User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

How should I deal with this user?

This user acts like he is in a battleground. His behaviors, edit summaries, and comments are problematic. Recent example (anti-ethnicity comment). How should I deal with him? He is blocked before and his talk page is full of warning messages. An admin should watches his activities. --Zyma (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just look at his talk page. I'm really tired to continue watching his edits. --Zyma (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Got to go out now Zyma and just stopped to look at this. DO you want to go to WP:ANI now? I'll be back in a couple of hours. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No Dougweller. I tried WP:ANI several times and I didn't get good results for my reports, so I think I should report to admins directly. Specially admins like you who are familiar with those issues, article topic/subject, and behvaiors, and able to solve issues and conflicts between such users and other editors. --Zyma (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of those users with this type of behavior have poor command of English language (they usually use Google Translator) and see Wikipedia as a pro-Political OR pro-Ethnicity website, so I can't do anything. Just warn them for 3-4 times, then report them, and then they return with their new/alternative accounts! Zyma (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

94.180.X.X

Now he's active with this IP-range: 94.180.X.X. It seems that he is on a non-stop quest on Wikipedia. Meaningless edits plus very bad edit summaries (poor English skill, not even basic level). Targeted Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey-related articles. Zyma (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know which articles, ok? Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles: Kara Koyunlu, Caspian race, Chovgan, Armenians, Armenoid race, Khurshidbanu Natavan, Tat people (Iran), Tat people (Caucasus), Qashqai people, Mazanderani people, Gilaki people, and others (Is it possible to track all 94.180.X.X's activities?). That user just inserts his POVs, biased edits, removal of content, source falsification and other similar behaviors. All of his edits based on his Anti-Armenian, Anti-Persian, and Anti-Kurdish stuff and his nationalistic POV. --Zyma (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, one question: Which noticeboard is suitable to report activities like 94.180.X.X's ones? --Zyma (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

He's active on many articles. For example, another nationalistic slur in edit summaries, pure incivility: [1] (another article that I didn't mention in the above list). --Zyma (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How should I deal with this user?

This user acts like he is in a battleground. His behaviors, edit summaries, and comments are problematic. Recent example (anti-ethnicity comment). How should I deal with him? He is blocked before and his talk page is full of warning messages. An admin should watches his activities. --Zyma (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just look at his talk page. I'm really tired to continue watching his edits. --Zyma (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Got to go out now Zyma and just stopped to look at this. DO you want to go to WP:ANI now? I'll be back in a couple of hours. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No Dougweller. I tried WP:ANI several times and I didn't get good results for my reports, so I think I should report to admins directly. Specially admins like you who are familiar with those issues, article topic/subject, and behvaiors, and able to solve issues and conflicts between such users and other editors. --Zyma (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of those users with this type of behavior have poor command of English language (they usually use Google Translator) and see Wikipedia as a pro-Political OR pro-Ethnicity website, so I can't do anything. Just warn them for 3-4 times, then report them, and then they return with their new/alternative accounts! Zyma (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

94.180.X.X

Now he's active with this IP-range: 94.180.X.X. It seems that he is on a non-stop quest on Wikipedia. Meaningless edits plus very bad edit summaries (poor English skill, not even basic level). Targeted Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey-related articles. Zyma (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know which articles, ok? Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles: Kara Koyunlu, Caspian race, Chovgan, Armenians, Armenoid race, Khurshidbanu Natavan, Tat people (Iran), Tat people (Caucasus), Qashqai people, Mazanderani people, Gilaki people, and others (Is it possible to track all 94.180.X.X's activities?). That user just inserts his POVs, biased edits, removal of content, source falsification and other similar behaviors. All of his edits based on his Anti-Armenian, Anti-Persian, and Anti-Kurdish stuff and his nationalistic POV. --Zyma (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, one question: Which noticeboard is suitable to report activities like 94.180.X.X's ones? --Zyma (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

He's active on many articles. For example, another nationalistic slur in edit summaries, pure incivility: [2] (another article that I didn't mention in the above list). --Zyma (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jazari

IP 169.234.217.94, (user:Cobanas?[3]), is restoring the unreliable sources stating Al-Jazari is Kurdish.[4] I have told the IP this has been discussed on the talk page, which the IP simply reverted me.[5] Would you be interested in protecting said article to force this IP to the talk page? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 169.234.217.94 has now posted aggressive accusations on my talk page;
"Are you the owner of wikipedia?"
"...you put his name in Arabic and Turkish language ":Clearly I have not wrote anyone's name in Arabic or Turkish, since I can not write in Arabic or Turkish
"Just try to be fair", which finishes the IPs strawman fallacy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure the IP is user:Cobanas[6]. Their style of English is extremely similar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
More....
"The date of your editing shows you are from middle east and with the high probability you are Arab or Turk....Why you are doing that KansasBear?"[7]
Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week. It seems obvious to me that it's User:Cobanas.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks from me. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jazari

IP 169.234.217.94, (user:Cobanas?[8]), is restoring the unreliable sources stating Al-Jazari is Kurdish.[9] I have told the IP this has been discussed on the talk page, which the IP simply reverted me.[10] Would you be interested in protecting said article to force this IP to the talk page? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 169.234.217.94 has now posted aggressive accusations on my talk page;
"Are you the owner of wikipedia?"
"...you put his name in Arabic and Turkish language ":Clearly I have not wrote anyone's name in Arabic or Turkish, since I can not write in Arabic or Turkish
"Just try to be fair", which finishes the IPs strawman fallacy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure the IP is user:Cobanas[11]. Their style of English is extremely similar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
More....
"The date of your editing shows you are from middle east and with the high probability you are Arab or Turk....Why you are doing that KansasBear?"[12]
Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week. It seems obvious to me that it's User:Cobanas.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks from me. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marking edits as minor

How can one set edits as "minor" as the default? I have to do this by hand so often, that I can do it by mistake by habit? Tabletop (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marking edits as minor

How can one set edits as "minor" as the default? I have to do this by hand so often, that I can do it by mistake by habit? Tabletop (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the same

No doubt, no one else it could be, good catch. Like this: created the article Margravate of Mantua which is a fork of Duchy of Mantua .. the same material copied verbatim including the image caption. Another one: Grand Duke of Vladimir a fork of Vladimir-Suzdal. And another: Caliph of Córdoba a fork of Caliphate of Córdoba. Unclear if any of these forks are needed. We could revert them, or open an AfD and see what others think; AfD might be less "despotic" and help the editor deal with Wikipedia norms.

Some other stuff:

• Adding "despotism" across multiple articles.[13][14] along with article name changed to despotism (which you caught and reverted).
• Changing dates in possibly unreliable ways.[15][16][17]

Not sure if any of this is blockable, it looks like incompetence. Are there mentors, volunteers willing to adopt troubled editors, to help them along and keep an eye on things? Blocking the account it will come back in new name and at least there is no copyvio this time so some improvement. -- GreenC 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Mentorship. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, User:Green Cardamom, IP Euoropa vandalism raised at WP:ANI. Copyvio issues also from the IP range. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the same

No doubt, no one else it could be, good catch. Like this: created the article Margravate of Mantua which is a fork of Duchy of Mantua .. the same material copied verbatim including the image caption. Another one: Grand Duke of Vladimir a fork of Vladimir-Suzdal. And another: Caliph of Córdoba a fork of Caliphate of Córdoba. Unclear if any of these forks are needed. We could revert them, or open an AfD and see what others think; AfD might be less "despotic" and help the editor deal with Wikipedia norms.

Some other stuff:

• Adding "despotism" across multiple articles.[18][19] along with article name changed to despotism (which you caught and reverted).
• Changing dates in possibly unreliable ways.[20][21][22]

Not sure if any of this is blockable, it looks like incompetence. Are there mentors, volunteers willing to adopt troubled editors, to help them along and keep an eye on things? Blocking the account it will come back in new name and at least there is no copyvio this time so some improvement. -- GreenC 00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Mentorship. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, User:Green Cardamom, IP Euoropa vandalism raised at WP:ANI. Copyvio issues also from the IP range. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Visions Party

Hello Dougweller... I am very curious to know why the Twelve Visions Party page got deleted...I simply want to know the reasoning for deleting something so valuable, yet so misunderstood...

Jon Genius

We have fairly strict criteria as to what gets into Wikipedia. The relevant ones are at WP:ORG. The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Visions Party. Virtually all of the supporters ignored our notability criteria. I wonder how many know Mark Hamilton's actual name? Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Visions Party

Hello Dougweller... I am very curious to know why the Twelve Visions Party page got deleted...I simply want to know the reasoning for deleting something so valuable, yet so misunderstood...

Jon Genius

We have fairly strict criteria as to what gets into Wikipedia. The relevant ones are at WP:ORG. The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Visions Party. Virtually all of the supporters ignored our notability criteria. I wonder how many know Mark Hamilton's actual name? Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs

Hello User:Dougweller! I hope this message finds you doing well. I actually created an article by that title a while ago and was not informed that it was made into a redirect. The main article about Pashtun people, which I have also extensively edited in the past, only devotes a couple sentences to this topic (as it should). The “Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs” should have its own article and more information regarding Bellew’s theory can be added therin (similarly the Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites has its own article). I plan to expand that article in the future with more of Bellew’s research. Would you mind reverting yourself? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no time today and need to think about it. Bellew is out of date, basically of historical interest but not sure much more than that. I'll think more on it. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Dougweller, I agree that Bellew is out of date but this would be for historical interest. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs

Hello User:Dougweller! I hope this message finds you doing well. I actually created an article by that title a while ago and was not informed that it was made into a redirect. The main article about Pashtun people, which I have also extensively edited in the past, only devotes a couple sentences to this topic (as it should). The “Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs” should have its own article and more information regarding Bellew’s theory can be added therin (similarly the Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites has its own article). I plan to expand that article in the future with more of Bellew’s research. Would you mind reverting yourself? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no time today and need to think about it. Bellew is out of date, basically of historical interest but not sure much more than that. I'll think more on it. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Dougweller, I agree that Bellew is out of date but this would be for historical interest. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Common Era

My comment had nothing to do with Christian groups taking offense or not, but rather to show a different point about secularism: namely that secularism is not neutral, as is commonly assumed. Therefore my comment highlights a different point entirely from the "Baptist" line above it. Futhermore, my source supported this idea with the following quotes, found near the top of the page:

"The politically sensitive thinkers who developed the new terminology were not so bold as to identify a new, logical, non-Christian basis for dating time such as the beginning of agriculture ten thousand years ago or the beginning of civilization five thousand years ago. Instead, they kept the Christian system but attempted to obscure its historical origin, a curiously anti-historical act."

and

"To remove these concepts and trappings from Western thought is to remove the "heart" from western ideas. Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian thought is Western Civilization and to deny these things is to start the slide back to propaganda as opposed to historical accuracy."

Note how the secularization of the Gregorian calendar into BCE/CE is inherently anti-historical, and propagandistic- according the discussion of these teachers. It specifically aims to negate Christian ideas, while letting other religious or non-religious ideas stand. It doesn't matter if people are offended or not, secularism is its own belief and carries own bias.

Your thought that I repeated an idea is incorrect, as is your thought that my source didn't support what I wrote. Please revert my short comment back. Ri Osraige (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ri Osraige. I said "blog type post - we don't use comments like those as a source" - your source[23] didn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. It's basically a sort of blog and you are quoting anonymous sources (or maybe just one person, as they are anonymous they could be posting under different names). That is just one of the reasons we don't use such sources. If I replaced it I would be violating policy, something I obviously am unwilling to do. You can of course ask at WP:RSN if anyone thinks the source can be used. I admit to some confusion about the idea that Christian theologians who use this convention are trying to negate Christian ideas. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. The nature of the source makes it unsuable. Well, very good then. I am new to this, and will be aware henceforth. Thank you for clearing my confusion. Ri Osraige (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Common Era

My comment had nothing to do with Christian groups taking offense or not, but rather to show a different point about secularism: namely that secularism is not neutral, as is commonly assumed. Therefore my comment highlights a different point entirely from the "Baptist" line above it. Futhermore, my source supported this idea with the following quotes, found near the top of the page:

"The politically sensitive thinkers who developed the new terminology were not so bold as to identify a new, logical, non-Christian basis for dating time such as the beginning of agriculture ten thousand years ago or the beginning of civilization five thousand years ago. Instead, they kept the Christian system but attempted to obscure its historical origin, a curiously anti-historical act."

and

"To remove these concepts and trappings from Western thought is to remove the "heart" from western ideas. Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian thought is Western Civilization and to deny these things is to start the slide back to propaganda as opposed to historical accuracy."

Note how the secularization of the Gregorian calendar into BCE/CE is inherently anti-historical, and propagandistic- according the discussion of these teachers. It specifically aims to negate Christian ideas, while letting other religious or non-religious ideas stand. It doesn't matter if people are offended or not, secularism is its own belief and carries own bias.

Your thought that I repeated an idea is incorrect, as is your thought that my source didn't support what I wrote. Please revert my short comment back. Ri Osraige (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ri Osraige. I said "blog type post - we don't use comments like those as a source" - your source[24] didn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. It's basically a sort of blog and you are quoting anonymous sources (or maybe just one person, as they are anonymous they could be posting under different names). That is just one of the reasons we don't use such sources. If I replaced it I would be violating policy, something I obviously am unwilling to do. You can of course ask at WP:RSN if anyone thinks the source can be used. I admit to some confusion about the idea that Christian theologians who use this convention are trying to negate Christian ideas. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. The nature of the source makes it unsuable. Well, very good then. I am new to this, and will be aware henceforth. Thank you for clearing my confusion. Ri Osraige (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Curious about a possible edit-a-thon.

I know there are lots of groups or individuals that could organize their own edit-a-thons, but didn't know where I should say anything about this: History buffs wanted to update Wikipedia pages. It appears that the History Room of Rowan Public Library is organizing an edit-a-thon, but I didn't know if they would need any help or guidance. I ran across the username Rplhistory (talk · contribs) and left a note about the username on their page. Wanted to make an admin or someone aware if they need any mentoring or something. Doesn't really look like it has been organized by any long-term Wikipedian. Or, at least put a notice on the talk page, possibly. Since I'm newer, I didn't really know where to put this, but saw your name listed in the NC Wikiproject page. Looks like they plan to focus on Rowan County, North Carolina and possibly related pages. Would this have been better to post on the Admin noticeboard? Thank you. Shrikesong (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Curious about a possible edit-a-thon.

I know there are lots of groups or individuals that could organize their own edit-a-thons, but didn't know where I should say anything about this: History buffs wanted to update Wikipedia pages. It appears that the History Room of Rowan Public Library is organizing an edit-a-thon, but I didn't know if they would need any help or guidance. I ran across the username Rplhistory (talk · contribs) and left a note about the username on their page. Wanted to make an admin or someone aware if they need any mentoring or something. Doesn't really look like it has been organized by any long-term Wikipedian. Or, at least put a notice on the talk page, possibly. Since I'm newer, I didn't really know where to put this, but saw your name listed in the NC Wikiproject page. Looks like they plan to focus on Rowan County, North Carolina and possibly related pages. Would this have been better to post on the Admin noticeboard? Thank you. Shrikesong (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Caspian race

Please check the sources. Participant Zyma adds incorrect information. Especially with regards to the Lezgis. This is not present in the source! Thank you with respect. --Гасан Бакинский 11:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Try to read or translate the article in Russian. There is very detailed written about Caspian race. --Гасан Бакинский 12:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think it's time to report this user and his alternative accounts (plus that IP-range) to SPI. It's very interesting you created this account on 2014-03-17 and after the block and protection processes, you activated it on 2014-03-28 and you targeted those article(s) again. Obvious and clear signs of sock puppetry and multiple accounts. -Zyma (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reported you to SPI. --Zyma (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Caspian race

Please check the sources. Participant Zyma adds incorrect information. Especially with regards to the Lezgis. This is not present in the source! Thank you with respect. --Гасан Бакинский 11:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Try to read or translate the article in Russian. There is very detailed written about Caspian race. --Гасан Бакинский 12:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think it's time to report this user and his alternative accounts (plus that IP-range) to SPI. It's very interesting you created this account on 2014-03-17 and after the block and protection processes, you activated it on 2014-03-28 and you targeted those article(s) again. Obvious and clear signs of sock puppetry and multiple accounts. -Zyma (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reported you to SPI. --Zyma (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Kachwaha

Hello Sir ,

With due respect i wanted to tell you that, Kachwaha is a one of the Best Clan of Rajputana in India and in History of Rajput .. (I don't know how much you know about Rajputana..)...

But as here it is telling that, we were Peasants and we just claim that we are a part of Rajput does not seems to be Cool... It is Disturbing for Us..

So plz Refer to it Once..

Thanks and Regard's Rohit Kumar Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitcusatmca (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Kachwaha

Hello Sir ,

With due respect i wanted to tell you that, Kachwaha is a one of the Best Clan of Rajputana in India and in History of Rajput .. (I don't know how much you know about Rajputana..)...

But as here it is telling that, we were Peasants and we just claim that we are a part of Rajput does not seems to be Cool... It is Disturbing for Us..

So plz Refer to it Once..

Thanks and Regard's Rohit Kumar Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitcusatmca (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

• Comment: A foolish request

• Traffic report: Down to a simmer

• Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

• News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

• Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

• Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

• Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

• WikiProject report: From the peak

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

• Comment: A foolish request

• Traffic report: Down to a simmer

• Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

• News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

• Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

• Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

• Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

• WikiProject report: From the peak

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

reincarnation and Ann Ree Colton

Hi Doug,

Not sure why you removed the info about Ann Ree's teaching on reincarnation. She passed in 1984 and the foundation she started in still functioning.

She wanted to remain anonymous during her life so her work could be completed.

Ann Ree knew more about reincarnation and the Soul, from personal experience, than any person since Jesus. Please look into her work for the accuracy of your article.

Thanks, Kirtg (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This:"While the number of people who practice the techniques she taught and identify themselves as Niscienes is small, her influence is nevertheless significant, and her writings are often quoted. Many students of Alice Bailey or H. P. Blavatsky find the somewhat abstract principles of their founders explained more simply and put in a more practical framework. Others who are interested in a bridge between traditional dogmatic Christianity and so-called New Age teachings find the deeper essence of both presented without the tangled doctrinal contradictions." was unsourced and didn't belong in the lead anyway as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. The rest was a copyright violation. There's still more material there that is unsourced or doesn't belong for other reasons. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed more unsourced material, including a bit that had Wikipedia stating as fact that she had telepathic abilities. That sort of stuff wouldn't be written in any encyclopedia I've ever read. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

reincarnation and Ann Ree Colton

Hi Doug,

Not sure why you removed the info about Ann Ree's teaching on reincarnation. She passed in 1984 and the foundation she started in still functioning.

She wanted to remain anonymous during her life so her work could be completed.

Ann Ree knew more about reincarnation and the Soul, from personal experience, than any person since Jesus. Please look into her work for the accuracy of your article.

Thanks, Kirtg (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This:"While the number of people who practice the techniques she taught and identify themselves as Niscienes is small, her influence is nevertheless significant, and her writings are often quoted. Many students of Alice Bailey or H. P. Blavatsky find the somewhat abstract principles of their founders explained more simply and put in a more practical framework. Others who are interested in a bridge between traditional dogmatic Christianity and so-called New Age teachings find the deeper essence of both presented without the tangled doctrinal contradictions." was unsourced and didn't belong in the lead anyway as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. The rest was a copyright violation. There's still more material there that is unsourced or doesn't belong for other reasons. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed more unsourced material, including a bit that had Wikipedia stating as fact that she had telepathic abilities. That sort of stuff wouldn't be written in any encyclopedia I've ever read. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

New Delhi

An editor removed a section from New Delhi with a long edit summary saying "there is no reason to demean the city," etc., but it looks like that material is sourced. Should it be put back in with an edit summary saying "Removed sourced content"? CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

New Delhi

An editor removed a section from New Delhi with a long edit summary saying "there is no reason to demean the city," etc., but it looks like that material is sourced. Should it be put back in with an edit summary saying "Removed sourced content"? CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Europa Universalis-related disruption

I've just created a filter to deal with the disruption you were describing. If you have the appropriate user rights, you should be able to see the source of the filter here -- The Anome (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Anome Thanks very much - that's a fantastically quick response and much appreciated. Could you add Esdaile and "Peninsular War" as well please? Or just tell me how to do it? And how does it actually work? Where do I see anything that trips the filter? Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, is that going to block those additions? Because for the Esdaile stuff I need to be able to see them as they might be legitimate, and of course in the past all of this related vandalism has been added by sockpuppet accounts. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now also added those words. -- The Anome (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

They get logged on the edit filter page itself: since you're an admin, you should be able to see them: for example, at the moment, it says "Filter hits: 1 hit", and a link to this one. If you can't, I think you can just grant yourself the edit filter manager right, and then you should be able to not only see them, but also edit the filters and create new ones.

It's also just as easy to create another filter which would find any addition of those words by any user, logged in or not, and just log them instead of blocking, which you could then use to track the sockpuppet accounts. -- The Anome (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: the IP that got blocked then IP-hopped, and successfully edited the same article as User:187.14.250.133. I've just reverted their edit, and added 187.14.0.0/16 to the filter rule as well. -- The Anome (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: while I was editing the filter, I accidentally false-positived some edits by User:Chipmunkdavis -- please ignore those hits. -- The Anome (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Frederic William Henry Myers

You might want to look at the latest comment in the section "Jamenta's essay up for deletion" on the Talk page of Frederic William Henry Myers, just to keep an eye on it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Frederic William Henry Myers

You might want to look at the latest comment in the section "Jamenta's essay up for deletion" on the Talk page of Frederic William Henry Myers, just to keep an eye on it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rajus Article

Please analyse what i have said and see the talk page history from the origin of the article.See sitush's behaviour about this article.Rajus will be mentioned as "kshatriyas" in the government of India's caste list and also Ansi as K S Singh & B V Krishna Rao said.If you have interest then please analyse and start original research on Rajus article by the sources of Historians,anthropologers including Britishers then you will come to know the truth,but please don't blindly believe what sitush says because sitush is kamma(Shudra caste) and he don't likes any glory of Kshatriya castes like Rajputs,Rajus etc.This you can observe in his kamma caste page,see in its history he is very much liberal and glorified his caste but it is now challenged by other editors. Finally,i request you & also please ask wiki admins to conduct research on Rajus with experts in history but not persons like sitush,then truth will definitely come to light.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Rajus Article

Please analyse what i have said and see the talk page history from the origin of the article.See sitush's behaviour about this article.Rajus will be mentioned as "kshatriyas" in the government of India's caste list and also Ansi as K S Singh & B V Krishna Rao said.If you have interest then please analyse and start original research on Rajus article by the sources of Historians,anthropologers including Britishers then you will come to know the truth,but please don't blindly believe what sitush says because sitush is kamma(Shudra caste) and he don't likes any glory of Kshatriya castes like Rajputs,Rajus etc.This you can observe in his kamma caste page,see in its history he is very much liberal and glorified his caste but it is now challenged by other editors. Finally,i request you & also please ask wiki admins to conduct research on Rajus with experts in history but not persons like sitush,then truth will definitely come to light.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agnivanshi Article & conduct research for Rajus article

Thank you for your edit on Agnivanshi.As Kshatriyas are of Suryavanshi,Chandravanshi & Agnivanshi(only in Rajputs),they are dvijas and have ruling & warrior history.They also contain gotras named after saptarishis and also other great sages(rishis).Thats why i added the sources from that blog and most of them are accurate.If you feel that is against the policy then i don't feel bad because of your removing it from Agnivanshi page. But, i want you to know about Kshatriyas: The Government listed Kshatriya Castes as stated by K.S.Singh(1935-2006),Director General of Anthropological Survey of India were totally 8 castes.They were as follows: 1.Rajput. 2.Kshatriya or Raju or Kshatriya Raju(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu & Karnataka). 3.Raghuvamsi Kshatriya(Karnataka). 4.Kshatriya(Kerala). 5.Koteyar(Tamil nadu,Karnataka). 6.Dhal Kshatriya(Bihar). 7.Aguri(West Bengal). 8.Kshatriya(Orissa & Assam).In all,total 8 communities were listed as Kshatriya Castes by Government of India by the help of Anthropological Survey of India.It was also mentioned in the book "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V,p.1853.You can see this in the following link as follows : http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raghuvamsi & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=jzU5U-TdLMT7rAeXi4GIDw&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aguri

Here Kulam,jati,caste are synonyms.Kshatriya is their varna.In Ancient India,there are only four varnas or castes.But in present India,there are thousands of castes because many castes originated in shudra varna as they have classified due to their profession.In present India,there are castes of Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas,Upper Shudras,Shudras,Dalits & Tribals/Adivasis.You can find these in many books.In present India,there are different Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya castes that means those are the castes which comes under those three varnas.And the castes of those varnas will classified according to their respective varnas and they are called as Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas.For example,Rajput & Rajus are Kshatriya Castes that means those are different castes but comes under Kshatriya Varna,that means they are called as Kshatriya Castes i.e. Kshatriyas.Also you can notice that gotras of Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas are different from shudras.Also those three varnas are dvijas i.e. possess sacred thread and they also possess gotras named after rishis whether they are saptarishis(7 great sages) or other rishis(sages).Kshatriyas are divided into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.Rajus are also classified into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.But in Rajputs, Agnivanshi Lineage is also present.Many Indian & Foreign Anthropologers made analysis about all these.Minna Säävälä-She is one of the great anthropologers who had written many books and analysed the castes of India.

Rajus are described as Kshatriyas by the Government of India which you can see in the Overseas Development Institute reference in that page.Also Rajus are mentioned as kshatriyas in Governments castes list.Rajus are Kshatriyas accepted by Britishers,Historians,Anthropologers,Brahmins,Government of India & also people who know true history.

Finally,what i mean to say is if you have time & interest,you please study & deeply analyse Rajus caste by referring to sources & books written by Indian & Foreign Anthropologers.I believe,then you will know the truth about Rajus.

I have faith in you & i know you can develop the Rajus article.Rajus are noble Kshatriyas who were aristocrats and also higher caste of Kings,Rulers and warriors.Anthropologers mentions them as Kshatriyas who were Kings & warriors.Rajus are Kings & Rulers in the past and people of Rajus caste who are close associates of Kings of Rajus caste or relatives to Kings of Rajus caste acted as warriors in order to protect or defend the King from enemies.Rajus caste consists both "rulers and warriors".Here,warrior doesn't mean a soldier or servant.Here,warriors include close associates or relatives of King who are also Royal Rajus but not Kings.Thats why,Minna Säävälä stated Rajus caste as "higher caste of traditional rulers & warriors;Kshatriya".But,please don't wrongly think about Rajus.I am telling all these because you are a westerner and also you may not have proper idea about castes of India & also Kshatriya Castes in India.Even,Britishers are also westerners,you can verify what they said about Rajus.They,even said what Minna Säävälä said about Rajus.These all can be found out when you analyse & study different sources of anthropologers about Rajus caste.I have given you some idea about Rajus caste who are Kshatriyas.You could get some idea about Rajus.I hope you can understand.Also i request you to please conduct research with experts on Rajus article,then you will come to know the truth.Finally,If any article in wikipedia is wrong,people doesn't believe that article.It doesn't cause any harm.But,Wikipedia's reputation will be decreased.I wish you to modify and also justify the Rajus article and further develop the Rajus article on your analysis.Please reply me if you can.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agnivanshi Article & conduct research for Rajus article

Thank you for your edit on Agnivanshi.As Kshatriyas are of Suryavanshi,Chandravanshi & Agnivanshi(only in Rajputs),they are dvijas and have ruling & warrior history.They also contain gotras named after saptarishis and also other great sages(rishis).Thats why i added the sources from that blog and most of them are accurate.If you feel that is against the policy then i don't feel bad because of your removing it from Agnivanshi page. But, i want you to know about Kshatriyas: The Government listed Kshatriya Castes as stated by K.S.Singh(1935-2006),Director General of Anthropological Survey of India were totally 8 castes.They were as follows: 1.Rajput. 2.Kshatriya or Raju or Kshatriya Raju(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu & Karnataka). 3.Raghuvamsi Kshatriya(Karnataka). 4.Kshatriya(Kerala). 5.Koteyar(Tamil nadu,Karnataka). 6.Dhal Kshatriya(Bihar). 7.Aguri(West Bengal). 8.Kshatriya(Orissa & Assam).In all,total 8 communities were listed as Kshatriya Castes by Government of India by the help of Anthropological Survey of India.It was also mentioned in the book "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V,p.1853.You can see this in the following link as follows : http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raghuvamsi & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=jzU5U-TdLMT7rAeXi4GIDw&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aguri

Here Kulam,jati,caste are synonyms.Kshatriya is their varna.In Ancient India,there are only four varnas or castes.But in present India,there are thousands of castes because many castes originated in shudra varna as they have classified due to their profession.In present India,there are castes of Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas,Upper Shudras,Shudras,Dalits & Tribals/Adivasis.You can find these in many books.In present India,there are different Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya castes that means those are the castes which comes under those three varnas.And the castes of those varnas will classified according to their respective varnas and they are called as Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas.For example,Rajput & Rajus are Kshatriya Castes that means those are different castes but comes under Kshatriya Varna,that means they are called as Kshatriya Castes i.e. Kshatriyas.Also you can notice that gotras of Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas are different from shudras.Also those three varnas are dvijas i.e. possess sacred thread and they also possess gotras named after rishis whether they are saptarishis(7 great sages) or other rishis(sages).Kshatriyas are divided into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.Rajus are also classified into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.But in Rajputs, Agnivanshi Lineage is also present.Many Indian & Foreign Anthropologers made analysis about all these.Minna Säävälä-She is one of the great anthropologers who had written many books and analysed the castes of India.

Rajus are described as Kshatriyas by the Government of India which you can see in the Overseas Development Institute reference in that page.Also Rajus are mentioned as kshatriyas in Governments castes list.Rajus are Kshatriyas accepted by Britishers,Historians,Anthropologers,Brahmins,Government of India & also people who know true history.

Finally,what i mean to say is if you have time & interest,you please study & deeply analyse Rajus caste by referring to sources & books written by Indian & Foreign Anthropologers.I believe,then you will know the truth about Rajus.

I have faith in you & i know you can develop the Rajus article.Rajus are noble Kshatriyas who were aristocrats and also higher caste of Kings,Rulers and warriors.Anthropologers mentions them as Kshatriyas who were Kings & warriors.Rajus are Kings & Rulers in the past and people of Rajus caste who are close associates of Kings of Rajus caste or relatives to Kings of Rajus caste acted as warriors in order to protect or defend the King from enemies.Rajus caste consists both "rulers and warriors".Here,warrior doesn't mean a soldier or servant.Here,warriors include close associates or relatives of King who are also Royal Rajus but not Kings.Thats why,Minna Säävälä stated Rajus caste as "higher caste of traditional rulers & warriors;Kshatriya".But,please don't wrongly think about Rajus.I am telling all these because you are a westerner and also you may not have proper idea about castes of India & also Kshatriya Castes in India.Even,Britishers are also westerners,you can verify what they said about Rajus.They,even said what Minna Säävälä said about Rajus.These all can be found out when you analyse & study different sources of anthropologers about Rajus caste.I have given you some idea about Rajus caste who are Kshatriyas.You could get some idea about Rajus.I hope you can understand.Also i request you to please conduct research with experts on Rajus article,then you will come to know the truth.Finally,If any article in wikipedia is wrong,people doesn't believe that article.It doesn't cause any harm.But,Wikipedia's reputation will be decreased.I wish you to modify and also justify the Rajus article and further develop the Rajus article on your analysis.Please reply me if you can.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You were mistaken

Mr.Dougweller,you were mistaken Rajus material was not copied from that yuva kshatriyas blog.These gotras and other things are explained in books written by k.S.Singh i.e "India's communities" & "People of India".See links: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=8jg5U4uiJ4PyrQfgpYG4Dg&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=people+of+india+tamil+nadu&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=pasupati & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=KDk5U9-uOoS_rgeu_oCYAg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raju

I have written from those.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have written Agnivanshi material from blog but not Rajus.I hope you understand.Thank YOU -Shvrs (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed fake contents from the following different pages yesterday,but why you are reverting again those fake statements which are unreliable ?? -Shvrs (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You were mistaken

Mr.Dougweller,you were mistaken Rajus material was not copied from that yuva kshatriyas blog.These gotras and other things are explained in books written by k.S.Singh i.e "India's communities" & "People of India".See links: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=8jg5U4uiJ4PyrQfgpYG4Dg&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=people+of+india+tamil+nadu&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=pasupati & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=KDk5U9-uOoS_rgeu_oCYAg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raju

I have written from those.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have written Agnivanshi material from blog but not Rajus.I hope you understand.Thank YOU -Shvrs (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed fake contents from the following different pages yesterday,but why you are reverting again those fake statements which are unreliable ?? -Shvrs (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

COI question

Hello Dougweller, I'm an independent scholar. I'm not backed by a university or academics working in the field. There's a good reason for this independence. It took me about 30 years to do the research: collecting names, symbols and words embedding male bias and having to go all over the planet to do so. No university wanted to support such long-term and such expensive research. I committed to doing it and paid my own way. This does not mean my work is not valid. It means that any validation I got from academics did not become or was not made public.

I have been published in numerous publications. One is the Women in Higher Education, Dec. 1996 and March, 1997. Chapter 18, The Patriarchal Code Works Against the Common Good of All Individuals by Louise Goueffic, is published in Hearing Many Voices 2000, Hampton Press, Inc, Cresskill New Jersey.

The LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts) Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, wrote an abstract on my book Breaking the Patriarchal Code. The book was nominated for the annual book prize, the announcement sent to the publisher by Patrice M. Buzzanell in the Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University.

And by the way, my book Breaking the Patriarchal Code was published by Knowledge Ideas and Trends, 1995, Manchester CT. It was not self-published. It was mostly distributed in the US. In 2011 Sapien Books reprinted the book with a few revisions to distribute in Canada. This does not constitute "self-publishing."

How would you propose I go about legitimizing myself, or showing that my work has been validated?

I feel I should be on the WIKI sites 'Patriarchy' and 'Gender and Language': patriarchy's bases stem from the first division of people by sex expanded in language, my work is on these two inter-related aspects in knowledge.

I am confused by the COI statement. Would you please enlighten me and let me know how to proceed from here.

Louise Goueffic 24.235.245.178 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

" It was registered again in December 2009 to diffuse literature about Louise Gouëffic’s second book, An Inconvenient Lie." makes it appear that it is self-published. Who paid for the publication?

Louise Goueffic There are two issues here. One is whether you should be adding your own material to the article. Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? I raised the issue at WP:COIN but it's been quiet there recently.

The second issue is whether your work meets the criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I don't think it does, but you can ask at WP:RSN.

COI question

Hello Dougweller, I'm an independent scholar. I'm not backed by a university or academics working in the field. There's a good reason for this independence. It took me about 30 years to do the research: collecting names, symbols and words embedding male bias and having to go all over the planet to do so. No university wanted to support such long-term and such expensive research. I committed to doing it and paid my own way. This does not mean my work is not valid. It means that any validation I got from academics did not become or was not made public.

I have been published in numerous publications. One is the Women in Higher Education, Dec. 1996 and March, 1997. Chapter 18, The Patriarchal Code Works Against the Common Good of All Individuals by Louise Goueffic, is published in Hearing Many Voices 2000, Hampton Press, Inc, Cresskill New Jersey.

The LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts) Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, wrote an abstract on my book Breaking the Patriarchal Code. The book was nominated for the annual book prize, the announcement sent to the publisher by Patrice M. Buzzanell in the Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University.

And by the way, my book Breaking the Patriarchal Code was published by Knowledge Ideas and Trends, 1995, Manchester CT. It was not self-published. It was mostly distributed in the US. In 2011 Sapien Books reprinted the book with a few revisions to distribute in Canada. This does not constitute "self-publishing."

How would you propose I go about legitimizing myself, or showing that my work has been validated?

I feel I should be on the WIKI sites 'Patriarchy' and 'Gender and Language': patriarchy's bases stem from the first division of people by sex expanded in language, my work is on these two inter-related aspects in knowledge.

I am confused by the COI statement. Would you please enlighten me and let me know how to proceed from here.

Louise Goueffic 24.235.245.178 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

" It was registered again in December 2009 to diffuse literature about Louise Gouëffic’s second book, An Inconvenient Lie." makes it appear that it is self-published. Who paid for the publication?

Louise Goueffic There are two issues here. One is whether you should be adding your own material to the article. Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? I raised the issue at WP:COIN but it's been quiet there recently.

The second issue is whether your work meets the criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I don't think it does, but you can ask at WP:RSN.

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew McIntosh (professor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *McIntosh, AC; Beheshti, N 60/720,716 (UOL Ref: UOL 05012/US/P1 Vapour Explosion Device. 2005.
• * [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/dec/27/post845 an article by Richard Dawkins]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mahabharata may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iron Age India may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• at around 1000 BCE. Archaeologist Rakesh Tewari stated that studies of the site at [[Karnataka]]) implied "that they had already been experimenting for centuries" as by that time they were able to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew McIntosh (professor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *McIntosh, AC; Beheshti, N 60/720,716 (UOL Ref: UOL 05012/US/P1 Vapour Explosion Device. 2005.
• * [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/dec/27/post845 an article by Richard Dawkins]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mahabharata may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iron Age India may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• at around 1000 BCE. Archaeologist Rakesh Tewari stated that studies of the site at [[Karnataka]]) implied "that they had already been experimenting for centuries" as by that time they were able to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Preservation of Evidence

Would you mind copying the contents of [|this] page to your talk page? You can delete it immediately afterwards. I just need a diff preserving an accurate record of the evidence. Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if it will help, but sure. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

		Wikipedia, We Have a Problem 		exposed tactics of activist editors in a wiki war- a case study 		 				 	 	 	 	 		 			 				 	 		Next steps: The Capn

The following statement is addressed to Wikipedia in general but is inspired in large part by the issues highlighted in the Sheldrake case.

Written by Ryan Castle, aka ‘The Capn’.

I’ve been a contributing editor for many years on Wikipedia, and anyone looking through my edits, on article or talk pages, will see that I strive to be a reasonable, diplomatic editor. That said, what has been happening on WP, as typified by the Rupert Sheldrake page and the witch-hunt against Rome Viharo aka The Tumbleman has been complete and utter BS.

I am a true believer in WP and still find myself inspired by the concept of a global database for all of mankind’s knowledge, but I am increasingly aware of, alarmed at and infuriated by the growth of bullying tactics on Wikipedia.

Whether promoted by skeptics (of which I am one) or by radical conservatives (of which I am not), personal biases and agendas have no place on WP, which is supposed to be a safe, neutral territory for all perspectives to be weighed, measured and considered. Not all perspectives have equal weight, but it is unethical and against the principles of Wikipedia to exclude any approach simply because one disagrees with it.

That is what has been happening on the Rupert Sheldrake page and with those who have supported the minority opinion, especially Tumbleman A group of skeptical editors apparently decided that any sources that supported Sheldrake’s research were by definition unacceptable and persecuted any editors who promoted them (like Tumbleman at first, then anyone who supported a similar idea). This behavior can only occur when those editors assume the following:

Their understanding of the subject is the only correct one. They understand WP policy better than any competing editor. Dissenting interpretations of data are malicious and dangerous. Thus, any dissent is invalid and must be silenced.

These assumptions are arrogant at best and a threat to the very principles of an open source database like Wikipedia at worst. I try to assume the best of every editor, but the persistent, antagonistic harassment of dissenting editors has gone beyond the benefit of my doubt. At the point where I read editors saying in policy proceedings that anyone who does not share their contempt of Rupert Sheldrake needs to be banned from Wikipedia, I know that this is not simply a matter of communication, but rather bullying.

I cannot abide bullies or the quashing of perspective. I’ll be the first to admit that Wikipedia is not an subjective forum, but by expelling people like Tumbleman for disagreeing with their own opinions these skeptical editors are making WP into just that. This great enterprise into a collective site of all human knowledge cannot survive if those attempting to represent little known concepts are punished to attempting to help.

Nearly a dozen editors who have disagreed with the skeptical majority’s opinion on the Sheldrake page have been threatened with banning. Those who persisted, and especially those who presented valid references, sources and citations that could not be easily dismissed were accused of vague infractions and/or of sharing the viewpoints of others that had been previously banned, such as Tumbleman. Despite failing to illustrate a single case of actual, intentional or disruptive violations, these cases against the dissenting editors were rapidly filled by shrill cries to have them banned forever, “for the good of WP.” An administrator usually gives the case a brief review, sees an entire page full of denunciations of the dissenting editor and makes the quick & easy choice to click “BAN.” In all fairness, these admins have hundreds of cases to get through and can’t spend much time reviewing the details. That brings me to my next point…

The problem is that there is no function to weed out these bullies. All of the current institutions are based on addressing the problem of vandals who crudely violate pages by inserting things like “The theory of the expansion of an infinitely dense singularity is known as the Big Bang, and was first theorized by YOUR MOM!” More subtle abuses like falsely accusing editors of minor violations in order to get them banned are not accounted for, as an appeal and oversight system is virtually nonexistent for overworked admins. If WP is going to survive as a respected academic source, then these institutions need to be implemented or it will devolve into the rule of the loudest/most stubborn.

This atmosphere makes it easy to harass people one disagrees with, and the easiest charge of all is accusing someone of sockpuppetry. Technically this is the practice of using several accounts to pretend to be several different people, forming the illusion of consensus. In practice, it has been used against numerous editors as an accusation that they aren’t really who they say they are, but rather some other, discredited editor. This puts these editors in the impossible position of proving a negative (ie. “Prove that your anonymous profile is really you…”). When they can’t disprove the charge (obviously) they are banned. If the editor wants to continue contributing to WP, a worthy desire, they have to create another profile, which in itself IS NOT PROHIBITED, but if detected they are accused of being serial sockpuppets and their IP is banned.

Again, to break this down, if you are accused of sockpuppetry:

If you deny that you have several accounts you are called an unrepentant troll and banned. If you acknowledge that you have several (even legitimate) accounts, you are called an admitted sockpuppet and banned.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating against these skeptical editors or for Rome Viharo. I am advocating for ensuring Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia it can be, and that all the countless hours of labor the world has put into it is not wasted by it becoming known for being a hostile environment unwilling to accept diverse viewpoints. I am myself a skeptic and am not demanding that Rupert Sheldrake’s research be presented as incontrovertible fact, I am demanding that the editors on every WP page be given the respect and fair treatment that we all deserve. That includes myself, every skeptical editor and every dissenting editor. And it certainly includes The Tumbleman.

Ryan Castle

Askahrc aka The Cap’n

In keeping with my tradition of breaking it down for my Brethren of the Coast, here is a Piratical translation of the above:

Avast thar, me hearties! Ye all know who I be, and damn yer eyes iffin’ ye call me a blaggard. I’ve sailed these seas o’ Wikipedia since afore any o’ ye were weaned, and by damnation I know how to keep to the Code.

But thar be scoundrels and knaves what don’t abide by the rule of Equal Share of Contributions, an they be tryin’ to play Jack Ketch to thems that disagree wit’ em, with nary a thought fer the spirit o’ the Code. They be sellin’ out their mates and maroonin’ em whenever they don’ like what they’re sayin’.

Blast it all, this be an act o’ mutiny ‘gainst Wikipedia itself! We Brethren o’ the Coast live by rules o’ equality, fair representation an’ democracy, values we ain’t fond of losin’. To hell wit’ bullies, drunken and in alleys or actin’ like pisspoor bastards on a policy page. Every bucko be our matey, whether they be skeptic, pirate or Tumbleman himself. An’ I’ll drink damnation afore I let me mateys be treated unfair-like.

Test me resolve, ye scurvy dogs. I dare ye.

~The Cap’n~

Thanks Doug. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Fornovo

I reverted your contribution, reinstating the whole paragraph. You gave the following reason for erasing the paragraph: "(Google translation of Guicciardini doesn't seem to say that, so please explain on talk page, quoting Benedetti would be fine but I don't seem him as an RS for a statement of act like this)".

I'm a professional translator, my native language is Italian, and while my English prose is not necessarily flawless, I was accurate in translating Guicciardini's text (cited in the Talk in Italian). Guicciardini does say that the consensus is for a French victory. Machine translation is not a reliable source, as one may infer from the following Bing translation of the copy:

"Nevertheless, the universal consent won the palma to ' French cannot: for the number of dead much different, and why scacciorono gl ' hostile across the River, and because it was their free over first, which was the restraint for which proceeded had to fight."

I can't make head or tail of that translation, but I see it doesn't translate the Italian word "palma", meaning "palm tree" or "branch from a palm tree". "Dare la palma", in Italian, means "to adjudicate victory"; it's a well-known idiom.

On the other hand Barzini Jr (also cited in the paragraph as a source) says contemporary conventions would have assigned victory to the Italians (the Holy League) because the French left the battlefield and lost their provisions. Beneditti's being a RS or not is not very important and I shall not discuss it here; for the other two sources abundantly confirm the imbalance. In fact, no source denies the Italians suffered much heavier casualties than the French. Pan Brerus (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"On the other hand Barzini Jr (also cited in the paragraph as a source) says contemporary conventions would have assigned victory to the Italians (the Holy League) because the French left the battlefield and lost their provisions." On which page does Barzini, a journalist, say this?

"Fornovo was clearly a French victory in the sense that Charles achieved his aim of breaking through into Lombardy" -- The Military Organisation of a Renaissance State: Venice C. 1400 To 1617, M. E. Mallett, J. R. Hale, page 56.

"Moved by the news of the virtual French victory at Fornovo..." -- The Empire under Maximilian I, R.G.D. Laffin, The New Cambridge Modern History, ed. Richard Bruce Wernham, page 201.

It is quite clear Barzini is in no way qualified to speak for "contemporary conventions" or the battle of Fornovo.

Instead of taking a preconceived opinion as to the results of the battle, we should, instead, use reliable secondary sources to tell us the results of the battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, Pan Brerus - we use secondary sources for the results of the battle. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Fornovo

I reverted your contribution, reinstating the whole paragraph. You gave the following reason for erasing the paragraph: "(Google translation of Guicciardini doesn't seem to say that, so please explain on talk page, quoting Benedetti would be fine but I don't seem him as an RS for a statement of act like this)".

I'm a professional translator, my native language is Italian, and while my English prose is not necessarily flawless, I was accurate in translating Guicciardini's text (cited in the Talk in Italian). Guicciardini does say that the consensus is for a French victory. Machine translation is not a reliable source, as one may infer from the following Bing translation of the copy:

"Nevertheless, the universal consent won the palma to ' French cannot: for the number of dead much different, and why scacciorono gl ' hostile across the River, and because it was their free over first, which was the restraint for which proceeded had to fight."

I can't make head or tail of that translation, but I see it doesn't translate the Italian word "palma", meaning "palm tree" or "branch from a palm tree". "Dare la palma", in Italian, means "to adjudicate victory"; it's a well-known idiom.

On the other hand Barzini Jr (also cited in the paragraph as a source) says contemporary conventions would have assigned victory to the Italians (the Holy League) because the French left the battlefield and lost their provisions. Beneditti's being a RS or not is not very important and I shall not discuss it here; for the other two sources abundantly confirm the imbalance. In fact, no source denies the Italians suffered much heavier casualties than the French. Pan Brerus (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"On the other hand Barzini Jr (also cited in the paragraph as a source) says contemporary conventions would have assigned victory to the Italians (the Holy League) because the French left the battlefield and lost their provisions." On which page does Barzini, a journalist, say this?

"Fornovo was clearly a French victory in the sense that Charles achieved his aim of breaking through into Lombardy" -- The Military Organisation of a Renaissance State: Venice C. 1400 To 1617, M. E. Mallett, J. R. Hale, page 56.

"Moved by the news of the virtual French victory at Fornovo..." -- The Empire under Maximilian I, R.G.D. Laffin, The New Cambridge Modern History, ed. Richard Bruce Wernham, page 201.

It is quite clear Barzini is in no way qualified to speak for "contemporary conventions" or the battle of Fornovo.

Instead of taking a preconceived opinion as to the results of the battle, we should, instead, use reliable secondary sources to tell us the results of the battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, Pan Brerus - we use secondary sources for the results of the battle. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Succession to Muhammad Page

Hi Doug I added some content into the Succession to Muhammad page but Kazemita1 keeps on removing it citing copy right violation even though I gave the references and the whole page is already full of quotes from various books. I want to avoid an edit war. I want to improve Wikipedia so that it contains researched scholarly content, that is useful to the readers. This whole article is full of people pushing their opinions. There needs to be a critical analysis of the content on this page. Various books have been written on this issues through out the ages and this content needs to be put into a table so that people could compare what was said when and by whom and why. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Succession to Muhammad Page

Hi Doug I added some content into the Succession to Muhammad page but Kazemita1 keeps on removing it citing copy right violation even though I gave the references and the whole page is already full of quotes from various books. I want to avoid an edit war. I want to improve Wikipedia so that it contains researched scholarly content, that is useful to the readers. This whole article is full of people pushing their opinions. There needs to be a critical analysis of the content on this page. Various books have been written on this issues through out the ages and this content needs to be put into a table so that people could compare what was said when and by whom and why. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Given your interests...

I thought you might like to have a look at whether there was anything you wanted to contribute to the new article, Chalice of Doña Urraca. I saw you helped clean up a related section at Holy Grail. Cheers, Stalwart111 04:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Protect Rajus Article from vandalism

Whatever i have written is according to the sources of Kumar Suresh Singh and also his books "India's Communities","People of India" & "Communities,segments,synonyms,surnames & titles" according to the Anthropological Survey of India and also book written by B.V.Krishna Rao,Andhra Historical Research Society.

I have clearly explained that Rajus or Kshatriya Rajus are clearly mentioned as "Kshatriya" but not as rajus or Kshatriya rajus in Government's records & castes list.Government mentions them as Kshatriya and calls them as Kshatriya which u can observe in many sources including overseas development institute thats what i explained to Joshua Jonathan in his talk page now.I have provided sources for different statements.I have written populated states in infobox which is clearly mentioned in book written by K.S.Singh named "Communities,segments,synonyms,surnames & titles".

I am explaining this to you sir,because you are also an administrator.I have faith in you & not on other users & you could protect the article from vandalism from different users which i am facing today.

I also request you to please conduct research on Rajus or Kshatriya Rajus who are Kshatriyas with experts in history but not ordinary users who always vandalise articles.

I hope you could understand & solve the problem.Because i can't always follow the article & preserve it from vandalism.I may have to stay away from wikipedia for few months because of my work.I hope you could understand the situation and what i say.Please protect it.Thank You Sir -Shvrs (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption

Dear Doug,

Its a real pity that nobody at Wikipedia is prepared to take time out to discuss and understand the issues India Against Corruption is facing with regard to the mischief User:Sitush has done on the article (which bears our name).

Its an even greater pity that nobody at WMF is prepared to address the ever increasing anarchy at Wikipedia. As a long time Wikipedia editor myself (9+ years) 1,03,000+ edits 832+ still working accounts, I, (like so many other former Wikipedians) am completely disgusted by the prevalent racist Anglo-Saxon attitudes and the naked hostility highly educated Indians have to suffer at the hands of 'chutiyas'* like Sitush who evidently have nothing better to do than jack off here all day long.

Please do us all a favour and "stub" the India Against Corruption article.

Have a nice day.

for "India Against Corruption" (estt. 1924)

• http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chutiya — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrangDocVan (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller, I'm so confused I going around in a dizzy. Please, what is allowed as reference? Is naming another author that discusses a certain aspect of language considered self-promotion? And not acceptable by Wiki? Are secondary sources (articles I published in magazines and journals) considered advertising for me by me?

What I need to know is what is what and allowable. Obviously I did something very wrong: Orangemike deleted my article. I asked that it be recreated.

I'm trying hard to use as neutral a tone as possible.

I'm not a self-important person. My work is not 'in my own self-interest'. I'm not tech savvy and I often don't understand what editors say.

I don't need to quote other authors. The material I present, names and symbols in use today, speaks for themselves. I don't need "to advertise." I don't need to mention the publications my articles were published in. I have 10,000 items of speech to choose from known by the broad public; what is not seen or known is what these items do. I'm very willing to fix any problems with my article, but I need to know what these are. Louise Goueffic (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Europa Universalis-related disruption

I've just created a filter to deal with the disruption you were describing. If you have the appropriate user rights, you should be able to see the source of the filter here -- The Anome (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Anome Thanks very much - that's a fantastically quick response and much appreciated. Could you add Esdaile and "Peninsular War" as well please? Or just tell me how to do it? And how does it actually work? Where do I see anything that trips the filter? Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, is that going to block those additions? Because for the Esdaile stuff I need to be able to see them as they might be legitimate, and of course in the past all of this related vandalism has been added by sockpuppet accounts. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now also added those words. -- The Anome (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

They get logged on the edit filter page itself: since you're an admin, you should be able to see them: for example, at the moment, it says "Filter hits: 1 hit", and a link to this one. If you can't, I think you can just grant yourself the edit filter manager right, and then you should be able to not only see them, but also edit the filters and create new ones.

It's also just as easy to create another filter which would find any addition of those words by any user, logged in or not, and just log them instead of blocking, which you could then use to track the sockpuppet accounts. -- The Anome (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: the IP that got blocked then IP-hopped, and successfully edited the same article as User:187.14.250.133. I've just reverted their edit, and added 187.14.0.0/16 to the filter rule as well. -- The Anome (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: while I was editing the filter, I accidentally false-positived some edits by User:Chipmunkdavis -- please ignore those hits. -- The Anome (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/10229782 , User:187.15.61.202 made two attempts to add "feudal monarchy" to an article, was prevented from editing by filter in both cases, made no other edits. -- The Anome (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• • The Anome thanks. I try to look at it at least once a day - watching tv when the IP edited. That was sheer vandalism, entirely unrelated. If it is more than one person it's a small group as it's all from the same place. This seems to be working well, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

user:Sonici

After receiving this personal attack[25],"FUCK YOU KANSAS BİTCH". I did some digging and user:Sonici's editing mirrors user:Erim Turukku[26](ie. EMr KnG)[27]. Perhaps a note to Mark Arsten would be in order?[28] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

All of Sonici's edits fit into 3 categories: blanking, unsourced changes, source falsification. He is a disruptive-only editor. See his block log and his contributions from the beginning. Almost all of his edits reverted by other editors, and non-reverted ones are just remained because nobody reviewed his edits on targeted articles. --Zyma (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sufficient evidence for WP:DUCK but his block log is longer now. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hello Dougweller. You deleted a part the article Man: whence, how and whither, a record of clairvoyant investigation (copyvio from [1]. I’m sorry, but it is public domain Theosophy. Please! Make undo. Thank you. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Some Help at Talk:Seahorse

Can I ask you to mediate an editing dispute I'm having with an IP editor at Talk:Seahorse#Medicine?? I don't want to turn the situation into an edit war, and I'm afraid that the talkpage discussion may turn into a shouting match (if it isn't already).--Mr Fink (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A question: username policy

Does this username violate username policy and can be considered as a promotional username? --Zyma (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Zyma, that's ok. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I should watch the reported usernames to learn more about username policy. Thanks for the answer. --Zyma (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Grutness's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of most-printed books

Greetings. There is edit warring going on over the authorship of the Quran [29][30][31]. What would you suggest? —Omnipaedista (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Great Job! Ck-33023 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of yoga schools, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shiva Yoga (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) 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedia conferences—soul-searching about costs, attendance, and future

• WikiProject report: Deutschland in English

• Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference

• Featured content: April Fools

• Traffic report: Regressing to the mean

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Tajik people

Hi. I hope you are fine. Your help is needed in the article Tajik people. An anon IP is removing academic sources, inserting nonsense POV and is starting a revert war. --Lysozym (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the protection on the Stripper article. On that note, and this may solve the whole issue, how do I submit a photo for review or deletion? The male stripper photo that is being used currently, was added to the article by its uploader and it appears to violate the copyright and privacy policies of the site, but I don't know how to submit it for review. Thanks, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod Looking at [32], why do you think it violates copyright? It may violate our privacy policies, you can ask about that at [33] and copyvio at [34]. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

First off, it clearly shows the faces of several people who may or may not want to be associated with what is going on in the photo. The uploader did not state weather they obtained a model release from anyone in the photo. Furthermore, its unclear at best if the location is a public or private space. If its private, then the photo could stay in Commons as I understand the policy, but as one User has observed on the Talk page the photo does not seem appropriate for the Stripper article. The original was of better quality and seems to clearly be in a public place removing the privacy concern altogether. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok Scalhotrod, see [35] and the associated commons page as well as the 3 deletion discussions at [36]. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Knights Templar legends

Hi. I see you reverted my edit to the above page - I'm not sure why, given the weakness of the text and reference it replaced. I've started a discussion on the talk page, perhaps you could explain your problem with the material so I can adequately address your concerns. I'd like to move on quickly here, as this edit was more of a stop-gap prior to a re-write of the paragraph drawing in the other sources of the Templars in Scotland myth. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

King Darius

You wrote: 'I suspect sock puppetry there also. I have reverted some copyvio. The IP has also been adding to the hatnote a claim that Dan Persian is "a language that came from King Darius (mentioned in the book of Daniel)." This of course is sheer nonsense, as not only do languages not come from a single person, it is extremely unlikely this person ever existed.' There are theories as to who the King Darius mentioned in the Book of Daniel was. Invented languages do come from a single person. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A bit pedantic perhaps? We aren't dealing with a time period during which there were invented languages, this dialect isn't considered an invented language, and of course Darius the Mede almost certainly never existed (and the article supports that, speculation is cheap) and pre-dates the dialect. But I've qualified my statement at ANI.

High King of Ireland

Please see the latest series of edits to High King of Ireland by the anonymous IP, and my comment on the talk page in response. Given the lack of support shown for constructive editing, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicknack009 - ask at a Wikiproject? Sorry, real life is getting in my way for a few days. But whatever is happening, it's not worth getting blocked for breaching WP:3RR. I've just self-reverted at another article (an anti-Jewish IP I think) to avoid even hitting it. There is rarely an emergency so most things can wait hours and even days to get fixed. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Amen

According to Wikipedia:FURTHER, the Further reading section is for "editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." Since the section Amen in Judaism is very short, I added a reference to a book that discusses Amen in Judaism at length, where the reader can find lots of information about Amen in Judaism, culled from many classical Jewish texts. Sincerely, -- -- -- 02:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Explained on talk page - doesn't look as though the book is mentioned in other relevant literature. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Raju

Our friend still doesn't get it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan and sitush are repeating reversions again.Mr.Dougweller!Please see the talk page of "Rajus".I have explained to you very clearly before and now you can check every statement ans source in that if you want.Thank you -Shvrs (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have faith in them and i presume they are waiting to delete the article's matter to defame Rajus i.e. Kshatriyas whenever they have a possible chance.Please verify version and talk page.If you have still doubt you can take the help of your experts i.e. experts in history of Andhra Pradesh & conduct original research and you can find the statements true according to the sources and also truth will come to light.But,please protect it from vandalism with different reasons -Shvrs (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeating reversions in Raju page

sitush & Joshua Jonathan are repeatingly reverting the page without understanding as i have clearly provided reasons before & now in the talk page of Rajus page.They doing it to make me blocked.Please protect the version.Thank you -Shvrs (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Unconstrucive edits in 2 Islamic related articles

Please check out Kostja's edits, who is repeatedly removing territories from Ottoman Empire and Khanate of Sibir for no good reason because apparently it seemed vandalism to remove territories and the map that way.
I have reverted him twice in both articles. Your neutral intervention to save the articles from edit wars and keep them neutral will be appreciated. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Khestwol, he seems to be adding fact tags now which is ok. Of course, when a fact tag is added a reliable source is required to verify it. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction

I appreciate your protecting Earthquake prediction, but full protection means the contested text is locked in, and the IP that refuses to discuss his edits has no reason to discuss them — they're locked in. My hope in requesting semi-protection was to encourage him to engage on the issue (or get a regular account). Any chance you would change this to semi-protection? Or revert to an earlier version? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ), I'd suggest either DRN if the IP will agree, or third opinion, or perhaps even better an RfC. That will bring other editors to this article. Semi-protection would have been inappropriate - this is basically a content dispute and we don't force IPs to get accounts. Try to get a focussed RfC. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indo-Scythians may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• = [[Buddhism]]<br />[[Hinduism]]<br />[[Ancient Greek religion]]<br />[[Zoroastrianism]]<br />[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some requests

Hi. Would you please do these things for me?:

• Delete this user page: User:Zyma/Tools. Just an unused and unnecessary subpage.
• Indefinite semi-protection for my talk page. Only autoconfirmed users can post on my talk page.

Thanks. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Zyma Page deleted, but our policy on on protecting user talk pages says:

"User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. Users whose talk pages are semi-protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.

A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page." Dougweller (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --Zyma (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Gothic biographies

Last year several biographies on Gothic people were deleted by you because they had been created or edited by a banned user. Some of these articles, like that on Athanaric, were in fact of encyclopedic value, and have since been restored by User:Dbachmann and others. There are still related articles remain deleted, like that on Alavivus (de:Alaviv). I've adressed Dbachmann about it, but he recommended adressing you instead. Is it still possible to restore these articles? Krakkos (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Krakkos, he was banned in part because of his misuse of sources. I have no objection to anyone creating them as new articles, but I couldn't simply restore them as they were. An RfC unanimously concluded that ""Paul Bedson has over a long period of time, among other things, added original research, fringe theories, unverifiable or materially false content to articles, and actively continues to do so." So do go ahead and recreate them as new articles or suggest at a Wikiproject they be created, but I couldn't in good conscious just restore them. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan

An editor posted a comment on the Talk page of Ferdinand Magellan under the section heading "Memorials" saying that he or she would like to add his or her own book to the article. Do you want to reply? CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

• News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Law

• Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz

• Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes

• Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Another page move scenario gone wrong

Have you got time to untangle events described at Talk:Kachwaha (clan)? - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Liberal Christianity

I noticed an edit to Liberal Christianity in which an editor deleted an entire paragraph with no explanation. From reading the paragraph, I see that it is unsourced and that the content might offend some readers, but is removal of a paragraph with no explanation or discussion acceptable? CorinneSD (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Large unexplained deletions are not best practice, but the paragraph in question appears to be a classic case of WP:SOAPBOX content, asserting in Wikipedia's voice that liberal Christianity led to "a rejection of the most basic tenets of Christian belief and morality" and characterizing something John Dominic Crossan said as "absurd and unsubstantiated". Seems like this was ripe for removal. -Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I love my talk page stalkers. Thanks very much - that's absolutely right. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this today. I think you're right, too. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits you might want to check

I noticed you reverted Rarevogel's edits on Susa. You might want to check this edit.[37] The source[38] does not support the sentence, "Elamite civilization was strongly tied to that of Mesopotamia, with both influencing each other (though Elam was most often the receiving side in this interaction)" and appears to be original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy Page

Even I'm surprised about Truthsayer62's latest edits. He just deleted academic material, and inserted a whole bunch of junk Shugden websites.Heicth (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Bronze

I made a few minor edits to Bronze, and as I was doing so I noticed that the dates go back and forth between BC and BCE. I'd like to make the dates consistent. Which do you think it should be? CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe the rule is to conform to the era style used earlier in the article’s history, which in this case appears to be BC.—Odysseus1479 07:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to always search the earliest versions. Although my interpretation is that if the earliest version is one style, and a short while later that changes and stays stable, you go with the stable one. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Pashtun Origins

Greetings Doug.

Sorry to bother you.

Regarding the Pashtun page:

I can not find one clear academic source that states the Pashtun (ethnic Afghan) people are "Iranian" It is not something we consider ourselves nor does it hold any academic merit. We share one common language, "Dari" which originated in the Sassanid royal court however the Pashtun people primarily speak "Pashto" which is basically ancient Greek assimilated with regional languages. The retroflex sounds come from various ancient Gandaharan languages.

The term "Iran" post dates Persian rule of Western Afghanistan under Muhammad Sha. The Pashtun tribes who liberated the land migrated from ancient Gandahara in the East, along the Indus. The people who live in Herat are "iranian", we know that and we call them "Parsiwans, Farsiwans" or "Tajiks" because of that.

The only sources ever posted about Pashtun people being "Iranian" have been falsified. One led to another open source page edited by the same claimant. Another led to a page that made no mention of Pashtuns being "Iranian" and the latest led to an irrelevant map.

If there is no source for the claim, should it not be removed? Is it not a "good faith" claim to begin with?

Is it also not strange that the following sentences claim that our origins are unclear (sourced and cited), right after defining us as "Iranians" who have a very clear origin?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakzai1919 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Barakzai1919, the article is always a bit of a mess. It should probably say Indo-Iranian. See [39] and [40] for instance. This really should be on the article's talk page though

Aisha

Hi! First I want to ask why did you revert my edit? Because the article has some editors? But let's forget about it, because I want to know your idea about changing the title of the article. I think using only "Aisha" for the name of the article is not good and like the articles of her siblings and also the articles of other wives of Muhammad the title should be "Aisha bint Abi Bakr". In Arabic language, bin Y and bint Y was like a family name in that period.Keivan.f^Talk 10:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi user:Keivan.f, I reverted it for the same reason I've reverted some moves of other articles before, lack of discussion on an active article. Personally I'd have to be convinced that Aisha bint Abi Bakr is the most common name in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources#reliable English language sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. If you can show me that it clearly does, I'll probably support the move. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the most common name in Arabic language for her and this type of name that I noticed above (X bin/t Y) is the most common type of name in Arabic for historical figures. Take a look at the titles of other historical Arab figures like the Twelve Imams of Shia, children of Abu Bakr (Aisha's siblings), and the titles for the articles of Muhammad's wives.Keivan.f^Talk 15:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But there's also another thing that I should notice. All of Muhammad's wives are well known in Islamic history. Like the articles of Muhammad, Ali, Abu Bakr and Umar, and also Aisha and Umm Salama, we can change the titles of their articles. For example we can move Khadija bint Khuwaylid to Khadija and etc. I also think that we should move Uthman ibn Affan to Uthman like the articles of other Islamic Cailphs: Ali, Abu Bakr and Umar.Keivan.f^Talk 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But I weakly support the second idea for the articles of Muhammad's wives. Actually as I said above, I think we can move Aisha to Aisha bint Abi Bakr.Keivan.f^Talk 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I really think my talk page isn't a good place for this discussion as others don't know about it. Remember, the most common name in Arabic isn't relevant on the English Wikipedia, we need to look at English language sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So, you mean that I should create a section in the talk page of the article, don't you?Keivan.f^Talk 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Keivan.f I think you should make a request the way it's described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

New sock puppets and POV-pushing

• Andronovo culture
• Afanasevo culture
• user 1
• user 2 --Zyma (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess he's Az-507 or another POV-warrior from Turkey who targeted many articles, a user on a Turkifying quest. --Zyma (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Created on 2 April and activated on 14 April. Both of them are socks. --Zyma (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You should be start stand-up. You've got a potential. But stop gossip. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• ps: dougweller, My advice: don't take care him. He(?)is just lying everyone about me. Thanks. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just see his edits and edit summaries. A recent personal attack. --Zyma (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your actings pushing me to think that way.(It's so obvious actually) So what is this than? "Sockpuppet" or "older vandalist user" blamings? or attacking to article because of "It's not a reliable source" claimes? Stop harmful activities and lying about users.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

On MMfA links

Hi Doug. You apparently think I'm acting in some way that's unseemly, so I'll approach you since you haven't chosen to approach me yet. I've spent a good deal of time fixing/removing links to a variety of sources. I spent a good amount of time on MMfA links last year, and we're down to under 100 or so uses of it, up from a lot more than that. I've spent a good deal of time figuring out whether we should be using it at all, and MMfA isn't the only one I've worked on. We're also basically done with uses of bad sites like FreeRepublic, PolicyMic, Rense.com and so on. If this is an issue with you, I'd love to know why, as I can't see how such blatantly partisan, often-unnoticed criticisms or sourcing should be tolerated. I also find it curious that it's MMfA that gets people's ire up, but never any of the really bad conservative ones. I haven't had a chance to get to NewsBusters, for example, but I doubt I'd receive the same response. So what's the story here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't decide what to say and took a break. Did I miss Talk:Fox News Channel controversies#MMfA Again on your page? Maybe I've misunderstood you, but my impression is that where we cite it we are normally ok. I agree that there are times where we have other sources and don't need it, and didn't revert you then. It's things such as the Guardian citing it that make me think we can use it judiciously. I get concerned when people say we can't use pov sources, as we obviously can - at times. Mind you I wouldn't want to use Cybercast news very often. Haven't run into Newsbusters much. As you say on your page, there is no consensus, which to me means we can use it but only with care. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep this watched, no need to talkback, but thanks for that. I searched for sitewide, neutral discussions as opposed to ones where the heat is always up, like Fox News controversies (one of the few places it might be worth having). I'm just not seeing the care at all on a lot of these. For example, you threw them back on the one line hit pieces on the Beck response to the Gore film. Is that beneficial, or is it just added there to put in a link going after Beck? If you had seen a lot of what has been removed without any problems when I last worked on this, you might even start thinking there's a more concerted effort in play, but I try not to get my paranoia running like that. The issue, for me, is that we seem to be overly reliant on them for reasons I can't figure out, and, perhaps more importantly, for reasons we don't need. More often than not, it's an additional link (like what you took from the phone hacking scandal) or a one-off criticism no one noticed, as opposed to something more significant. As I've said before, I am open and willing to discuss any edit I make, so keep me in the loop if there are further problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not that familiar with MMfA; as far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in Das Kapital it shouldn't be in our encyclopedia. This proliferation of web/news/opinion/etc sites is a bit troublesome for us, and it's not helped by, for instance, newspapers now having blogs also (I've seen wildly varying opinions on the validity and reliability of such newspaper blogs). I think it means we have to make more of these decisions on a case-by-case basis--sometimes I wish we only wrote about things that happened no more recently than a decade ago. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes - no new stuff! And only dead people. That would make life easier. The blog thing is a pain - what does 'editorial supervision' really mean? I think it means either or both "our lawyers aren't worried about this" or "our owner is worried about this". What I doubt that it often means is "we approve this and back it". Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The big problem with MMfA, Newsbusters, and the like is that they're an entire industry of outrage. Then you have people here, some partisan and some not, who think "well, they're noteworthy, and they said it, so it belongs here." The next thing you know, any report posted on the sites gets put in an article, sometimes about people who are barely noteworthy as is. It'd be nice if we could even just draw a line for some of these groups and say "yeah, if what they notice is noticed, there's our threshold," but there are some who actually think this nonsense is academic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo Armenian

Hello, the page of Aleppo has seen some really disruptive editing, the kingdom of Armani mentioned by Naram-Sin gave much hopes to Armenian nationalists, they linked it to the Name of Armenia article !!! a kingdom linked to an etymology !!! so I created an article for this akkadian city Armani (kingdom) and I mentioned that it could be related to the name of Armenia, but that wasnt enough, they instead added a link to the Armenian people Article !!!! I asked an Admin for help and thankfully he protected the page fully for 48 hours, but as I read in the article, I read the next sentence : Taking advantage of the power vacuum in the region, Parshatatar, king of the Hurrian Armenian kingdom of Mitanni

and the reference was : Egypt and Western Asia in the Light of Recent Discoveries by Leonard William King, I went to Mittani page and looked and found this Talk:Mitanni#Regarding Petrie source in Historical Context, so is mittani an armenian state ?? and if it isnt, should it be written like this in the article of aleppo ??? (of course I know couple of things about history, I rewritten Ebla, Luhuti, Palistin and Yamhad from scratch and Mitanni wasnt an armenian state although the hurrians might have contributed to the genesis of armenians) Im not gonna change the HURRIAN ARMENIAN sentence because I had my share of Armenian nationalists, but ist right to put those theories as facts ?? Im asking you for help cause no other editor in the page is interested in truth, I dont want to go through Edit wars and be blocked, Im planing on rewriting most of the Syro-Hittite states articles and a block for Edit warring isnt what Im looking for --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria I'd say go to WP:RSN - I don't think King is a reliable source for this. Most things Armenian are under Wikipedia:General sanctions by the way and Aleppo is now. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your response, but the protection will end after like 30 hours, and then the IP will comeback, you put the article and its editors under General sanctions, but Im new so Im really sorry but I didnt understand, Am I allowed to edit the article ?, Am I allowed to remove the Hurrian-Armenian sentence, or the General sanctions will get me into troubles, and what can I do if the IP continued his Edits ? because I left him a note on all the talk pages of the 4 IP'S he uses !! and no answer, the same on Aleppo Talk page and he didnt answer, he is just gonna continue to edit and he have many IP'S and Im afraid that if I reverted him I would be blocked, because this dude dont understand arguments , Even if the WP:RSN ruled that the source isnt reliable, he doesn't care, he doesn't even discuss on the talk page !!!! then what should I do Im really annoyed by this historical forgeries, Im not a Turk, Im Syrian, I have no problems or territorial claims with Armenians I just love Wikipedia and dont want it to be a nationalistic Blog--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria You can remove it. Just remove it once though, you were edit-warring before. But I do think you should go to WP:RSN and ask if that source is sufficient for the sentence. Let me know. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

BUT - I hadn't noticed the IP hopping. As I've counted at least 7 IP addresses who are obviously the same editor, I have semi-protected the page. Perhaps the editor will get an account which will make life a bit easier. But this obviously doesn't mean you can do anything you want of course, but I think you know that. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I dont want to do what I want although its tempting, I love History and truth, I have no problem with Mitanni being Armenian if its true, but this is just a hypothesis, I asked WP:RSN for a decision, you can see it here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Armenian_Mitanni. I hope that IP will have an account or at least a discussion on the Talk page, Thank you so much--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mongoloid reply

What is your concept of history? the fact that you allowed only one source that says that East Asian features existed only 7000 BP is a load of bull. We have facial reconstructions and anthropology evidence that East Asian Mongoloid features already evolved way longer than that. What is it that only that sources makes it realible? it do

Also I don't understand why you have removed this. On the Asian mainland

" The human fossil remains of the Ordos Man from Salawusu site in Inner Mongolia dated between 50,000 and 35,000 BCE show strong Mongoloid features, specifically on the fore-tooth and occipital bone.[31] " The reconstruction of the ordos man look as Mongoloid as a Eskim and Eskimo look just like East Asians. Proving that East Asian features existed much more longer than just 7000 BP and way before America's 11,000 years WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 20:45, --17 April 2014 (UTC)

WorldCreaterFighter, this belongs on the article talk page, not mine. You don't understand what that section is about. I'll reply on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Killing Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (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) 08:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Synesthesia

If you have time, would you review the last few edits to Synesthesia? I wonder in particular about changing a "color organ" to "a colored organ". I think it should be "color organ". It is an actual organ that plays color, if not color and music. I don't think the organ itself is colored, or multi-colored. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly wrong and I've posted to the new editor about it asking her to change it. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Neferneferuaten

Hey Doug, I was going through Talk:Neferneferuaten to get a better idea of the history of the debate and I came across your name. I was going to ask Leoboudv if he could provide any sources that would help to establish Neferneferuaten as mainstream Egyptology, but I figured it wouldn’t hurt to ask you about it first. Do you recall if any sources were ever provided that could be used to establish if Neferneferuaten’s existence is mainstream, minority, or fringe? I got the impression that the debate may have spanned multiple talk pages, but I’m not sure which ones. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it concentrated at that page. A Google scholar search shows up some junk including a novel, but also [41] (The Search For Nefertiti by Joann Fletcher (28 Mar 2013)). I also found this[42] but I'll email Leoboudv and ask him to comment. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, it will be interesting to see what Leoboudv has to say on the topic. The 2010 genetic study seems to have changed the mainstream thinking on the Amarna period so I’m not sure how popular the Neferneferuaten hypothesis is now that the KV55 mummy is believed to be Akhenaten and not Smenkhkare. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• The current Neferneferuaten article pretty much sums up the mainstream Egyptological view since the new finds have been made about her gender as she was a lady who assumed the crown and ruled for a brief while in the 18th dynasty. She was not Smenkare who was a male king. I don't know about the history of the debate but I believe it was started by J. R. Harris's paper, Neferneferuaten, "Göttinger Miszellen" 4 (1973), 15-17. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Leoboudv, do you have a source that can be used to establish that Neferneferuaten’s existence is widely accepted by mainstream Egyptology? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am very busy with work and have little time but Nefeneferuaten is listed as an 18th dynasty ruler in the first 8-10 minutes of this official Meropolitan Museum of Art youtube presentation on Horemheb. Also, in the 2006 book by Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss & David Warburton (editors), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies), Brill, Erik Hornung writes on page 207: "It is now certain that not only a man ‘Ankhkhekheprure,’ but also a woman ‘Ankhetkheprure’ ruled between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun." Hornung mentions other evidence such as the beneficial for her husband epithet known for Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten, the fact that items from her funerary equipment were found reused in Tutankhamun's burial (which shows the preceded king Tut) and the problems of her identity: was she Kiya, Nefertiti or Meritaten. Nefertiti is also placed in Krauss and Warburton's chronological table on page 493 of the same book but they are uncertain if she had an independent reign and just place a question mark next to her reign. Since she has a Year 3, she may have had a 2 year independent reign...but whatever it was, her reign was shortlived and as an Amarna regent, she was struck off the official Egyptian kinglists by the 19th and 20th dynasty kings. So, she was an 18th dynasty ruler although her position in this dynasty is uncertain. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have the following references that establish her as a ruler of the 18th dynasty (as coregent with Akhenaten):

• "Darrell D. Baker: The Encyclopedia of the Pharaohs: Volume I - Predynastic to the Twentieth Dynasty 3300–1069 BC, Stacey International, ISBN 978-1-905299-37-9, 2008, p. 273-274", in it Baker cites a number of references sharing this opinion:
• Dorothea Arnold: The royal women of Amarna: Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt, (1996)
• Earl Ertman: An electrum ring of Nefertiti: evidence of her co-kingship?, KMT, 12, 4 (2001)
• Earl Ertman: Is there a visual evidence for a "king" Nefertiti?, Amarna Letters, vol 2, (1992)
• Rita Freed, Y. J. Markowitz and S. H. D'Auria: Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten+Nefertiti+Tutankhamen, Museum of Fine Arts Boston.
• Susan James: Mutnodjmet, Sister-in-waiting and Great royal wife, KMT 12, 4, (2001/2002)
• N. Reeves: Akhenaten, Egypt's false prophet, Thames and Hudson, (2001)
• Julia Samson: Amarna, city of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Aris and Phillips Ltd, (1978)
• Julia Samson: Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti "Beloved of Akhenaten", Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten "Beloved of Akhenaten", Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare "Beloved of Aten", GM 57, (1982)
• Joyce Tydesley: Nefertiti, Egypt's sun queen, Viking, (1996)
• Baker also cites a forthcoming book by Aidan Dodson with the same conclusions.
• In his "Handbuch der Ägyptischen Königsnamen", von Beckerath list Neferneferuaten as a name of Smenkhare but recognises the existence of a separate female ruler with prenomen "Ankhkheperure" just before Smenkhkare (who also had this prenomen). This Ankhkheperure is Neferneferuaten (female) according to Baker and others (see above). Also somewhat against the view that Neferneferuaten is different from Smenkhkare is Digital Egypt (which I believe refelects the views of Stephen Quirke) see http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/chronology/newkingdomkings.html, where she is not given a separate entry. The entry of Smenkhkare however states that he may be a "she" and may be Nefertiti. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• There is a Ankhkheperure Smenkare/Smenkhkare and then there is the female pharaoh Ankh[et]kheperure Neferneferuaten. The two royal names are almost the same but not quite. The digitalegypt source is a bit older and doesn't mention her but the epithet 'beneficial for her husband' written on some of her funerary objects found reused in Tutankhamun's tomb makes it clear that this is a female Amarna ruler. Neferneferuaten is attested by a Year 3 date whereas Smenkare/Smenkhkare is attested by only a Year 1 date. In their chronology table on page 493, Krauss and Warburton assign 2 full yrs to Smenkare/Smenkhkare but whether they are right or wrong is not important since they accept Neferneferuaten as a separate 18th dynasty monarch. The only question was whether she was a junior coregent of Akhenaten--which means she had no independent reign--or whether she ruled on the throne alone for 2 full years to account for her attested Year 3 date. Since the late-Amarna period is poorly known, no one knows the answer. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree Neferneferuaten existence is widely accepted, however for some time, it was unclear whether or not she was a separate person from Smenkhkare. The above references shade some light on this issue, which I think is resolved now. As for an independent reign, I have indeed not seen a "consensus" on the issue. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Iry-Hor. I’ve noticed that Ian Shaw’s “The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt” (1995) does not consider Neferneferuaten to have been a real pharaoh (though he does make mention of the theory). However in Shaw’s “The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt” (the 2004 edition, I’m not sure about the 2000 edition) he states that Nefertiti became Neferneferuaten and was Akhenaten’s co-regent, so it does appear that the scholarly thinking on the topic may have changed. “The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt” seems like a sufficiently mainstream source to assert that Neferneferuaten is regarded as a pharaoh distinct from Smenkhkare, so I’ll regard the issue as having been settled. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You can take any of the references I included above to confirm the consensus on Neferneferuaten's existence, I would recommend: "Darrell D. Baker: The Encyclopedia of the Pharaohs: Volume I - Predynastic to the Twentieth Dynasty 3300–1069 BC, Stacey International, ISBN 978-1-905299-37-9, 2008, p. 273-274" and "Julia Samson: Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti "Beloved of Akhenaten", Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten "Beloved of Akhenaten", Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare "Beloved of Aten", GM 57, (1982)". Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss & David Warburton (editors), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies), Brill 2006 book is regarded as one of the most up to date book on Egyptian chronology and it is published in 2006--after the sources you note. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• James P. Allen also wrote a 2006 article here: The Amarna Succession (2006); in P. Brand (ed.), "Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane" calling Neferneferuaten a female king. He states that Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare are different Amarna kings. These are updated sources. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Genetics in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Genetics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Breach of topic ban by SHVRs

Hi. See [43] and [44]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

If you have time, would you look at the latest edits by an IP to Indigenous peoples of the Americas? The editor changed the photos at the beginning of the article, and included a caption that says "Notable people...." That word, "notable", kind of suggests that members of all the tribes not pictured are not notable. I think, before, there was just one photo there, but I'm not sure. CorinneSD (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the change. Rather agree with the notable objection plus seems the selection of images (esp. the Tupi) would need discussion. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Theory of Pashtun descent from Rajputs

Dear User:Dougweller, hello! I was wondering if you have had time to think about this? I would like to start expanding that article soon so I would appreciate if you could revert yourself so I can continue working on that article. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this message. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Anupam Is there any modern discussion of Bellew and/or this hypothesis? Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Modern writers have discussed the theory (e.g. The Daily Times). However, the point of the article is primarily to discuss the theory from a historical standpoint, rather than a modern one. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking and can't find any good sources discussing it. In other words, it doesn't seem to meet our criteria of notability for a standalone article. See WP:NOTE which says " Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Doug weller i have a citation for the brunch edit i made. Here just look at this https://www.google.com/search?q=polo+brunch&oq=polo+brunch&aqs=chrome..69i57.2294j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=polo+gospel+brunch Thank you please revese the edit you made thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.224.249 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Dougweller, thank you for taking the time to consider the request. While this is not the opinion I have on the issue, I respect your decision and will comply with it. Happy Easter to you and yours! With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Umberto Eco

I just wondered something about the second paragraph in Umberto Eco. It says he founded the "Dipartimento di Comunicazione" at the University of the Republic of San Marino and that he is president of the "Scuola Superiore di Studi Umanistici" at the University of Bologna. Shouldn't -- or if not shouldn't, couldn't -- those phrases be translated into English for those readers who don't know Italian? CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If they don't know Italian, their false friends will tell them that the first means Department of Media Studies, and the second means the Upper School of Umami Studies. Or, perhaps more likely in this case, Humanities.

I'm not sure what Dougweller thinks, but I think you should go right ahead and edit the article to provide suitable translations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They're pretty funny - I can just imagine someone who's just found that you can buy umami paste looking at that and wondering why you'd have a whole university department studying it. Thanks for helping. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I don't know Italian (but I do know other Romance languages), I thought I'd better just check to be sure I've got it right. The first one is the Department of Media Studies? or Communications? (I think some colleges in the U.S. use Media Studies and others use Communications.) And the second one is, as mentioned above, the Upper School of Humanities? (We don't have upper schools in the U.S.) Upper School or Higher School? How about Advanced School? or Graduate School? In the U.S. we'd more likely hear "School of Advanced Studies in the Humanities", but then "advanced" is with the wrong noun. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just asking you two for your advice as to the best wording. (You'd think it would be easy to translate the names of university departments and colleges.) – CorinneSD (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC) CorinneSD (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Skepticism and Historicity of Jesus

First, apologies for any and all breaches of protocol/etiquette I may be making here. I haven't done this before.

I was reading the article on Skepticism and noticed in the section on Skepticism#Religious_skepticism that it states: "For this reason, a religious skeptic, while believing that Jesus existed may question the claims of being the messiah or performing miracles (see historicity of Jesus)."

As a skeptic myself, I was surprised that the skepticism of "religious skeptics" did not extend to the existence of Jesus. I thought it was well known in skeptical circles that the first appearance of the Jesus figure was in the writings of Paul in 48 CE (and that Paul claims to have met Jesus in a vision and nothing more), and the first non-biblical reference comes in 93 CE from Flavius Josephus, who only states what the Christians are teaching. So, of course I clicked through to the historicity of Jesus article and found a page riddled with confusion. For an article that sets out to separate the historical evidentiary view from that of myth, it goes off the rails quite early. For one, it shifts the burden of proof from those who believe to those who do not. It quotes biblical scholar after biblical scholar who believe it is incumbent on others to generate proof of the non-existence of the Jesus figure. This is like proving that there isn't a teapot orbiting Jupiter. When the article finally puts a halt to its defensive posture and sets about to provide actual information on the historicity of Jesus, it is already in paragraph 3 of subheading 1. That evidence is two writers (Josephus and Tacitus), 60-100 years after the supposed death of Jesus, that state what the Christians were telling people at the time. Josephus also wrote about Hercules in the same book, but I don't see anyone using that as proof of the historicity of Hercules on Wikipedia. Then it is back to defensive posturing, stating how the doubters haven't proved Jesus didn't exist... and on and on until the end, taking only one diversion to bang on about how biblical scholars are certain Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified by Romans, because almost all biblical scholars agree on it. Circular logic.

For the record, not that it matters, I neither believe Jesus existed nor do I believe he didn't exist, because I've been presented no evidence. I'd actually be surprised if the Jesus figure didn't exist at all, because by many accounts there were multiple messiah figures at the time, just as there are messiah figures today (from Fundamentalist Mormon cult leaders to New Age mystics). Why invent one out of whole cloth? But we lack evidence.

Now what? I'm a jerk. I have no intention of fixing this myself. I created this account some time ago to upload album art to a relevant page and then found that I lacked the ability to do that, nor could I figure out my way through the Wiki-bureaucracy (necessary as it is). I certainly won't go toe to toe with the folks entrenched behind that article that is so important to the religious. My only purpose in writing this is in hope that, from time to time, you and other logically-minded individuals can cast an eye on that page and occasionally hit the "edit" button. JohnnyBillPants (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You aren't a jerk and I've rewritten that, we shall see if it sticks. There's loads of ways you can get help here, including upload issues. See WP:Help desk for a start. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you think?

I'm thinking this falls under the definition of an attack page;Wikipedia:Long-term abuseLysozym. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The content i add is a vital information regarding Tajik People. It is not taken from http://web.archive.org/web/20000709024746/http://www.afghan-network.net/Ethnic-Groups/tajiks.html , I have provided the sources. I am re-posting these sources to you just incase you can't read the sources. Source 1: Historical Dictionary of Tajikistan http://books.google.com.af/books?id=mC9RsIYy8m8C&pg=PA344&dq=tajiks+of+afghanistan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXBFU7SpO4b27AbSkYC4Dw&safe=on&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tajiks%20of%20afghanistan&f=false Source 2: Afghanistan "A Spy Guide" http://books.google.com.af/books?id=QdXpUNfNANYC&pg=PA139&dq=tajiks+of+afghanistan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXBFU7SpO4b27AbSkYC4Dw&safe=on&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tajiks%20of%20afghanistan&f=false

Please read the sources before reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirakram1440 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nasirakram1440, it is virtually word for word from that website, which has been around since 2000. I don't care who else may have copied it. The "Spy guide" is print on demand[45] and can't be used. Please don't even try to reword it as the website isn't a reliable source either by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are saying that these two books have copied the material from website? or the website has copied it from the books. Where is the logic? You are ignoring the two books (Historical Dictionary of Tajikistan and Afghanistan "A Spy Guide") and saying that it has been copied from that website. The website has copied from these books. You are trying to hide the sun with two fingers. I have thought long and hard about what you have said and i could not make sense of it. You are just saying that these two books can go to hell. The fact that this content exists both in the books and on the website makes it very credible. I am reposting these two references for you so you can take a look and realise this basic logic and fact of accepting the printed sources and not just putting them to hell. Source 1: Historical Dictionary of Tajikistan http://books.google.com.af/books?id=mC9RsIYy8m8C&pg=PA344&dq=tajiks+of+afghanistan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXBFU7SpO4b27AbSkYC4Dw&safe=on&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tajiks%20of%20afghanistan&f=false Source 2: Afghanistan "A Spy Guide" http://books.google.com.af/books?id=QdXpUNfNANYC&pg=PA139&dq=tajiks+of+afghanistan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXBFU7SpO4b27AbSkYC4Dw&safe=on&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tajiks%20of%20afghanistan&f=false

And please stop reverting it back again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirakram1440 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about a comment

Yesterday I saw a comment posted on my Talk page by Risssa complaining in strong terms about an edit I had apparently made with which he/she disagreed. Since this editor did not mention the article, the edit, or the date of the edit, I replied that I had no idea which article or edit was being referred to. Today, not having received a reply, I searched Risssa's Talk page, then my list of contributions. I found an edit I had made undoing Risssa's edit on April 14. I had provided a detailed edit summary explaining my reason. It is the second-to-latest edit in Cinnamon. That must be the one Risssa was referring to. That edit has not been reverted or changed since then. I also wondered why Risssa had not signed his/her comment on my Talk page with the usual four tildes, so there was no link to his/her User or Talk page. I'm wondering (a) was my edit wrong? If it is, I am always open to learning something. and (b) Shall I just ignore the comment left on my Talk page? (By the way, I notice that you had left a note on Risssa's Talk page User talk:Risssa a while back.) CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's that edit, but I would bet that she was also remembering [46]. People often forget to sign, no problem. I don't see anything wrong with your well-explained edit, although I probably wouldn't have noticed the problem. I'd just ignore it this time. I note she does discuss edits on article talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Rarevogel

This guy sure have some nice manners [47]. Not only does he remove what he likes on many articles, but also likes to be rude by using these kind of words as well. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"Rarevogel" means (literally) "strange bird", something like "he's an original". Anyway, the soirce is accessible in Holland; Google books has different accessibility for different countries. And he's correct regarding this source. Which, of course, is not a reason to be unpolite (though you never know what might be seen as "inpolite"; some people at Wikipedia even find offense in friendly gestures, like talk page-decoration). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Saadi Shirazi

Would you mind taking a look at the latest edit to Saadi Shirazi? Not only is the sentence poorly constructed, it seems to break up the flow of sentences in the lede. Would you just revert, or could it go somewhere else in the article if better written? Or is it just trivia? CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD (talk · contribs) I've reverted, unsourced and I looked at the article for the 5th President of France and it gave an entirely different reason for his name. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I just read the article about Marie François Sadi Carnot (and made a few minor edits). Then I clicked on the link to his father, Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot and skimmed that article. I noticed that same out-of-place, poorly written sentence in the lede about the source of the name "Sadi" and saw in the Revision History that it had been added by the same editor as the one you reverted. But then later, in the section "Life", I saw a sentence that said basically the same thing, written in better English but also unsourced. I also skimmed the article about Nicolas' father Lazare and didn't see anything about the Persian poet. What do you want to do now? CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It appears to be true that the engineer/physicist was named for the poet; I’ve found a few mentions online that don’t appear to be copied from WP, including the current EB (but not the 1911 ed.), albeit none I think suitable for citing. I expect a biography would mention it; a more patient web-search than mine might also turn up a RS. I don’t think it belongs in the lead, though.—Odysseus1479 03:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Odysseus. A better source is [48] which indeed confirms it, although some of the editor's text was copyvio from one of several sources, eg [49]. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Odysseus -- and Dougweller. I removed that poorly written sentence from the lead/lede, but left the other well-written reference to the name in the "Life" section. CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

• Special report: 2014 Wikimedia Conference—what is the impact?

• Op-ed: Five things a Wikipedian in residence can do

• News and notes: Wikimedian passes away

• WikiProject_report: To the altar—Catholicism

• Wikimania: Winning bid announced for 2015

• Traffic report: Reflecting in Gethsemane

• Featured content: There was I, waiting at the church

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Leo Burnett

Why did you reverse my edits on Leo Burnett? 70.36.132.121 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I also added "was considered to be" on the page, as previously it read that he was among the most creative, which is an opinion. 70.36.132.121 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That was an excellent edit and I replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough! 70.36.132.121 (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible

I saw your revision on the above mentioned article. You replaced this sentence "The King James Bible (1769) may contain unique translation errors which correspond to the Book of Mormon." with this one "The King James Bible (1769) contains unique translation errors which also occur in the Book of Mormon."

Your revision contains an absolute statement. Other translations, also mentioned in the article, agree with the King James Version. Also, the closing sentence "whereas later Bible translations do not include these..." is also in error as the article also demonstrates with other translations.

If every translation (aside from King James) did not contain these words, you would then have a strong case.

CABEGOD 01:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In other words, we should remove the word 'unique'. The word unique has been there for some time. I was more or less reverting it to the version before the IP added 'may' to contain, which suggested to me that it might not have any translation errors. Hopefully my new version is better. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

D.S. Senanayake

I noticed that an IP editor changed the year of birth of D.S. Senanayake and his age at death, with details a bit mangled and a note that says "Ref in Sinhala". Perhaps you could check this. CorinneSD (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Number vandal, blocked. The ref is a dead link but the internet archive clearly said 1884. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

I wonder if you could take a look at the latest edit to Papua New Guinea. I can't judge the newly added material or the accompanying reference, but I wonder about the repetition of "continuing community resilience" in such a short space down from the first mention of it. Also, the phrase itself is a bit vague. CorinneSD (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

See my edit summary, reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of SPLC hate list

Your attack on another editor during that discussion was uncalled for. Outing people on Wikipedia as you did is a very grave and clear violation of policy and should not be done. Of course you and your friends at the SPLC are probably about to put me on the hate map for supporting man/woman marriage, and then a shooter will come after me as happened a pro-man/woman marriage organization, so I should be afraid of you. But I'm not. I'm not going to let you leftists ruin Wikipedia like you have everything else. So start following the rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack, it shows I'm doing a good job. But I certainly have not outed anyone - if you are talking about Roger Schafly, he isn't trying to disguise who he is. And I don't know anyone at the SPLC. Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A good job at spreading hate, which is the job of SPLC. They have blood on their hands. Their hate list constitutes death threats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Even if it wasn't outing, it was attacking a user and totally out of line. People's comments on CFD should be judges on their merits, not on their political views. Your view that you are absolutely right, and that anyone who disagrees with you needs to be silenced is a threat to democracy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I was commenting on a conflict of interest - I would have done the same if an editor had been praised by the SPLC and !voted keep. It wasn't an attack and the editor didn't complain. Your comments are however a clear personal attack and in no way represent what I actually think. And if I thought I was absolutely right at the CSD I wouldn't have struck by keep !vote. But it's interesting to have your views on record. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I complain here, and agree with John Pack Lambert. I do not have a COI just because some SPLC page quoted me. Yes, I do post under my real name, and I frequently get scurrilous personal attacks from anonymous editors as a result. But I guess that you are all in favor a using WP for public name-calling, as you have indicated in your opinions. Roger (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is not a COI when someone is pointing out that a name is part of an attack and smear campaign and involves Wikipedia giving weight to a certain Point of View. The SPLC has a very particular view, and Wikipedia should have abandoned being lock-step with that years ago. The neutrality of Wikipedia was advanced by light years when that horrible page was deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ferdowsi

Hi. Could you please take a look at Ferdowsi where a user is persisting on redundant and unnecessary information in the "Name" section. Please also see the talk page of the article. --Lysozym (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

edit

I appreciate your edit.

My basic contention was the Word Hindu was not defined or coined then.Even when the word was not coined how can they be Hindu scriptures.Your contention was the word Indian too was not coined then.It is not about the Word Hindu or Indian.

It is about the factual aspect that this are ancient scriptures which have been credited to this part of the world.This part of the world today has more then 13.4% Muslim population That would be approximately 160 million people who are Muslim in India another 2.5% Christians that is approximate 30 million .If the word Hindu is to be taken as geographical depiction.

The ancient religion of that time was Sanathan Dharma.Factually Those books cannot be depicted as belonging to a particular religion.But by practice they are considered as Hindu books.As Sanathan Dharma is popularly known as Hinduism today.

In the context of author ship of Gita the verse 18(75) of Gita mentions the name of Veda vyas as the origin of the knowledge in Gita.i had quoted to remove the ambiguity of author ship.I was providing you the source for what was mentioned in the article.Even in Gita dhyanam verse 2 which is quoted in Wikipedia the name of Ved Vyasa is mentioned.In fact I was trying to provide you the source of the Name of author.

The metaphorical version of a eye for a eye could be also quoted.

The subject which Gita is discussing is not war.Hence the metaphoric words of the killing of relatives is not the exact translation of Gita.It is infact not factually correct depiction.

kindly look at it again.It could add more value to the article.

sandesh saboo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandesh Saboo (talk • contribs) 11:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my edit.

thank you for the correction in The Telegraph (Calcutta). i will keep this point in mind , i may have wrongly edited such in other page which i will rectify and correct soon.

thank you

george langneh (talk), george langneh 07:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious response. We all make mistakes, even after a lot of experience! Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:LanguageXpert

Thanks for the message. Sorry I couldn't help, but those Haripur District edits were the exact edits that raised my suspicion. Thanks again. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. See: 1. I didn't request checkuser. Please comment and write your opinion. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zyma, I've looked at this a couple of times and couldn't find diffs to support it, do you have some? Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yahweh, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages El, Yaw and Yah (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) 08:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Was that edit summary at Til Eulenspiegel's page adressed to me? Sorry if that was the wrong place to talk about that topic. I've just always been confused by that fellow's userpage...--75* 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was relevant though - S/he is attacking the FTN noticeboard there too. So there you have it - a pattern of assuming bad faith on this human's part. --75* 23:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi 75, no it wasn't aimed at you at all. Did you ever see [50]? Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then, I have a question: do you think Til's page breaches policy, specifically WP:AGF?--75* 00:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

75 - I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to. But yes, Til frequently has breached AGF (a guideline) and WP:CIVIL (a policy}. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• noose-tying/ | title=Fraternity shuts Ole Miss branch after James Meredith statue noose tying> | accessdate=2014-04-20}}</ref>
• Atlantic University]] || Charter suspended December 18, 2009 for allegations of hazing and alcohol)<ref>http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-fau-hazing-20091218,0,1565994.storyf</ref><ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Surat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• As [[Shaista Khan]] was in Deccan (now Maharashtra} for more than three years, the financial condition of the state was dire. So to improve his
• [Shivaji]] attacked Surat after a demand for tribute was rejected. The Mughal Sardar, not the bravest, was

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

College / University

Thanks for your helping out first timer and providing helpful resources. I have reviewed the guideline from Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Article structure and wanted to ask few questions.

• The lead should say "... award Certificates, Bachelor's, Master’s, and Doctoral degrees," since there are more than one doctoral degrees being awarded.
• I think Dr. Tracy Davis being the president should be moved to "organization & administration" section. It doesn't seem to fit under history
• Either library subheading should be added or that section should be reworded to make the flow better. Perhaps the third paragraph under "Academics" should start with "The university library was named after missiologist and..." (remove the first "Ralph D. Winter").
• "Link to IBT Media" doesn't seem to belong under organization & administration section. Actually, I don't see any section that this could belong to. Any thoughts?

Jonathanpark8282 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Jonathanpark8282 - If the lead continues to degrees, you're right. Davis doesn't belong in history. Probably just reword the bit about the library. IBT should have its own section. But all of this should be discussed on the talk page and not implemented while under protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Surat

Can you figure out what's going on at Surat? I don't understand all those edits. CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The last 2 were copyvio from various sources. I could just highlight some text and right click to search Google. I found enough to revert it all. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Scorpion and the Frog

Hi, Dougweller. I just got back from Taiwan to find a problem where I could do with your advice. Last June I proposed a merge of The Scorpion and the Frog with The Frog and the Mouse to which there was no response, so I carried through the merge. In November the editor Malke 2010 reverted this without discussion. When questioned about doing so without consensus by Mauro Lanari, M2010 left a note on his talk page claiming he couldn't find discussion - which was true, there was a redirect to The Frog and the Mouse talk-page for that. I've now reproposed the merge on the Scorpion and Frog talkpage but want to avoid a one-sided reversion in future if, as I suspect, there is no response. There's a way of getting 'controversial' moves discussed by a wider forum, but I can't understand the guideline. How do I do it, please? And what is your comment on what has been done so far? You're far more knowledgeable about Wiki-procedure and I've been grateful for your help on earlier occasions. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939, you want WP:RM/CM which will then invite other editors to comment. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Dewa

I have sent you an email about this page. I wonder if we can have a discussion about revisionism and English mythology.Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Burdenedwithtruth, I responded to your email at the article talk page post to keep this transparent. As for Revisionist English mythology, I don't think it's something that reliable sources have discussed, thus failing to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Michael Wood even said "There is, after all, no 'English mythology' section in bookshops alongside the Celtic, Hindu, Norse, Native American or South Seas mythologies." Some sources do mention "English mythology" and Tolkien was consciously trying to create one. English mythology was a copy of part of English folklore until turned into a redirect. So until we have an article based on WP:RS on English mythology, we obviously can't have one on revisionist English mythology and as I said, I don't see it as a notable subject by our criteria of notability. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering why there is such an antipathy towards Ralph Ellis on the Dewa page. I noticed on the St. George page that the article starts with an assertion that St. George was an historical character, naming his parents. That is based on a book by a Sun newspaper journalist. How does that deserve a place in Wiki when Ellis doesn't even deserve a mention as an author on the Jesus Myth page? Atwill is mentioned. Ellis should be.Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who the Sun author is, but that he was a historical character seems to have a lot of reliable sources, including the Oxford Dictionary of Saints. Why should that be a surprise? Atwill is probably there because other sources discuss him, but you need to ask at the talk page, not me. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)r

Tea

The other day I noticed an edit to Tea made on April 25, 2014, by an editor named Abductive. The end result is the following:

"Negative effects of tea drinking are centered around the consumption of sugar used to sweeten the tea. Otherwise, those who consume very large quantities of brick tea may experience fluorosis."

To me, these sentences make less sense than they did before the edit. Perhaps it's just the word "otherwise".

Then, more recently, other edits have been made with regard to the way tea is prepared in Bangladesh, and a photo. I can't judge the photo, the formatting done on the photo, or the caption, but perhaps you can. CorinneSD (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2014 (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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoops gza and List of Nazis

User:Hoops gza, whom you may recall tried to unilaterally expand the scope of List of Nazis several weeks ago, has resumed adding Nazi-resister August Landmesser to it, and adding him to category:Nazis, contrary to consensus. I have attempted to engage him, but he simply denied the previous discussion took place and has since ignored me, except to revert every revert I make. I've reported the problem on the admin noticeboards for general incidents and edit warring, but perhaps because I'm the only person expressing concern, I've received no help there. Would you mind looking into it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Uthman

Hi! I wanted to know your idea about moving a page. Actually, I wanted to move Uthman ibn Affan to Uthman. The reason is that like the other caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali, the title of the article should be his proper name, just "Uthman". Also it's not a popular page to discuss about its move.Keivan.f^Talk 15:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Keivan.f A Google Books search seems to suggest just Uthman in his common name - full name[51], without Affan[52] Let's ask Kansas Bear. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no problems with moving Uthman ibn Affan to Uthman as long as we leave Uthman ibn Affan at the beginning of the lead, much like in the Abu Bakr article, where it shows his full name Abu Bakr As-Ṣiddīq. To insure this won't create a "move war", you might post on the article's talk page anyway. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Kansas Bear, how? Should I give a move request or a normal post on the talk page is enough?Keivan.f^Talk 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a move request on the article's talk page would be sufficient. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Again a move request? I thought that it's an uncontroversial move.Keivan.f^Talk 10:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I've added it and in a few days if there's no problem we can move it. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK! You're right. We'll wait for a few days. And what about Aisha? What should I do? Should I give a move request for it? Can you search about her name and see if just "Aisha" is her common name or not.Keivan.f^Talk 15:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

U of Minnesota

Looks like these guys were systematically delinking and/or removing every mention of that professor they could find...I keep coming across them. Is there any technical feature to find out where it's been delinked over the past 48 hours? (Not sure if abusefilter can backdate...) Daniel (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for asking. Pretty sure there isn't. Although a Google search with his name and site:en.wikipedia.org should turn up every article with his name in it for a few days back, it doesn't update that fast. Maybe a complaint to the University? Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

U of Mississippi

Hi Dougweller. I just wanted to suggest that you change your edit to the University of Mississippi page wherein you wrote "three of its [Sigma Phi Epsilon's] members draped a noose around the statute of James Meredith." I believe that those individuals are disputing the charges and the source article you cite indicates that they are accused -- not convicted. Hopefully, it will be resolved soon and they will admit guilt, but at this time I believe they are still accused and not convicted. Bob Cummings (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Bob Cummings, thanks very much for catching that, which I've fixed. I see there is evidently an FBI investigation also. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So only MisterDub can call editors "idiots" and "asinine"?

I didn't attack him. I only pointed out that he said he had "left Wikipedia because its editors are idiots.", but it appears he hasn't left. I don't get why you're defending him from his own words? 71.169.179.28 (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Grigori Rasputin

Hi, Doug. I think you did right to unprotect the Rasputin article, but did you see how it's erupted into flames now? I think most of the IP edits aren't actually vandalism (can't face doing a proper check, sorry, I hate argybargy about religion even more than nationalist disputes, if possible), but more in the nature of content disagreements. There's a lot of reverting and arguing, and personally I don't think it would do the most quarrelsome IP a blind bit of harm to have to create an account. But that by itself of course isn't an appropriate rationale for semi'ing it. Do you think anything should be done? There's dispute resolution pending, compare this on my page. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, I'm Doug but not User:Doug. Still, I'll keep an eye on it. More IP vandalism and I'll probably semi it. I've added it to my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on formatting pictures

I've been reading the Wikipedia article on formatting pictures, WP:PIC, and I noticed something I wanted to ask you about. It's in the section WP:PIC#Alternating left and right. I saw this sentence:

"Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right."

However, the pictures in that section are arranged so that the first one is on the right and second one is on the left. Shouldn't the text and the arrangement of the pictures match? CorinneSD (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi CorinneSD - ask at WP:Help Desk, this isn't something I know much about, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone to discuss it with

You might ask Leszek Jańczuk, whose expertise is incomparable among Wikipedians, but I know he hates the kind of discussion that's on that talk page right now, so I hope it's possible to discuss it with him without dragging that fray into his life.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

alf laylah wa laylah, since you know User:Leszek Jańczuk and clearly have a better grasp than I do on the issues, could you please do it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this all day and I decided I'd rather not. I think it's a mistake to try to put a new article together if the main impetus is to settle the ongoing dispute, and I don't see anything that makes it urgent beyond that. I personally kind of have a taste for the rough-and-tumble talk page thing, but most of the people who could write the article needed don't seem to at all, and I'd hate to be even a little responsible for bringing them into it. I think I'll just wait and see how the current kerfuffle comes out (badly, no doubt, which ever opinion prevails in this go-round) and meanwhile work on improving the existing article a little. It's weird to have such an active talk page and no one even seeming to notice my content edits.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

alf laylah wa laylah, sorry to be so slow in responding. I don't blame you. I'm not really looking at the article right now as I don't expect to be able to have any influence on it. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/107.215.236.170

I noted that he/she added unsourced genres on Never Mind the Breeze Blocks that made it two times. 183.171.176.20 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I try to stay out of genre issues. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page removal

Seriously? Every user has the right to impolitely remove inconvenient dialogue (to him) that points out a haazardous action? Surely must be some comments that cannot be removed just on the discretion of that user.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There are, the link I gave you tells you what they are. Removing a comment is taken to imply that the comments have been read. And the comments remain in history for anyone to read unless they are rev/del'd (which Administrators can do and can still read) or oversighted, which even Administrators can't read. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean this (excerpt from) as link?:

User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users . Individual revisions, log entries, and other user space material may be deleted or redacted for privacy reasons, or due to harassment, threats, gross offensiveness and other serious violations. Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libelous information posted to your talk page may be removed as described above.

I think that my comments do not belong to the criteria specified for user talk deletion. I've highlighted the relevant criterion for not deleting from the excerpt.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Additions to WP:REMOVED

Perhaps we should add to the specification of what should not be removed the following aspect, namely notification of potential misconduct (and admin abuse) of user on whose talk page the notification is posted. Especially an admin gives a bad example by removing impolitely notifications of misconduct inconvenient to him.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• No chance of that, too much opportunity for misuse. You could suggest it at the talk page but it would be a waste of time. As I said, hardly anything is deleted permanently. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • An example for too much opportunity for misuse would be useful. What kind of misuses are expectable? I think the issue is pretty simple. Such notifications of potential misconduct are just not removable and period (to be specified).--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Turanist fringe at Subartu

User:Hirabutor is worth keeping an eye on - he's been adding the most recent batch of Subartu = Turks silliness at Subartu and Sabir people, with lots of sources that are clearly misrepresented, are fringe, or are outright fabricated. There's also lots of synth going on at Paleolithic Continuity Theory. He appears willing to edit war and definately suffers from IDHT. I've put in a notice at the fringe noticeboard as well. Ergative rlt (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ergative, I am very disappointed now, I have never expected such a defamation campaign. Why are you doing this? - Hirabutor (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tacitus

If you have time, would you take a look at the latest series of edits to Tacitus? I can't figure them out. CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ferozpur page move

I need a kindly admin to revert the recent move of Firozpur to Ferozpur. A newbie made the move but it is obviously going to required a WP:RM discussion. Can you assist, please? I've already reverted all their spelling changes within the article, which also broke some cats. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now noticed their contribution history: they've done the same thing to several related articles, despite someone warnign them about it a few days ago. Argh! - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Rev Del

Hi Doug. Would you mind Rev Deleting this [53] and possibly this [54]? Many thanks. - MrX 11:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I should have deleted the content first. Could you also zap this [55]? Thanks again.- MrX 12:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't thinking either. Done. The 2nd diff you gave isn't eligible for ref/del. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Malta

You might like to look at Malta and see the edit-revert-edit-revert that's going on. CorinneSD (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I see one of the editors has been blocked. As another Admin is involved I don't see any need for me to do anything. Thanks though. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

• News and notes: WMF's draft annual plan turns indigestible as an FDC proposal

• Traffic report: Going to the Doggs

• Breaking: The Foundation's new executive director

• WikiProject report: Genetics

• Interview: Wikipedia in the Peabody Essex Museum

• Featured content: Browsing behaviours

• Recent research: Wikipedia predicts flu more accurately than Google

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

I would like to know (have an explanation) of why you reverted my edit. Audiluver (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Audiluver, replying on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - What next

Thank you for removing attacks from my user page.

Although I rarely remove material even non sourced (at most I correct it - I understand that another user spent time on the edit), and I am especially against blocking another user - This user however has broken multiple rules and made multiple attacks against me. (Some from IP addresses from the same region - although the subject of the article is on the other side of the continent).

Now that this was removed from my talk page - how do I prove this behavior? Caseeart (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this is happening, Caseeart. Any Admin can see this so all that you have to do is say that an attack by this person was rev/del'd and show the diff. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Gilliam

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Gilliam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Gilliam (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Windpump

I was reading the exchanges on the article on the Karoo on the article's Talk page (and made a few minor edits to the article). I saw the photo of a wind pump in the article and the reference to it in the nearby paragraph. I clicked on the link to wind pump and began reading that article. I saw that, even though the title is written with "windpump" as one word, in the text of the article the word is written sometimes as one word and sometimes as two words. I noticed that when it is written as one word, in Edit mode it has a red squiggly line under it which disappears when a space is added between "wind" and "pump". I know "windmill" has always been two words, but I'm not sure that "wind pump" has become one word. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW the only sources with entries for the one-word form at OneLook are WP and Wiktionary (the latter article being unreferenced). Most dictionaries that include it appear to use a two-word or hyphenated form instead. In a quick cruise through the article’s online references I found the ‘fused’ spelling to be rare, but the FAO, for one, does appear to prefer it.—Odysseus1479 19:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So, shall I go through the article and change the fused spelling to two words? And, if so, what about the title? CorinneSD (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, Odysseus, I don't think anyone should rush into this. We have for instance Horsey Windpump and that's the spelling used by the UK's National Trust. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think there was anything odd about the one-word spelling. Rothorpe (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn’t jump to conclusions either: fusion of compound nouns is a pretty normal process in English, and dictionaries don’t always keep up with usage. More investigation is called for, to see which form squares best with WP:COMMONNAME in the field. Writers’ spelling choices may also correlate, to some degree, with their WP:ENGVAR. And since we have the redirect from Wind pump, there’s no urgent need to change the title for ‘searchability’.—Odysseus1479 23:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A new editor added quite a bit of material to Windpump. It all looks sourced (but I'm not a good judge of sources), but upon careful reading, I saw a few grammatical errors. I believe the editor may be a non-native speaker of English. I could go in and try to fix the errors, but I thought first I'd ask you to judge the content and references. If you think the material is fine, you can either fix the minor errors as you read or leave them for me to fix. CorinneSD (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: Sources are fine, some was copyvio and I removed it which left a bit of a hole. You're the copyeditor! And I've got no time, sorry. Granddaughter with us this weekend. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I went through the article again and made a few more minor edits. In the section "Fundamental problems of multi-bladed windpumps", which I think is the material recently added, I really struggled to put it into Standard English while trying not to change the intended meaning. When you have time, perhaps you could review my edits (throughout the article) to make sure I did not misunderstand something. I have a question about the third paragraph in "History". There are two sentences:

"The noria supported a bucket chain which dangled down into the well. The buckets were traditionally made of wood or clay."

If possible, I'd like to consolidate these sentences. Instead of "a bucket chain", can I say, "a chain of buckets"? If so, then I can combine the two sentences as follows:

"The noria supported a chain of buckets – traditionally made of wood or clay – that dangled down into the well."

If not, I'll just leave it as is. CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Italian Wars

You might keep an eye on user:Pan Brerus. He has moved the discussion away from issues in the article to harping on my comment that Guicciardini's "The History of Italy" is a primary source.[56] "You styled Guicciardini as a "primary source" because "Guicciardini was living and writing during the time period in which these events(ie. Italian wars) occurred, and therefore his perspective and bias would be colored by such events". This is incorrect, and immaterial." This is not the first time Pan Brerus has tried to make this discussion personal, "You must be savoring your power, Kansas Bear."[57]

In response, I have posted 3 instances where universities and a Phd. have called Guicciardini's work as a primary source.[58] It is clear Pan Brerus refuses to get the point, continues to ignore the issues within the article(changing referenced sentences) and wants to make this personal. Just thought I would let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hooker Jim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dee Brown (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) 08:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the edits to mtDNA U. It seems to be a neglected article. Also, thank you for the link to WP:HONORIFICS as my inclination from University is to add all titulars and honorifics. - Scienceditor7 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Poodles

Thanks for your message. Indeed I found several "appearance should" statements at revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poodle&oldid=598949534#Characteristics / diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poodle&diff=606857928&oldid=598949534 Like you I found it very odd to read such sentences in an encyclopedia. However they did seem to me to contain some kind of knowledge, so I moved them to a new section and gave it a descriptive name ("Desirable appearance"). I tried to make an introductory sentence but it seems it doesn't fit well with you.

However, now apparently someone undid many of my changes and the old very, very strange writing ("The eyes should be very dark...") is back. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poodle#Appearance Stephanwehner (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a very experienced editor. Best to discuss this on the talk page, but that very dark bit about the eyes is from [59] as I explain there - a copyright violation by an editor in December 2011. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you refering to with "as I explain there," where is that? I can't spot an explanation Stephanwehner (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Stephanwehner, at Talk:Poodle. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Need an opinion

What is your opinion of this website[60] as a source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Kansas BearBehind Locked Doors: A History of the Papal Elections By Frederic J. Baumgartner "Most papal biographies and histories of the papacy contain information on the papal elections, but too many authors of such works are either pious hagiographers or scandal-mongers, far too willing to accept rumors for good or bad about the popes and the conclaves that elected them. A good example of the latter is Valeric Pirie, whose The Triple Crown: An Account of the Papal Conclaves from the Fifteenth Century to the Present Day (1935) is a popular account of the papal elections from 1455 to 1903. The author eagerly reports every rumor and salacious story, making the book highly amusing but hardly accurate in its account of conclave history."[61] So no. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Doug. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Why have you reverted my edits, you can search for the name Ohannes all over the internet, it is the only varient of the name which has survived since today conform to the original, and it is in Armenian (that's because they are the first Christian nation). The reason why it should be placed there is that it is the only language who has kept the original form of the name for John (the immortal side of Adapa), it is the missing gap. That's why Ohannes and John the Baptist days are of the same day. See for instance, The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop (1943), they in fact have the same feast day at June 24, for more clarification see also here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=pK4Q3_J9u9AC&pg=PA146&dq=June+24+Oannes&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=s7pjU_jYCIieyASTqIFQ&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=

But you see it is both on July 7 and June 24, according to which calender you are using. It is July 7 according to the Gregorian calender, and June 24 according to old Julian calender. See the article on that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupala_Night

Actually there is more to that, about Ohannes-Adapa, Ohannes being his immortal side, is Carl Jung Red Book, about the eternal couple John the Baptist (Elijah), the snake and Salome. That's why for instance in Armenian they have both Ohannes (the immortel part, as a Jungian write, the Christ side) for John, and the actual name of John the Baptist which translate to Garabed, which in English is instead Charles, which means free man. In the epic history of Adapa, to become free he has to get rid of his mortal side through the sacrifice of his mortal side, basically his personnal ego (the dragon), then to be reborn by being constantly fed by his immortal side.

That's why he actually refuse immortality, it's only half of the story, in fact, he does become immortel, that is the true story behind the original Sumerian version of Adam and Eve, Adam is redeemed at the end of the story, what is casted out is his half mortal side, which wish to become a God, it is the realisation, that that part will perish. That's also the story behind the epic history of Gargamesh, and Hercules 12 labors, the contradiction between those stories is fixed with the epic history of Ohannes which has kept the same essence as Gargamesh labors, but explains the individuation process as Carles Jung will call, Ohannes being the higher self, the eternal Ego, with which Adapa should not identify himself with (see again Carle Jung there), but instead feed on it eternally, because it is basically the holy grail, and if he was to identify himself with yhis God side, he will be destroyed by returning in the womb of the mother and become unconscious.

That's what John the Baptist actually realise when he baptisize Christ, his immortal side, he accept it to be higher than himself, and that the only way he become a free man is to get rid of it, and only feed from it to achiecve immortality. You see that variant of the name John, is the eternal Ego, that's why in Islam the name for John the baptist is actually Yawheh, that's also why the name John simply means Graced by Yawheh, graced for having eaten from the tree of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please tell if you agree so I can reinstate the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Lolwut. Hislop was a bigoted conspiracy theorist, immortality is currently scientifically impossible, Charles comes from the Germanic Karl, the Babylonian "Hercules"-figure was Gilgamesh, and the Arabic/"Islamic" name for John is "Yahya" (a truncated form of "Yuhanna," that just the Hebrew Yoḥanan with an Arabic accent). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, no way can we use Hislop as a source for this article. If Jung actually mentions Adapa and says he is the same as Oannes, then we can use Jung. If he doesn't than we can't, see WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Digging for my copy of the Red Book, but I don't think he does. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, instead read Robert B. Clarke, An Order Outside Time: A Jungian View of the Higher Self from Egypt to Christ. You will see that Ohannes is actually the immortal side of Adapa.

Where have I writen anything about physical immortality, those epic stories concern the immortality of the psychi and not physical immortality (read Gargamesh epic story, he realise that if you limit yourself to physical reality it is impossible), read Carl Jung about that. The whole purpose of such an immortality is to use the mind to emulate a reality which people can depend on, instead of a physical reality. That is how dreams are built on, what they do is symbolise physical reality, just as a computer will do, and use the Ego function, basically the brain to emulate internal and external reality, to match with eachother, so that if the external one fail, the internal one does not, so in your own brain dead people can live in. That's why nature has attempted to find a name for a God, which is eternal, an eternal Ego, which basically can emulate any brain, so that if your half side dies, the other is emulated in the mind of others (every epic stories to achieve immortality concerns that, that's what Carl Jung calls individuation). About the Islamic form, you see, generally after an ending Aleph for a masculine name, an H appear, in this case there is none, why? Well, read Carl Jung again, because all those religions are only a product of the unconconscious mind which attempt to find and build an eternal Ego, and it just happens that Ohannes is the only varient which survives. That's why it's Hebraic form Yuhanna for John means, graced by Yawheh, because the unconscious mind found a rendering of a name which intergrate all the names of Gods, that is why in Christianity, the apostole John is described with feminine carteristics, it lies behind the archetype of the name, which is both male and female, that's why it's Islamic form finish with an Aleph, which is feminine, instead of an h.

Concerning Hislop, I know very well who he is, the thing is that I have not used him to support a controversial position, if you happen to read the link I have provided, you will see that the Feast day of John the Baptist, is actually a very old ritualistic day, basically from the Adapa-Ohannes cult. The reason that the 7 July appears in the more modern calender version, is because it is the seventh month, seventh day, it is also why he is associated with the seven sages. It is an attempt of the unconscious mind to find an eternal ego which integrate number 7, which is universally considered as the number of God, that is also why the h appears in the Armenian name, words actually mutate like genes do, the h adds there so that the name can be rendered in seven letters to integrate all the name of Gods. Regarding the name Charles, you are right, but what the unconscious mind is attempting to do, is to find a substitute to the name John, so that when it mutate to give an eternal ego, it can be associate with two different names, that's why in Armenian (the oldest Christian Church), has seprated the name of John the Baptist (Garabed), which renders as Charles abnd the eternal John, Ohannes, which is different than Hovannes, which means John. Ohannes has intergrates every names, and that is what every epic histories from Gargamesh to present have attempted to do. You see the unconscious mind has a life of itself, after trial and failures it studies after a series a substitutions all the common denomitors, such as what they call the Qualia, to build universal brains, in which your personal unconscious is removed and replaced by the collective unconscious, it's like using Raid hard drives instead of personal harddrives. That's what the uncoscious is doing actually it is studying our use of computers and deriving conclusions for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You still can't use Hislop - if it isn't controversial it will be easy to find sources that meet WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, which Clarke doesn't do either - see his publishers - Hampton Roads Publishing Company. And evidently Jung isn't ok for this either but for different reasons as I explained above. If you think we are wrong, go to WP:RSN and see if you can get agreement there. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did both a digital and analogue search through Jung's Red Book, which I've studied before, and I'm not finding Ohannes or Adapa anywhere in it. If Clark is claiming that Oannes or Adapa are mentioned in the Red Book, then he appears to be making the connection up himself.

There is no scientific evidence of the brain's neuron's arrangements (or "mind") being meaningful in any way after death. Even if I personally believe in an afterlife and in the Resurrection of Christ, claims based on assumptions of spiritual life after physical death are at best claims of faith -- not facts.

The claim that the feast of John the Baptist is a survival of the Adapa cult is a controversial fantasy that Hislop made up to justify his hatred of Catholicism.

64.229.212.159, no one here minds if you have your own personal mysticism. We do have serious objections to you trying to push that mysticism on others as facts. This encyclopedia operates on a neutral point of view (instead of personal points of view, what you are presenting as the truth), and does not engage in original research (which is what you're doing to all the materials you "cite"). This means sticking to what science has to say about reality when discussing facts, and reporting only notable religious views as claims of faith.

Your posts would be better suited to a blog, and Wikipedia is not a blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Where I have actually claimed that it was directly written in Carl Jung Red Book, check the link here : http://books.google.ca/books?id=99l_P7uGCiQC&pg=PT319&dq=adapa+Oannes&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=ve1jU_T0AoyvyATWvYCAAw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=adapa%20Oannes&f=false

You see see in that Jungian source, the eternal side Ohannes of Adapa, which is actually the same mythological figure of John the Baptist, which Jung attribute with Elijah in his eternal couple.

Where I have written about the resurrection of Christ, read Carl Jung, the sacrifice of Christ, was the sacrifice of the eternal Ego, that's why Lazarus saturday (which is actually associated with John), precedes the sacrifice.

Actually there is a scientific evidence, not only evidence, but it is established that there is some form of life after death, in fact, it is unscientific to claim there is none. Why? Simple, you see from the rational mind, self awarness arises from the brain, over 99% of human genomes are corresponding and near identical between individuals. If you get to kill someone, that person can not be not self aware of anything, by the simple fact that there are like over 7 billion people living on earth.

That's the whole basis of the individuation process Carl Jung writes about, the goal, is to correspond your unconscious mind which stores about 95% of your memory with your conscious mind. If you do that, if your physical body was to shut down, your self awarness will appear at the center of gravity of other minds. Why because you see the psychi is attemptng to match the physical world with the psychical world. That's why dreams can be so realistic, because the mind is attemping to symnbolize and compress reality, by a series of substitution, to then remove your personal unconscuious and replace it with a collective one. When it succeeds, it means you have been incorporated in the system. That's why in the world of dreams and symbolism, killing means that you incorporate an aspect of yourself. But that's besides the point.

Regarding the rest of your arguments, I disagree there, why? Simply put, because Adapa-Ohannes, is not a real historical figure, what is being established there is not to write history as it has happened (because it is not something which physical happened), but to present a mythological story (that is why RS does not apply, because no one actually claims that Ohannes was an actual real historical figure, and for that reason you can not find any RS, because that would require Ohannes to have actually existed). That's why Adapa-Ohannes, could not have been born in June 24, or July 7. What is important is that the unconscious mind is attempting to link mathematical numbers with names. An old Feast day, which is near a solstice has been associated with John the Baptist, who himself has been associated with the mythological figure. Again, see: Robert B. Clarke, An Order Outside Time: A Jungian View of the Higher Self from Egypt to Christ. That's all behind the Red BNook, eternal couple John the Baptist and Salome. The eternity of the couple lies behind the fact that he has the eternal ego.

What that means, is that I can not prove that Adapa and Ohannes are the same person, neither that they are born in June 24, or July 7, by the simple fact that they are mythological figures. What I can do though, is to bring evidences that Adapa and Ohannes are being associated with eachothers. By doing such, I can use any evidence I do want, because no credible publication will actually publish work dealing with myths in formation, and that is what is being done here, because myths are the product of the creative intuitive mind, the world of the unconscious, not the rational thinking function. That's where conspirationist book can be cited and not elsewhere, because it is those authors who deal with the world of symbolism. Why for instance known that there is no physical alien ubductions, there is no physical 10nth planet. Those sources can not be used in historical articles. Buth you see in myth they are important, because they are the content of the psychi, that's why Carl Jung actually wrote about UFO, and nailed it by making them archetypes instead of physical realities. If you check in the talkpage, you will see that someone redirected the page of Oannes to Adapa. If you don't like the connecftion, then I have no problem seprating them. What you can not do, is then, revert me on the basis that it is not RS, because I am not covering a historical event.

We may just as well remove Homer works on the basis that they are not actual event gby themselves and just their content on the basis that it does not qualify as RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A few observations:

• Association is not the same as identification, and in the cited reference Clarke appears to deny the latter: “Some sources have identified Adapa with Ea/Oannes, or as a son of Ea, but it is more correct to identify Oannes with Ea, and Adapa with the mortal man who takes his boat out to fish in the sea, that is, explores the unconscious depths as an initiate in the individuation process. Ea is then the god, the Higher Self of the unconscious, who advises Adapa.” He clearly sees these entities as connected, but not so closely that the name of one can be considered an alias of the other’s.
• IMO Jesus & John can indeed be regarded as emblematic of salient points in the career of the slain-and-resurrected solar deity, whether as Jungian archetypes or through the syncretic process by which Christianity has absorbed & adapted pagan customs & folklore throughout its history. But it’s not appropriate to project this sort of interpretation backwards onto pre-Christian mythologies. (That‘s not to say it can’t be mentioned in such articles, but it must be clearly framed as modern analysis or commentary, as distinct from what we might be able to infer about the contemporary context.)
• I’m also suspicious of the claim that the names Oannes and Jochannan have a common origin: mystical & new-age literature is full of bogus etymologies based on some chance similarity in sound or spelling. Support from linguistic scholarship should be required for any such assertion, regardless of how much it may ‘ring true’ from a psychological or theological POV.

—Odysseus1479 22:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with you here, but note that someone else redirected Oannes page here, I do believe that they should be separated, but if I were to create a new page, someone could remove it on the basis that Adapa page exist. Regarding Oannes, Joseph Campbell was I think one of the first to suggest the connection, but to be more precise, the Armenian varient of Ohannes for John, keeps the original intact. If we take in account the original of the sacrifice and resurection of many other Gods including Mithras, the one who actually sacrified was John the baptist, Christ would be the immortal part of himself which survived, which then sacrified again. Since in the version of Joseph Campbell, of the heroes journey, the heroes actually sacrify twice, first his perishabole ego, then the contaminations of society to be reborn as pure.

I’m skeptical about the relevance of the Armenian form as well—I notice it is unsourced in the article. Does its ‘pedigree’ really go back to Akkadian, or only to Hebrew or Greek? If the latter, that would seem to beg the question.—Odysseus1479 23:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

More information, by using the movie the Matrix : Just to show you how the unconscious mind is responsable of all creative process and has a life of itself. Is to bring you the meaning of the ending of the movies, which the writers do not know for themselves, because to understand them you have to use Carl Jung. What happened to Neo, did he die? No, he individuated. What happened to Agent Smith, that is his mortal side, you see, it is his family name, it has a beginning and an end, on the other hand, Neo, is a corruption of One, which is associated with a numercal value, it has no begining and no end. Neo is actually a half God, he has a family name which is part of his ego, which dies, on the other hand, he has an umperishable aspect of himself, which has a numercal value. But to do that, he has to surrender his ego, his family name, how can he do that, Trinity, you see Trinity, Trinity should be having the same family name, and look like her, blood related. That is why the writers of the Matrix are siblings, everything that happens in reality has a correspondance in the psychical world. That also why Hieros Gamos are all sibling unions, Isis-Osiris, Zeus-Hera, Yawheh-Asherah etc. That's why Neo succeeds at the end, Trinity actually never dies, she is incorporated, Neo had to integrate his Anima to kioll Smith, it means identify himself with her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:CorporateM/Extant Organizations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:CorporateM/Extant Organizations. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing SPA making various unfounded attacks

Please check on User:Cirrus_Editor and his accusations of sockpuppetting, vandalism, being nonexistent (whatever that means) etc. This user seems to be a POV pushing SPA. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)