively enough, even if you don't like their interpretation of the authenticity of the inscription. Deal provides an eye-witness account that the stone exists, backed up with photos, plus a careful transcription and comparison to the Bibclical text. It appears that you deleted a reference to it a while back. The Juergen/Fox website provides a transcription and translation that is simlar to Deal's, but more accessible to most readers.

You are right about reflist - note that I added nowiki to your use of it above to show it clearly. I agree that much in the article is unsourced. It isn't easy to find reliable sources. I probably did delete Deal as his book doesn't meet our criteria as a reliable source. James Tabor would be ok although you need to attribute him. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is Tabor's essentially self-published ear-witness account of his interview with Hibben a reliable source for it, when Deal's eye-witness account (backed with photos) of the "extraordinary claim" that the stone exists and is sited as claimed is not? It may be hard to find, but Williamson's eye-witness account (backed with better photos) is thoughtful and readily accessible. In any event, Deal's book is an authoritative source for the claim in the article that "some claim" the stone is evidence of pre-columbian Old World contacts. And also that "it has been interpreted" as the Decalogue in PH script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuMcCulloch (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess you could make an argument that Tabor who is a reliable source for some material is not a reliable source for this. But what criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS are you saying Deal meets that makes his self-published book a reliable source? Remember we have our own meaning for "reliable source". WP:SPS says " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - that disqualifies Deal and you may be right that it disqualifies Tabor. It certainly disqualifies Williamson. As I said, if you disagree after having read our policy and guideline, feel free to ask at WP:RSN but I'd also read WP:FRINGE as well. And WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a References section and a NM State Lands webpage as a neutral authority for the otherwise unsubstantiated extraordinary claim that this inscription exists in the alleged location. I suggest we move this discussion to the Los Lunas Talk page, where it will be more accessible to other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuMcCulloch (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, always the best place for a discussion about an article. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DNA history of Ancient Egypt

Hi, you removed DnaTribes analyses on this article saying "it is not a reliable source". But on the other side, you left IGENEA which cannot be considered as more reliable.

Indeed, IGENEA, same kind of company than DnaTribes, reconstructed DNA profile of Tutankhamun, based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel but the Y-chromosome of King Tut has never been published and DNA profile displayed in Discovery Channel documentary may not belong to the Pharaoh. Indeed, according to Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tübingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible"...

So if you want to "stick to peer-reviewed studies" you have to remove IGENEA as well...90.36.167.101 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC))

I haven't had a chance to look at that but I was planning to. The issue is that Pusch responded, which might be a reason to leave it in. I'm off for the night soon but will look at it tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

the iGENEA report received a large amount of media attention and is well-sourced to independent reliable sources. Not so for the DNA Tribes report. So we report iGENEA because of the attention it got, and we don't mention DNA Tribes because they fail WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

re: I don't think you meant

Sorry, that's my mistake. I didn't notice that vandalism was made by multiple IPs. --Makecat 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Phantom time hypothesis

Thanks for letting me know about the revert to earlier vandalism. As I recall that there were some intermediate edits and I was trying to revert one of those that was also vandalism. Obviously, there was even earlier vandalism that did not handle. It's good to get a reminder to check on whether there was even earlier vandalism to an article. I have seen it a few times before. I think I may occasionally assume a revert takes care of a problem with an article. While usually true, it is not always the case, especially if the earlier vandalism was done by a different user or if one needs to use undo rather than rollback because of intermediate edits. Donner60 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And I just noticed at another article I hadn't reverted far enough! Good thing an IP spotted it. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Oh, thanks a lot - I give him an answer. It's just the Brazilian political sewage effluent discharging into Wikipedia... - Al Lemos (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Sorry for thed confusion, I haven't submitted for a long time but I've worked on it and would like you to look at it before submitting the rest of it. I did edit today, I put in all the stations with market/format/station freq. The formatting didn't come out very well. How do I submit something for you to review before I actually edit on Wiki? Networkperson (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

one photographer

Thank you for this. Well, I (sadly) expect to see attempts at self-promotion. What I don't expect to see is the welcome extended to it here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly surprised. I also removed his images at a couple of pages on languages. We'll see how he responds. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Roza Bal

Hello Doug. This article and User talk:SuzanneOlsson are on my watch list. Suzanne has just now restored a link to her own web site at www.rozabal.com. It should be evident from the discussion on her talk, at Talk:Roza Bal, and at WP:COIN#Roza Bal that she doesn't have consensus for this edit. She has received many warnings which she has chosen to interpret as people being mean to her. Your name has appeared on her talk page, so perhaps you've been following this. I assume you are too involved to take admin action yourself, since you've edited Roza Bal. Do you have any suggestions of how the matter should be followed up from here? It seems to me that a filing at AN3 or ANI would be possible. I had my finger on the block button, but I see that none of the regulars have asked for admin assistance. My previous statement to her at User talk:SuzanneOlsson#WP:3RR can be viewed as a final warning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you could block, but might it be better for her to see how other editors and Admins react? ANI gets more input but I'm not sure which board is more appropriate. It's certainly time to do something, she's wasting our time. Whatever you do I'll block you, I don't think she's ever going to understand what she's being told. And what is going on with the editor who just posted below this? Some weird stuff.[18] Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of taking Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Suzanne M. Olsson to MfD. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones

Dougweller. Re Georgia Guidestones. LOL are you having a bet each way, copyrighted and I made it up. Clearly this material pushed your buttons, but I meant it as well meaning background stuff re who what and why re it was built. It is from an ex 32 degree mason who gave it to me. IMHO its how these people think, who made these silly stones.Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

Please use more caution when summarizing your edits. See the history for Natural Bridges National Monument. You reverted four edits by User:Eyreland but the summary says you reverted my edit. I realize it must have been an oversight and no reply is necessary. –droll [chat] 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it says "(Reverted to revision 534621450 by Droll: thought I'd done this! dl copyvio." No mistake, I reverted to your last edit, it's clear that I didn't revert you. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it. I usually see something like "Reverted edits by someone (talk) to last version by someone else" or something similar. –droll [chat] 08:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I was making sure the fact it was copyvio was in my edit summary. The editor's a problem and I've told him I need reassurance this won't happen again. I thought I'd deleted it already, I've no idea what happened when I tried earlier this week. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Teeter

It is abundantly clear who wrote the material from the Teeter book. Chapter 16 is by David O'Connor and heavily cites Bruce Williams. Chapter 9 is by Bruce Williams. There is no great mystery as to who wrote portions of the Teeter book. It is very clearly stated in the book (each chapter and many pages). Therefore, it would be exceedingly biased for you to remove the Teeter citations on these grounds and if you do I will add them back. There is hardly a better source on Earth to discuss these points than Bruce Williams and people that relied on his work for their subsequent findings.Rod (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So long as they are clearly and specifically attributed, fine. I'm objecting to the lack of attribution - or rather the current attribution to Teeter, listing the book as though she is the author - indeed the sole author. The citations should show chapter titles and authors as well as page numbers. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Utsuro-bune

Hi. I have expanded this lil' curiousity and I wonder if I could put it on a candidacy. What do you think? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Too weird for me

Wiki-decorum prohibits me from saying what I think is up with this, but I am staying the heck away unless the actual content of the article starts going haywire. You are the copyright vio man, so if this is lifted from somewhere, I'm assuming we are not entitled to reproduce it at such length. It is, however, fringe nonsense, and I've been unable to trace it through searching key phrases. It's also worth noting that the user account was created with this post. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sovereign copyright of scientific research

As per Natural Bridges National Monument : I do not remember getting any of the text from any source document that had a sovereign copyright. With Canadian, Australian and NZ geological research it is fairly easy to find this out but a lot of US sovereign copyright text leaks into other places. The US is in such a state of internal collapse these days, I am amazed sovereign copyright is even able to hang on at all.

I checked my own edit list, something you could have done and this text you wrote appears not to be true:

User:Moonriddengirl posted to this page about copyvio issues you simply deleted her edit with no response here or anywhere else.

My security intelligence sources tell me a few near Tzar bomba like devices are already in US major cities and could be set off by .li for any reason. One hopes these rumors are not true, but in a failing nation state rumors are sometimes more reliable than outer sources. Eyreland (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's just creepy, although if you meant Lichtenstein maybe it was an attempt at humour. If you replied to Moonriddengirl I couldn't find it. What you mean is that the NPS site says its material can be distributed. I've struck the copyvio notice, leaving the bit about Moonriddengirl until you show me the diff. I've asked her how we handle massive copy/paste from copyright free sites. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Dougweller. Since you had warned this user to stop his disruptive editing like 3 months ago, I want you to know that I have now reported him to admins: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#EMr_KnG. He is a "man on a mission". Currently, he is busy copying the (Anatolian) Turkish name of various articles in the first line of each of them, even though the Turkish language has no relation to that article (for example Sher Shah Suri or Akbar). His user page already proves everything. Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at that one if you look at this one

Hi Doug. I'd love to look at something else. But I need a third party to help me with some very bogged down discussions on E-M215. Can you help? I think some of it comes down to how to work on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully mine is easier than yours! Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel glad that to hear that I am apparently at least not totally crazy. If I understand the latest posts correctly this editor has a proposal that we can calculate that some cells must be zero, by exclusion. There might be a few cells like that but not all. But actually what should we do in such cases? For example M78 is a part of M35 and there are a few rows where M35 is all positive for M78. I can see an argument for extrapolating in those specific cases, and so perhaps this could be discussed, but what does it add to put zeros in such cells? If "?" gives the wrong impression an NA or "-" could also work. In short the discussion is probably not over and it would be good to have some other participation. Also, the longer running debate is actually concerning the geographical names. Look a bit higher on talk.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, NA or a dash, fine. I took a quick look at the geographical thing but it made my head ache. I'm off visiting father-in-law tomorrow and on a laptop, which makes editing at least for me much harder. If I have a chance I'll look again. If Egentics edits again I might miss it so let me know as I will take him to ANI since I was the one who warned him. Note that if you do, you could get caught up or the article protected, let's try to work this out without blocks or protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just some notes:

• You remarked that this user has now registered and is no longer using IP addresses, but keep in mind that those several IP addresses only appeared a few weeks earlier, and had already attracted attention. Apart from me, you'll see two other experienced editors on my talkpage commenting on the odd impression they get that this new user was not new. Registration is clearly a reaction to such suspicions. It is not a bad thing, but by creating a registered user, discussion is deflected from that question for a while and it is worth keeping that in mind.
• This editor, in the manifestations we can identify, is absolutely thematic in editing only articles about E haplogroup, and only related to whether East Africa is mentioned. Also note the use of username. The user seems to have a quite reasonable knowledge of how to wikilawyer using different arguments at different times on different articles, and how far they can ignore other editors (if you look at the editing history I think it is impossible to believe that this editor did not know about the 3RR rule, as they have claimed to you) but the edits taken as a whole show no real concern with WP aims and policies until now.
• The history of E haplogroup editing has had many problems with edit warriors and sock puppets coming from the internet debates with issues about ethnic/ race/ political correctness etc. One of their big issues used to be about how African haplogroup E is, and this transmuted into an argument about how "sub Saharan" it is. I learned over the years that one of their big issues is about whether the Horn of Africa is sub Saharan or not. I think I can say with a clear mind that I have never been accused of being in one of these two parties!
• All of this does not mean such editors can not become good editors eventually and over the years I tried to work with all comers and avoid any wiki drama, but I've become a bit pessimistic.
• For handy reference: the RSN discussed is archived here, and my attempt to complain at 3RR is archived here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

@@===and a technical question=== Just a question for my info concerning edits of yesterday. I noted your remark that I was on 3R. I had no intention to edit at that time anyway, but I was surprised. I looked again and I still only count 2r?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, first was at 8:20, then 14:24 then 16:10. On the road in a few minutes. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well yes I guess my technical question comes down to why you say 8:20 is a revert and not just an edit? It is not reintroducing material from a previous version and it is not removing any information from a recent edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary for 8:20 says "removing information which was note tested for in the sources, and sticking to one up to date definition for E-M35* (interested readers can do the maths now, but it was misleading))" and shows removal. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I was not seeing it as removal because in fact the table still says the same thing without those 0.00 cells, but you are right I even used the word. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anything be done to stop a vandal?

Hi,

You have been kind and helpful to me in the past, so I wonder if you could please help me (and others) again. A page that I often contribute to was vandalized recently by a user whose talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.46.182.126

I did some research and found out that this user has a very long history of vandalism on Wikipedia, and since he/she exposes an IP address, I wonder why it has not been blocked yet. I believe vandals should be discouraged from making senseless edits instead of being allowed to get away with it forever. Is there anything you can do, please? Thanks in advance... P.S. If you don't mind, please reply on my own talk page to ensure that I see your response. Dontreader (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see that you are aware of the situation regarding this vandal. Many thanks for your prompt reply, and I hope a proper solution can be found. Dontreader (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Taino people edits and the "Jatibonicu"

Would you mind keeping an eye on this User talk:Heironymous Rowe#Need help with the Wikipedia process of verifying a resource and adding a citation, User talk:Japerez#Taino people edits and the "Jatibonicu", and 173.61.231.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not on Wikipedia a lot right now and don't really want to get drawn into another confrontation with that seems like WP:FRINGEY, possibly promotional editing by what appears to be a member of the organization they are seeking to add into the article Taíno people. Maybe your leveler head can help them before I step in it again, lol. Best wishes and thanks. Heiro 02:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hi

I would like to request the removal of 3 alterations in the revision deletion. My reason for requesting the removal is under the following criteria.

Criteria for redaction 2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs.

It effects 2 web pages

Ryedale School

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryedale_School&oldid=534666187

Posted on 24th January 2013 by 83.100.176.226 at 15:42

Offensive material posted about Head teacher and staff.

2. Pocklington School

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pocklington_School&oldid=534665908

Post on 24th January 2013 by 83.100.176.226 at 15.40

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pocklington_School&oldid=534665714

Posted on 24th January by 83.100.176.226 at 15:38

Please could you remove these postings they are offensive and serve no positive purposes.

I hope this is clear enough I'm not very computer literate!!!!!!!

Thank you

Jill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.66.196 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. But I only did 2, the 3rd wasn't that bad and in fact a couple of changes were good, eg changing years 7 to 16 to 7 to 11 is surely better, and there were a few more I thought might be right but didn't do anything about, at least one relating to age.

Jason Latimer

I currently work at LATIMER FX, Inc. and handle all of our web content. I completely understand the point of conflict of interest which is why I made sure to have each fact and sentence is a quote from another article, website, book, or journal. We try have all online usernames similar to maintain consistency amongst sites, however in this circumstance it looks to be not the best approach. What is the next step to preserving the article of Jason Latimer? Create a new Username? And then resubmit the article? Please advise, possibly review the article and let me know what changes need to be made. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latimeronline (talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As for your username, see Wikipedia:Username policy. You can simply open a new account - say 'Joe/JaneaLatimeronline' which would individuate you. As it stands, this looks like a group account.

I was concerned about material which is sourced to Latimer himself - sources 3 and 4 at the moment. You also directly copied material from the BBC website. I'm removing that as a copyright violation but I'd also argue that it's insufficient for the claim that he is "one of the world’s most innovative magicians." I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just saying the source doesn't suffice - among other things, it's almost certainly just written by whoever writes their tv information in order to promote the program, so you'd expect it to praise him. Ah, it seems to be gone. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I spotted that while you were writing the message and took it it off. I created a new username, DURBACH, under my name Daniel Urbach in order to separate myself from LFX. Although I am on the Latimer FX website I felt my name alone was the best option. I then went through and deleted any information that was leaning towards promotional in any shape or fashion just to make sure. The went to my sandbox cut and pasted the code to it and resubmitted it...but I can't tell if thats done yet. I probably have to go back in and redirect it from User:DURBACH/sandbox to Jason Latimer. (Or at least it looks like that now) Can you please review? And then the next step is how do I get everything to look clean again without any notices at the top? Thank you so much for your time. Truly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DURBACH (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now, will reply tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review? I want to make sure everything is the way it needs to be. You mentioned there was some minor stuff that needed to be done with Latimeronline, I just wanted to follow up on that. What is the next step? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.41.225 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

revision deletion

Hi Thank you for deleting the two postings for me Can you do the third - on 24th January at 15:38 user name 83.100.176.226 - Pocklington School thank you Jill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.193.183 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, some of it was constructive, and I don't see any language that would merit rev/del. Sorry about that. In fact, it might be worthwhile reviewing that edit to see if any of it needs to be replaced. Note that the IP changed year 16 to Year 11 and I edited the article to match that as obviously there is no Year 16. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New Section Here Pink Slime Revert

Um I reverted Pink Slime to an earlier version because I didnt like what the user, directly before me listed on the edits, did with it, calling the ABC a liar seemed wrong for wikipedia, and when I said stuff on the talk page it disapeared. Kane Caston Kane Caston (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi Doug. What's the rule re BCE vs BC? I made a revert at Canaan because I thought the former value neutral for a global encyclopedia, and after checking round, which only (given my hopeless ability to search wiki) indicated no decision has been made? Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ERA. Heiro 18:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I owe then TE an apology. My bias is that I am defamiliarized with AD, BC because the books I read almost invariably favour the neutral BCE/CE convention.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a frequent problem. I think most of the changes are people trying to remove BCE/CE and probably they are winning. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one is entitled to change from one to the other without consensus.('Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content.'), which means it cannot be altered at a page like Joseph's tomb because that's the convention I adopted there. Let me know if this comes up for discussion sometime again. It's eurocentric either way, but BC is confessionally biased, worse still. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Was an honest mistake, I found several sources in the news suggesting today was his birthday. Apparently not, thanks for the catch. Not vandalism however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesmurry (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, it seemed weird looking at your other edits, but you only changed it in one place - I've seen this before, a birthdate changed by a vandal who didn't notice that it was elsewhere in the article - and you didn't add an edit summary (which would probably have led me to just post to you, not warn you). Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

biblical minimalism

Many practicioners of biblical minimalism deny that they are minimalists and claim to stand in the righteous middle. However if acts like duck, walks like duck and quacks like a duck it reasonable to assume its some type of duck. Devers repeatedly denies being a duck but he sure sounds like one. His own colleagues point this out and call him out on it. Philip Davies refers to Devers as a crypto minimalist. Professor Philip Davies “The End of Biblical Minimalism?” University of Sheffield, England Dec. 2011 Others in his profession refer to Devers as a closet minimalist. He does in fact practice minimalism and at the same denying it. Devers has a strong dislike for the label applied to him yet at the same time he labels and accuses others in the field. So before you go willy nilly undoing everything to suit your preconceived notions correct what needs correcting and do not do whole deletions. This is what gives Wiki such a bad reputation in academia. There are to many academically unvetted administators who have only a limited knowledge if hardly any of areas they pretend to. I do not know your background so this may or may not apply. There are many people with a great deal of free time to spend all day on wiki and thus rise in the wiki culture. This does not make them credible or knowledgeable. This is one of the inherent weaknesses of wiki. It is vitally important to police oneself if the goal is the spreading of accurate knowledge. So my suggestion is to go back and look at what you did and see if there is a better way of going abuot it. Thanks P.S. I do not have the time to spend debating and going back and forth. I am much to busy with my studies. I do however have influence that can positive or negative and I would much prefer positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheasantpete (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As editors it is not within our right to decide who is a minimalist and who isn't. I noted in my edit summary that Carol Redmount is also not a minimalist. The book she contributed to is The Oxford History of the Biblical World - are you seriously calling this a minimalist test? To call these scholars minimalists in Wikiipedia's voice because that's what you think they are is a violation of one of our basic policies, WP:BLP. And D. Massimiliano Lorenzini "Evidence for the Early Date of the Exodus" fails our criteria for reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Anubis

Doug,

Please review my addition to the Anubis Article - section - ==Dissenting Theories and Popular Misconceptions== Please comment on the format I used. Also, it there a standard title I should use for sections the discuss the misconceptions present in popular media? Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No standard section heading. I've revised it a bit and linked to our article on the movie, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll drop by every so often for more advice. Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Correctadjustment

Yes we should probably both warn him and give ourselves a large helping of trout, or in my case Arctic char, for not doing it before. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Exodus

Hi Doug,

I have recently published a book called Thera and the Exodus, from which I attempted to list some topics on Wikipedia. You removed these for the following reasons: "Reverted to revision 535705872 by Dougweller: not a significant view, author is an electronic engineer, publisher publishes "publish titles on general spirituality".

Just a few remarks. Although this publisher specializes in spirituality and related topics, he also publishes books scientifically oriented books like mine. Books in this field are usually considered to have a limited sell range in terms of numbers and mainstream publishers are in general not interested. I was delighted to eventually find a publisher of my book, but the fact that this particular publisher now counts against me (in terms of Wikipedia articles and listings) is a huge disappointment for me. In fact, I will probably not consider O Books for my upcoming books if it prevents me from participating on Wikipedia. By the same token, I can fully understand that everybody can nowadays publish a book and you cannot allow just anything on Wikipedia.

Is there a process which I can follow to get you approval for contributing to Wikipedia? I have a PhD in Engineering and I am therefore fully aware of the scientific method. My book is extremely well referenced and there is nothing 'spiritual' in it. When does a view become 'significant' enough to be allowed into Wikipedia? Do you need a recommendation by acknowledged authors or authorities, can I send you and/or other Wikipedia administrators a copy for evaluation? Anything I can do, or is this the end?

With kind regards, Riaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddeleur (talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions about topics reverted

Hi Doug,

I have recently published a book called Thera and the Exodus, from which I attempted to list some topics on Wikipedia. You removed these for the following reasons: "Reverted to revision 535705872 by Dougweller: not a significant view, author is an electronic engineer, publisher publishes "publish titles on general spirituality".

Just a few remarks. Although this publisher specializes in spirituality and related topics, he also publishes books scientifically oriented books like mine. Books in this field are usually considered to have a limited sell range in terms of numbers and mainstream publishers are in general not interested. I was delighted to eventually find a publisher of my book, but the fact that this particular publisher now counts against me (in terms of Wikipedia articles and listings) is a huge disappointment for me. In fact, I will probably not consider O Books for my upcoming books if it prevents me from participating on Wikipedia. By the same token, I can fully understand that everybody can nowadays publish a book and you cannot allow just anything on Wikipedia.

Is there a process which I can follow to get you approval for contributing to Wikipedia? I have a PhD in Engineering and I am therefore fully aware of the scientific method. My book is extremely well referenced and there is nothing 'spiritual' in it. When does a view become 'significant' enough to be allowed into Wikipedia? Do you need a recommendation by acknowledged authors or authorities, can I send you and/or other Wikipedia administrators a copy for evaluation? Anything I can do, or is this the end?

With kind regards, Riaan

Hi Riann. If it got substantial media attention it might be included. If it were discussed in scientific journals at some point, etc. Maybe an academic publisher but even then there is WP:UNDUE. Do you understand my comments about the language you used? It would have to be attributed to you - "RB has said...." but then we are still stuck with the probem that you haven't made a name for yourself. Read through the links I've given you. Your conflict of interest is also a problem. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, understood! I should have read your links more carefully. Regards, Riaan

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pyramid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Religion Template

Hi, thanks for the message. I removed Ayyavazhi from the major world religions template simply because it is not a major world religion. Rather, it is a localized phenomenon in a small part of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. It has extensive coverage on Wikipedia due to the disproportionate efforts of one individual. There is a whole range of discussion on the relevance or lack of relevance of Ayyavazhi on the talk pages associated with it. --Akhipill (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is nothing even remotely like a major world religion. One editor, who had serious problems with the English language, to the point that at least two editors who tried to rewrite the articles couldn't be sure what he was trying to say in the first place, got worked up in a big way when there was I think a state holiday declared in Tamil Nadu for the groups founder. To date, having checked, I have found one published book on the topic, which was originally written as a doctoral dissertation. And that's all. I haven't found much if any material on databanks either. Not sure how it got added in the first place, but it definitely merits removal. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

I'm curious. Does a quote this long qualify as a copyright violation? John Carter (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the translation is copyright, yes. I've deleted the translation and told Ignocrates - no reason at all not to assume good faith here of course. I may have exceeded quotation limits in the past myself. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Doug, is it ok if I paste this quote on a talk sub-page in my user space for future reference? I had no trouble locating a freely-downloadable PDF file of the entire article here. Ignocrates (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but no, no copyvio anywhere - including links. I'm busy removing [19] for instance. You'll have to keep it at home. A very large number of editors don't understand this. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know. Ignocrates (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Weltmer Institute of Suggestive Therapeutics

First I will make it Mandatory to put at least a Notice on the page to inform the Creators that put efforts in WIKIPEDIA of Creating articles before some inexperienced in Life and out of misplaced zeal, decides to disrespectfully delete big chunks of the text. They should have put their intentions like they should do and that it is usually done by experienced professionals.

Second, when they take the initiative to delete a paragraph they should consult with others on that mater. There has to be a Democratic vote on what to take out and what to leave in the page. And not one person who, with his good intentions ends up vandalizing it.

Third, do not take it lightly what you delete, be special careful on everything that you take out and double check your stuff to make sure your not mistaken in your judgments or interpretations of the Law. Be respectful and do not Discourage Creators that put an effort, treat others like you wish to be treated. It is not like I have put garbage in Wikipedia.

Forth, Tell your selves, is this material of interest to somebody. If it is not for you, it may be for somebody else. Is it garbage, is it vandalism, is it misinformation. etc. For copyright material, I understand, but for "Primary Source" that is outdated WHERE THE CIVIL and International LAW itself Permits on Reproducing it, Reediting it, reprinting it, etc. it is unacceptable (we are not in school, plus Wikipedia is free of charge)

Fifth. What I can see of Wikipedia is it lacks the "Balls" of taking the responsibility of promoting and accepting "Original Ideas". The Ideas has always to be referenced from somebody else work or already published by another "ENCYCLOPEDIA" with "Balls" to backup it up. LEARN it.

Sixth, "This Primary Source" philosophy has to be Immediately PUT DOWN because of the bias it represents. Plus it is not Constitutional. It opposes Freedom of Speech. If I want to put the whole Bible in Wikipedia, or the Civil Law in it, or the Torah, or the Zohar, or the Scientific papers. etc, I cannot because of this Policy and yet there is tones of Wikipedia pages that are "Primary Sources" but it gets somehow subjectively accepted anyways. So you see that this in not Constitutional, because it is so bias, it opposes Freedom of the Press and at the same time there is an injustice that can flow easily form it. Do you understand what I am trying to do, I am working so that the world we are living in, be a more perfect and peaceful place. Do you oppose that? Are you with me or against me?

Seventh, The editors that edits other work of creators, have to be certified to do so. Plus they have to create at least some good articles of their own. They have to be accounted for especially it they lack the wisdom and respect. Unless this is what they want to do by purpose, to discourage, to misinform, to infiltrate by night, to Control the Media, what should be said and what should be not and how, for political agendas. We must not be naive to believe that all people are saints.

These are the first Seven Perfect Points to draw a Perfect Magic Circle, six on the circumference and one in the middle. Men can Achieve that Men can Conceive for a perfect World. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not going to be drawing a magic circle for you anytime soon. Since you don't like the way we work, I think you aren't going to be happy here. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, I will not start a war with you, clearly you cannot do nothing about the mater. You can only follow orders and guidelines from above. So I have decided to create the text in another webpage and put it as an external link.This mater is bigger than you, it is bigger than me and even it is bigger that this article that is not so important to do. What is the most important it to create Peace and Justice. Do you understand what I am trying to do? I wanted to make your life a simpler one, unless you are paid to do this. Instead of making the policies in a gray zone for us to judge what is too much "Primary sources", the guidelines have to be more specific on the amount allowed to put and have a compromise. If we cannot put a whole Bible in it at least 10 pages maximum allowed in "Primary sources". This has to be out of Copyright and clearly identifying the origin and the author, so that it will not be considered plagiarism. It is like the Images that we upload in Wikipedia.

I do not understand why do you persist on retaining policies that leads to ambiguity and injustice.I will have to make contact with the co-founders of Wikipedia and discuss the seven points. Tell me, is it against the law to do so?

--Fady Lahoud (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Improper sourcing

Thanks, and I will make sure to review what you've shown me - I remember using Global Vision as a source and I had no idea it was a problem. Anyway, I've made a lot of edits in the past few weeks and I don't quite remember where I put these. Can you point me to the page to which you're referring? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll review the categorization policy as well. Hopefully, this won't be an issue again in the future. Thanks again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Genesis Creation Myth

You apparently !voted both support and oppose in the same section. I assume your oppose was meant for the proposal above, but I'm not totally sure, so I decided against boldly moving it. Just letting you know. Thanks! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was because when I added that it hadn't been 'unsigned'. The post above mine wasn't mine. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh. That makes a lot more sense. It didn't sound at all like you. Thanks for the clarification!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

redirect procedure

Can you advise me on correct procedure? I created an article Amburbium before I realized there was an existing stub amburbia (plural; the singular is more common). I would like to turn amburbia into a redirect, and I don't see any content that needs to be merged into the newer article. Does there need to be a "merge history" performed for amburbia, or do I just turn it into a redirect, since no content was transferred? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It can just be turned into a redirect. Note the page information - it has 5 watchers and 6 redirects[20] - see the redirects[21]. Might be a good idea to explain what you've done on the talk page, which doesn't need a redirect, & make sure you have the appropriate templates on your new talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it, except for "appropriate templates on the new talk page": what's needed at Talk:Amburbium? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

{{talkheader}}. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a total idiot. I create talk pages all the time without that basic header. I guess I thought it appeared by magic. Thank you. When I first began editing, I was focused entirely on content, but in the last couple of years have tried to become more aware of procedural correctness. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What you need to do is acquire your own fleet of wikignomes, who follow you around and fix little things like that :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Elen? Elen, is that you? I thought you had been extraordinarily rendered to some dark ops cell. I've been hoarding marshmallows, waiting for the public burning. (That'll be me disguised in a nun's habit in the crowd, to avoid gnomes who are really frumentarii.) Cynwolfe (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Adnan etc

Thanks for your note at Talk:Adnanites. Please see Talk:Adnan#Arabic_source_needs_a_translation which lists other articles where you may be able to repeat the same cleanup. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

• Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles

• News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun

• Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes

• In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry

• Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warrior = possible double account

Hi Dougweller--please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.D8.A8.DB.8C.DA.A9.D8.A7.D8.B1_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_Final_warning.29 (hope this link comes across properly). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

Just making sure you had noticed I replied to you emails several days ago. Heiro 20:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

Please check your inbox. Rivertorch (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Deadmeat

Hello, due to copyright infringement you have speedily deleted the article I recently wrote about the film, Deadmeat. As far as I remember everything on the article was paraphrased and sourced with independent references, with the exception of the plot summary, which I wrote myself after viewing the film. Are you able to clarify excatly what copyrighted material I am culpable of adding to the article? Tanbircdq (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC).

I found material in the article copied from the 3 links I added to my warning. See also WP:Close paraphrase. I will probably be raising a WP:CCI given that I've found copyvio in 3 articles. Will you help clear it up? Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The first link you have included in your warning [22] has nothing to do with the film, and I cannot remember including it in the article, are you sure it was not another link from Wayback Machine? Also could the problems with the article not have been addressed through editing rather than deleting it completely?

However that aside, you found copyvio in three articles (Darul Hadis Latifiah written in 13 August 2011, Qusai ibn Kilab additions were made in July and August 2011, and Deadmeat written in 1 February 2013). That is two over 15 months ago and one a week ago. This does seem a little extreme to me given that two of the previous edits were over 15 months ago when I was very new to editing and creating articles. Also if I am honest, it would have been nice to be approached first so I can attempt to improve my editing rather than what appears to be a pretty heavy handed approach. Sorry, what is it you would like me to clear up? Tanbircdq (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC).

Thank you Dougweller for my First Star

Not sure what I did to deserve it, just doing what everyone else is doing. But thank you.Sgerbic (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Block User:Bobbi1988, please.

Hi, sorry for interrupt, a user named User:Bobbi1988, who contribute unsourced music genres, just like Pink songs.

Block him with no expiry set (unlimited).

P.S. If someone needs unblock him, just don't unblock or just reblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofpyrus (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Could use your help in a follow up

I have been following the progress of the article of Jason Latimer and the tags that have been place on it. I saw the the COI and the one about the wording and I totally understand and I am waiting the whatever process that needs to happen on that. What has caught my attention is something I figured I could ask you. There is a flag about the notability of the subject. Could you please take a look at it to see if its been inappropriately tagged? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DURBACH (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Leader of Earth & Earth Leadership

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I took this matter to WP:ANI. I'm pretty sure this user is not here to improve the 'pedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LeaderforEarth1. Cheers, Heiro 01:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I missed it all! Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, figured you weren't on wiki at the time and wouldn't mind if I helped with that one. Taking to ANI seemed the obvious course and pretty swiftly got the verdict I expected, lol. Happy Mardi Gras!

FastfromLight

DougWeller - Many thanks for taking action. I could not help wondering whether "FastfromLight" and "StarMagicxxx" might in fact be the same person. --DLMcN (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That took longer than I'd hoped - not enough of us around. I've raised an SPI also, thanks for the tip about Starmagicxxx. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Invite to comment

Dear Dougweller. As an occasional editor at G.H.E, can you please comment [23] in regard to my suggestions. Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

General Comments and Recommendations for Dougweller

Hi Dougweller, Circumstances in general events of Life have led me to take special notice of your Profiling-Being more specifically and the Intentions behind your work with the Wikipedia community. I would like to ask you questions in the order of thought patterns analysis if you do not mind.

Question #1 : Let's say we are 50 years in the future. If I tell you, what Wikipedia will it be like on that time? Will it be more then what it is now, will it be shut down by the Government in pretense of National Security or for economic reasons. Will it grow to be able, like in StarTrek, talk to the computer and it will give you all you need to know on the subject with cross references, analysis and comparative versions of events/subjects?

Question #2 : What is your point of view on the dual nature of the Universe, more specifically on the duality between Self-Conservation and Collective-Evolution? (in other words on the need to preserve traditions VS the need to go forward, or the need to live in luxury VS the need to do hard work-labor to achieve higher goals.) Is Wikipedia presents some kind of Duality?

Question #3 : What is for you, the fundamental differences between Knowledge and Believes? The difference between when I say "I KNOW this or that" VS when I say "I BELIEVE this or that". Who can we apply them and present them in Wikipedia?

Question # 4 : What kind of information People would like to have when they are searching a subject in Wikipedia. Basic information, extended information, out of this world information, extraordinary unedited new stuff information that they cannot find elsewhere, or just whatever information that somebody will present to them. (If you want to Know more on a subject, do you want complete info or just a summary because you lack time)?

Question # 5 : If let say, Wikipedia has competition with other (X)_pedias and some official or non official governing organizations forces, oblige Wikipedia in a certain censorship rule of conduct. Will it be better for Wikipedia to comply with this censorship or will it be better to fight for freedom and free knowledge. (In other words, if there is an infiltration of governing bodies that has power over censorship and they imposes their law on the Wikipedia Community, will it be better for the Community to follow the rules of this governing body or will it be better for it to fight it and try to impose her Will over this governing body?

Question # 6 : How about Justice in Wikipedia? Are there articles or subjects that gets merits will others gets less. If so, what is for you a good Wikipedia Subject and a not so good one? Do you think that another editor-administrator will be with the same exact taste. Or If for you, they are all the same if they are well written and do not get out of hand. For example, articles on esoteric or conspiracy theories, or inventions that got refused by the US Patent Office, etc.?

Question # 7 : Final Question : If I tell you, define yourself, what will be your question? Do you thing that you can be more than you think you are, or you are just limited by the extend of your definition of yourself?

--Fady Lahoud (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no time, but I can assure you that I am more than I think I am. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians

Doug, your actions can be construed as being biased on the Ancient Egyptian and Black hypothesis pages. It appears that you are almost in collusion with a few other editors, which makes you a really bad candidate to be an impartial administrator for those pages, in particular. If you take action against me, I will seek redress with other administrators and through the proper Wiki channels. As you well know, I have added thousands of cited passages to articles, which have greatly improved the content. Your threats are unfounded and just another example of your bias.Rod (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. I would never take direct action against you as I am involved. An RfC/U is not an administrative action. My actions on these pages are solely in my capacity as an experienced editor (47,775 edits to articles and about 50,000 elsewhere), not an Administrator.

I'm interested in your claim to have added thousands of cited passages to articles. As you have only made 700 edits to articles with this account, clearly not always adding "cited passages", are you saying that you use other accounts? Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not use other accounts. I stand corrected, I've only added a lowly 700 useful and bold edits to Wiki.Rod (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. I didn't actually think you did but that was pretty puzzling. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: historical revisionist views

There is a current RfC at Juan Manuel de Rosas that could use more input than just the parties involved so far. I am having trouble finding much in the way of guidelines for political/nationalistic/religious-based historical revisionism that seeks to rationalize, sanitize or idealize the past in a way that promotes a particular political/nationalistic/religious PoV. As the History wikiproject seems to be minimally active, and since you have dealt with similar subjects in the past, your input (including any applicable guidelines for future reference) would be appreciated. Thanks. • Astynax ^talk 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic-banned editor using IP to evade ban?

Against my better judgement, I've recently got involved in editing Armenia/Azerbaijan articles again. Unfortunately, it appears to be the same old same old.

E4024 (talk · contribs) (a Turkish or Azerbaijani POV-pusher) was topic-banned from all Armenian, Turkish and Greek articles this morning [24] per AA2 and ARBMAC. Lo and behold, an IP editor 195.212.29.190 (talk · contribs) has just appeared on an article I created which E4024 tried to disrupt, exhibiting the same behaviour. Compare [25] and contrast [26]. Also, compare these talk page "arguments": [27] and [28].

If this isn't E4024, then I've a good idea who an alternative might be. I have a strong suspicion there has been a hell of a lot of tag-teaming going on among Azerbaijani/Turkish editors recently. Details available on request. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this might be more meat puppetry than sock puppetry. Who knows? It's definitely not kosher. --Folantin (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is almost certainly Konullu (talk · contribs). Whether he is identical to E4024 or simply a meat puppet, I don't know yet. --Folantin (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Doug. I know how you feel. I'm regretting ever having opened this can of worms myself, but now it's open I have a horrible compulsion to see what's in there. I'm compiling evidence about probable tag-teaming/socking. Maybe I'll take the results straight to SPI. I'm not the only one who's noticed this. Anyhow, I'm going to try to handle this with the minimum hassle to myself possible. Once again, I don't blame you for not wanting to drink from this poisoned chalice! --Folantin (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Would you agree that it requires a minimum of two people to edit war? If so, why did you add the edit war note to my page only and not to both parties (myself and Yalens)? Is that fair and impartial administration?Rod (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that it's not symmetrical. You violated WP:3RR, and I didn't. --Yalens (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rod, did you even read the link? Yalens is absolutely correct. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you agree with Yalens, as always. We need a new administrator. Unless I'm reverting myself, someone else must be reverting my changes. Wouldn't that mean that the other editor is keeping pace with my reverts?Rod (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am NOT acting as an Administrator. And you are being reverted by 3 different editors - you must know that. Yalens, Wdford and I have reverted you. 3 editors. Now you've reverted 4 times and although the 4th is a bit outside 24 hours, it still looks like edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking again at the last edit I can see why the editor could say this wasn't a revert, so I'll withdraw the 3RR warning. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

EL discussion

Hey Doug, I happened upon Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.rozabal.com and couldn't refrain from commenting. Best, Drmies (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Gun politics in Mexico NPOV

EnochBethany does not agree that his/her edits to Gun politics in Mexico are biased/non-neutral and has reverted your reverts to the article. EnochBethany does not seem to realize his/her style of writing does not fit encyclopedic etiquette. Here's my own example of what EnochBethany is doing (emphasized in bold): In order to carry a firearm in Mexico, an individual must received authorization from the government, except for criminals who ignore the law and do as they please.

EnochBethany feels the article must let readers know that not everyone in Mexico follows the law and therefore there are people who get guns illegally and use them illegally. I have no problem with that. It is evident that there are lawbreakers in Mexico, as they are in every other country of the world, and I don't oppose informing readers of the current gun violence/firearm-related crime that exists in Mexico but he/she must express so in an encyclopedic style, not as his/her direct opinion. It would be better if EnochBethany added a Gun violence section to the article, as it exist in the Gun politics in Honduras article, and use that section to describe gun-related crime in Mexico. Thanks. --Usfirstgov (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

re: 3RR

I'm assuming you won't be watching a templated talk page, so please could I draw your attention to the response on mine. Thanks WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

• Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

• Featured content: A lousy week

• WikiProject report: Just the Facts

• In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

• News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

• Discussion report: WebCite proposal

• Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

I can tell you've been busy, but if you can check back in over at the talk page so we can move forward, that'd be great. Thanks in advance! Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Roza Bal

Suzanne is back, however I think it's worth giving her a chance to see if she can answer (on Talk not editing article herself) any of the 4 simple questions I put which are basic info for a structure stub. (Totally unrelated, do you have any remote interest in Far East or linguistics and would be willing to provide a third eye on an article?) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has made a request for a topic ban of SuzanneOlsson at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban on user SuzanneOlsson. In fact, she hasn't reverted the Roza Bal article since her block expired. The most you can observe is that she has continued with more of her usual talk page behavior at Talk:Roza Bal#14 February Talk edits above. She thinks we must include her material about Roza Bal or millions of Ahmaddi Muslims will be offended and insulted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll see my comments at ANI, also on Suzanne's Talk page. I think we should probably cut her some slack this time last time for being a grandmother, if she can abide by WP:NPA. I wouldn't bet on happy ever after here, but it is in fringe-article space, it isn't as if the disruption is happening at a major article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Alleged voyage to N. America

You mean: other than the Pohl reference? If you're referring to the oil shales, that's in the WP article for Stellarton... TIA Jpaulm (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant does Stellarton mention Sinclair? If not, it's original research and should be removed from the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused - sorry to be dense! If you are saying that the article on Stellarton should mention someone who possibly visited in 1398, I can add that. If you are saying that it is my OR, it's not - it is Pohl's, plus possibly other writers. Could you clarify? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I was indeed unclear. "This description fits an area in the Stellarton region of Nova Scotia, famous for its oil shales." - what's the source for this. Pohl? If so, it needs to be attributed to him. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. I thought the reference was sufficient, so I will add explicit attribution - perhaps you could check the wording after I have done this. TIA Jpaulm (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Doug. Hopefully I will get better at this stuff! Jpaulm (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Puzzling Editor User:The long road homw

The long road homw (talk · contribs) Per their contribs:

1. Several unconstructive edits to Hansen Site: [29] and [30]. And going by this edit to my talk they seem to think the Smithsonian trinomial is a Greek character string.
2. The creation of Mia Nihta Mono: A completely unsourced page that may be a non-notable musical subject, I'm not sure because the page seems to be mostly in Greek (literally Greek).
3. Kition : The addition of information with numerous citations to "According to the text on the only plaque at the Kathari site (as of 2013)", "Excerpt of wall mounted text in exhibit room number two at Larnaca District Museum" and similar statements. Unfortunately, there are no links to images of said plaques. Reliable source of information? I took this here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kition

I was thinking maybe WP:COMPETENCE might be an issue, but the user seems to know their way around creating an article, going so far as to add cite needed tags to their own unsourced additions [31]. Thoughts? Heiro 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The album is mentioned at Antonis Remos - needs sourcing but I think it is probably correct. I'm not sure at all about our policy on albums. If you look at note 110 at Cyrus the Great that cites some notes at the British Museum but that's a lot of cites to plaques etc, let's see what RSN says. This editor does seem to be working hard and in good faith. I think what's needed here is education and patience. As for STs, I'm thinking they should be treated the same way we treat coordinates - I wish the archaeology wikiproject was more active but it still might be worthwhile raising this there. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, they seem to be in good faith, mostly. The trinomial article is relatively new, created by donald albury a monthish ago(mebbe 2), and he has slowly been adding links from numbers to that page to explain them. But yea, I've always treated them the same a coords. They are usually in material I use as sources and citations, but I dont think I've ever cited more than one or two. Here is where I get to the "mostly", after I reverted this addition at "Mound" because it wasn't adequately cited, they then popped over to Hansen Site (one of the many articles on mound sites I created and is listed on my user page) to make a statement about the trinomials. I had some conversation with them this morning, but was really too exhausted to get too much into it (it was roughly 5:00 am here, and I had just sat up all night working on a painting, I had actually just popped on here for a minute while unwinding before trying to get some sleep). I was basically too tired to think straight at that point, which is why I came to you, lol, you always give good guidance. If you could help out with some occasional guidance for them, that would be great. I think they have the potential to be a valuable editor, especially in this field the we both have in common. Unfortunately my IRL schedule is keeping me from being around here very much, and will probably continue to for the next several months. When the Native American archaeo-astronomy book I am illustrating comes out, I'll give you a heads up :-) Heiro 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fake cites

S.a.mac2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Doug. Given that 2 different journal articles cannot occupy the same pages at the same time, along with obvious misspellings in the doctored titles, and deliberately unconstructive changes like substituting centigrade for fahrenheit, etc., I think chances that this editor is a sincere contributor are less than 1%. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

--Wizardman 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Noindex Template

Why did you place it on my webpage? -- Portolanero (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but since Doug's Talk page got on my watchlist I could not help but notice the links posted here. I could be mistaken, but on first glance it looks like Wikipedia is being used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles (not a good thing according to WP:FAKEARTICLE). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been considering MfD. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Portolanero#Noindex_templates - tried to help but not getting anywhere. Could be WP:COMPETENCE. Any advice? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect

Doug, I applied a redirect tag to Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) and pointed it to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Now all four of these so-called Authentic Matthew articles point to the same place. Since we had already reached a consensus to merge on the article talk page, I didn't see any point in dragging this out. Let me know if I overlooked anything important. Otherwise, I'm calling this merge/redirect done. Ignocrates (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Roza Bal ANI

I took a look and the Roza Bal ANI is 13-0 with clear consensus. But if nothing is done to close and log it, will archive in 24 hours. That should be avoided after all the effort. By the way, In Ictu said that he found somethings and I looked and they were really impressive: misspelling with a dot, Max Muller, etc. Pretty eye opening research he did. History2007 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Supposed Refernce style on Troy

No, Doug, you stop. I know exactly who you are and why you are doing this. As far as I'm concerned you are a high-level vandal and ought to be removed from WP forthwith. What right have you got to sabotage a public encyclopedia? I WILL open a discussion on this and on you. Why don't you confine yourself to your own absurd site? Who do you think you are?Branigan 12:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm a vandal for wanting discussion before mass changes in the reference system used on a particular page? That's sabotage? Please do open the discussion, put your money where your mouth is. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sherden

You are right. I'm sorry not to have noticed that Zertal was already cited before — Preceding unsigned comment added by אלימיט (talk • contribs) 08:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

copied text on the Islam page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted

template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer

Hi Doug On the Islam page I put links to the other wikipedia pages about islam. To enbed the links, I added a few words so that it flows correctly and as people go through the article, they could click off and get more details. There were a few places where I added an explanation and felt that it also needed to be on the wikipedia page that it links to and therefore added it there in case people go to the other page without going to the Islam page. Doug I will add a copy tag in future. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

NB

Hello, I have a feeling that Anta An is none other than Shrikanthv whose article on KIMO Industrie-Elektronik GmbH went to AfD and was deleted. When I made my entry there, I did notice he was then an adoptee of Yunshui with whom he also took and passed a 'reviewer' test on 14 January, the day he made his last entries on Kimo as well. I notice he is all over the AfD pages since he created the new account on 13 February, mostly pages visited under the old name. Please have a look. Thanks.--Zananiri (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It is also worth considering the history of DezDeMonaaa (talk · contribs), who recently appeared to vote "keep" on some other AfDs of articles in the Sarkarverse. However, no action was taken after this SPI. bobrayner (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The recent involvement of the two newly created accounts, DezDeMonaaa and Anta An, in Afds has caused me to take notice of this, too. I wouldn't be surprised if either or both are somehow tied to Cornelius383 and/or Shrikanthv. (Cornelius383, DezDeMonaaa, and Anta An are involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to Human Conduct (2nd nomination). Cornelius383 and Shrikanthv were involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to Human Conduct.) For what it's worth, Anta An appears to be 81.84.235.244. Location (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, Anta is a term of endearment/nickname for boys called Shrikanth in southern India à la Ted/Edward, Liz/Elizabeth.--Zananiri (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been ignoring this so much as avoiding it, sorry. I've looked at contributions, etc and at the moment, although I can't rule it out, I'm not sure that there is enough evidence to show that Shrikanthv is the same as Anta. For an SPI you need to be able to show convincing diffs. If anyone does find any let me know or go to SPI. It wouldn't surprise me, but it's also possible Anta got involved because of something off wiki. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have worked with Shrikanthv before and I don't think this is him. He didn't strike me as someone who would hagiographize religious figures or promote New Age movements on WP (see Talk:Swami Vivekananda#Spirituality and this). This appears to be meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry using proxy/VPN, both of which will render CU checks useless. The previous SPI on DezDeMonaaa was closed with a view to "consider these edits later on if more evidence surfaces that they are working in concert". Similar suspicions were again raised at ANI. Should we go in for another SPI? I have not dealt with meatpuppetry before and I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action would be here. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Melungeon

The addition of some material in the Melungeon article on DNA studies is ungrammatical and does not reflect the sources; also, the discussions on the Talk page by an unnamed IP is overwhelming to respond to. Most previous editors do not appear to be operating from the same baseline as the new IP. Reading an article by Yates, I was suspicious when he claimed to be finding DNA links from Melungeons to the Lumbees as Native Americans- I know for sure they cannot differentiate among tribes with DNA. (Yates has become convinced he is really Sephardic Jewish and that "most" of the Melungeons were Jewish, Turkish, Portuguese, etc. - the myths.) This is beyond me. On the one hand, the IP wanted to have only DNA studies from families listed in Dromgoole's article of the late 19th c.; in another place is happy to have the DNA results of the 40 "self-identified Melungeons," including Kennedy (Yates claimed that Kennedy was a Turkish name!; there is more and more wild stuff appearing) and Winkler.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, busy and this is an article I find hard to deal with. I'll take a look. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My question

I asked you a question here, and request that you please answer it. Another IP editor (111.161.30.218) has made an accusation about you, and whether or not this was a banned editor, his accusation is supported by evidence and appears credible. As an admin, your responsibility is to be honest about the reason for the discrepancy he has raised. 101.0.71.6 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In his thread closure NE Ent said questions for you should be directed to your user talk, but I also notice you haven't participated in the article or talk page after this issue came up. I still would like you to answer what I asked you in the AN/I thread, but I suppose it no longer matters whether you were privately canvassed if your intention is to disengage, so if that's the case I can let this go for now. 101.0.71.29 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent's editorialising close was inappropriate. IP hopper, you have been told that 111.161.30.218 is an ipsock of a banned user. He has now been blocked by FPaS. Please stop repeating his personal attacks, as doing so violates the arbcom motion. Neither Dougweller, KillerChihuahua or EdJohnston are sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts. Users with registered accounts have things called "watchlists". These are lists of articles that registered editors watch. They show the most recent changes in an article or its talk page. That for example is how I presume Dougweller was led to add the WP:EW template on BlackHades' talk page; and similarly how EdJohnston was led to add the WP:DS template warning on his talk page. If you register an account, it will be easier for you to figure these things out for yourself without others having to spell them out for you. Mathsci (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't disengaged, although what I will do in the future I don't know. I don't respond to socks (not talking about you but the issue was raised by one). The only discrepancy I can see is the sock claiming someone else's edit was mine. No one has asked me to do anything on that page. I never mentioned ArbCom because I wasn't even thinking about ArbCom. People have been banned for proxy editing. If I'm wrong about Captain Occam, I'm not the only person to believe that - I know Professor Marginalia and Volunteer Marek have also made the same statement (I'd better add thatno one told me that, I just found it while looking at one of the SPI reports and another page that I can't recall), but it's not at all easy to find out if this is correct. Editing R&I, even using the talk page, is often unpleasant, especially if you have the 'wrong opinion'. I presume you saw the attack on me when I gave BH a 3RR warning, followed by the attempt to call editors meatpuppets (policy says this is something to be avoid, but either BH didn't actually read what policy says about meatpuppetry or ignored it). I prefer people to have accounts but there are good reasons for some not to. Oh, and MathSci is an expert on the sorts of socks that infest pages on racial issues. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And to prove my point, I've just been accused of being a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KillerChihuahua. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug, here's an update, in case you're interested. Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked the IP range 101.0.71.0/24 for three months.[32] Some other editors have described the requests for him to create an account as "attacks", which seems unreasonable and unhelpful. When the IP hopper used a different IP range a year ago, his excuse for not registering an account was that he couldn't think of a username. He's making different excuses now.[33] Mathsci (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP hopper has subsequently edited using what looks an open proxy which I reported here.[34] Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Game over

Well, Game over on Roza Bal, but I am just amazed, amazed of how much effort it takes to bring normalcy into these situations. To the very end there were people arguing for continuation. Decision making is now nothing but a quagmire; and one just has to accept that the concept of the "wisdom of the crowds" is oversold. As I said, I will not be editing that page ever again, so will leave it to you guys - I just followed through because I don't like to leave things half-finished. As I said on ANI, I really don't know how you put up with it, or why you should have to at all. Before someone's driver license is taken away here, they need to run over 12 old people and 15 school children, else there will still be philosophers who will suggest that they should still be allowed to drive. That is not wisdom... Anyway, game over. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. The happy ending here would have been to find a creative way to retain her expert knowledge without the disruption. That could have been achieved with a 1RR per week editing restriction on the 6 articles. It needn't have come to this. Ignocrates (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this a shared talk page? But given the elegance of the diction that started it, I will not bother to respond. Game over. History2007 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm?

I'm not sure I see how the ANI revision by LuckyLouie you pointed me to here is relevant? --92.4.162.209 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

[35] Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I'd actually already seen that report, it's why I looked into the 101.0.71.0/24 range in the first place. --92.4.162.209 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked FPS who said we'll look if they return. It's a concern. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You're Guettarda's meatpuppet, not mine? I want a refund. You're two-timing me! Or wait... I could make Guettarda my meatpuppet, and then I'd own you anyway. Which would so work, if only his ethics weren't so darn above reproach. Back to the drawing board, I guess. KillerChihuahua 17:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, could no resist this one.. But reminded me of the last part here. If you guys try, may get in Carotta's next book as two characters along with Jimmy (who may be de Gaulle). Try getting cast as Amelia Earhart who is alive and well, and editing Wikipedia from some remote island she is stranded on, - an iPad just washed ashore, and she used it... Now I will really stop... History2007 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I be Ethelbert Stauffer? I love those Anglo-Saxon royal names! Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Dismas's talk page.
Message added 19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've got a question about some vandalism reversions using Twinkle   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Mail

You've got it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Vikings

Dougweller - I believe you have made a mistake here. You wrote: "I've reverted you. It was unsourced, but also it appears to have been copied from [12] or [13] which is prohibited by our copyright policy." I think you will find that the "unsourced" or possibly plagiarized material you are referring to, is STILL ON THE PAGE, whereas my additions are removed. This is a problem, because my contributions were authored by myself and original, but the existing material (which is there now, and is NOT authored by me) is what you ought to look out for. I will reinsert MY contributions, as they are not copied from anywhere, but collected and paraphrased from external sources entirely.

I think you will find is the case, once you look at it again. I appreciate your vigilance, but your really ought to go after whomever wrote the already existing paragraphs on the topic. Again - mine were original and does not correspond with anything you mentioned.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere (talk • contribs) 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Great Zimbabwe - again !

DougWeller - I have just posted a note (and request) on GiantSnowman's Talk Page - and it is relevant and appropriate to let you know. I appreciate that you are busy with hundreds of other items, so there is probably no real need for you to take any action yourself, but you would almost certainly like to be kept in the picture. Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

• WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

• Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

• In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

• Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit of : The Holocaust - Enemy nationals " (e.g. Formosa [now Taiwan] and Mexico)"

Hello Doug,

I just read your feedback about what I tried to edit. Thank you.However, it is surly a historical error in your comment. Any victim from Formosa (now Taiwan) could not be victim of Holocaust defined as Enemy Nationals since what CKS controlled is Mainland China, not Taiwan. Taiwan was Japanese Empire Territory from 1895 ~ 1945AD, until it were later taken over by CKS. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure above history above with elders of my family (still alive) were educated under Japanese Empire at that time.

CKS (The leader of KMT political party, as government of Mainland China 1911~1949) had many diplomacy activity with Germany since 1930s(military consult / equipment from Germany to China)and when war between China & Japan(axis), in 1937, it is reasonable that many Chinese personnel were considered as captive in this political changes and become the victims.

I think what you're trying to tell is to distinguish KMT(as ROC - Republic of China, considered as Formosa[now Taiwan] since 1949) from PRC(People's Republic of China, considered as China since 1949), but at the moment of this event (1940 ~ 1945), bring up "Formosa" could be very misleading when KMT still represent China at that very moment(Even as a member of Allies who won WWII, though peace treaty with Japan were signed on 1952, instead of 1945 due to Mongolia independent issue).

Suggest to revise "Formosa [now Taiwan]" to "ROC" for better understanding.

Note: I'm sorry that I'm not good at Wiki interface, so I would no longer edit anything about this until getting familiar with this. Just reported the error in content and wish the administrator could fix it.

Ark89044300 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)