This is an archive of past discussions about User:Doug Weller. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
User:Teykell has quite a bit of animosity to direct at me.[1] "Wikipedia has become a joke thanks to misinformation aimed at dehumanization. I know you'll undo this "KansasBear" because you have no life, keep spreading lies". --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, those sources were not written or added by me. I simply reverted 2 other "new users"[2][3] that had removed them. As it stands right now, I was not able to verify any of the sources I checked, however, Taner Akcam's book does support this sentence, "The confiscated Armenian but also Greek property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class". The previous sentence linking Koc may be original research, unless one of the sources explicitly mentions the Koc family and confiscation of Armenian/Greek properties. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Trouble - some help needed
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I'm outraged. A certain user (see my discussion page) believes he gained sole rights about discussable spelling forms, now he destroyed my whole hard work in Chochinobake!!! I mean, no problem with discussing if you need the transcrption strokes or not, no problem. But does that give him the right to destroy whole articles!? --Nephiliskos (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
St. Mary's County, Maryland/European colonization of the Americas
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Doug, thanks for the welcome! :-)
I got ahead of myself there. St. Mary's County, Maryland was the site of the first Maryland colony (it was in St. Mary's City, Maryland, then called "The Province of Maryland", which is in St. Mary's County, Maryland a very tiny county). Anyway, I therefore assumed mention of St. Mary's County would already be in the article but it isn't, my apologies. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Want to check I am not in the wrong here. User and I had a conversation on their talk page regarding edits on an article page. I originally posted a link to that discussion on the article's talk page. Said user kept removing it and removed the conversation from their talk page. I copy-pasted the conversation to the talk page instead (I've seen that done before I think). Can be found at Talk:Eilat#Re: recent removal of Arabic. Is there anything wrong with doing this? User keep trying to remove it, despite warnings. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Haplogroup good article as way to find out about sources
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Doug,
I've been doing some library research, but I figured out a way to reality-check what sources are considered reliable for the many articles about human genetic haplogroups was to review the best article (the sole "good article") in the WikiProject Human Genetic History list of articles. After reading the article, I thought I should put that question to the involved editors by inviting them to a discussion of community review of the one article's GA status. My notice about that appears below. As I prepare for having much better library access beginning this Northern Hemisphere summer, I want to be sure to learn from other Wikipedians about what sources are most reliable for updating articles.
Haplogroup E-V38, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
As you noticed, Elijahovah (talk·contribs) all but admitted to block evasion. The account has like no edit history, so it's almost certainly a sleeper sock of an account that is either currently or indefinitely blocked. Can you think of any such users who might have a grudge against you? Or have a history of bizarre and incomprehensible "theomatics" posts? 182.249.241.10 (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The IP has indeed been blocked but by 2 other editors, and is clearly Elijahovah. I know him from Usenet, eg[4]. But I don't think I've blocked anyone like him, although it's obviously possible. It may be that the IP needs blocking again if they are just going to write nonsense on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Montgomery Academy
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Doug,
I'm following WP:SCH/AG for the lead section of Montgomery_Academy. The article guidelines for schools asks us to include notable alumni in lead sections. Artur Davis is listed in MA's Notable Alumni section. This is the reason for the edit. If you have any further questions, let's chat about it. I'm open to dialogue!!!!
Might be possible in a longer lead, but in any case you are now editwarring and excluding a vital part of its history from the lead Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
Blocked user
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I suppose you know all about it, but User talk:Lfdder has been blocked for an entire month. He is so upset that he posted a "Retired" notice on his talk page. I and another editor are trying to persuade him to continue participating in editing WP, but are not having much success. I haven't followed the entire chain of events, but, if you do not know about what has transpired, would you mind reviewing the events that led to the block? It would be a shame to lose such a knowledgeable, helpful editor. Yes, it appears that he can lose his temper occasionally, and perhaps he will learn from this, but is there anything you can do to either shorten the block and/or persuade Lfdder to continue editing? CorinneSD (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a history of blocks. I don't think I have time to figure out the situation. You might ask someone from this discussion.[5]Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 May 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
I added an independent citation to the Summum article to indicate they are influenced by Ancient Egyptian religion to address your concern about my edit. (I had honestly based my addition of the Category:Ancient Egypt in popular culture based on the pictures of the pyramid and mummy and didn't notice this wasn't referenced in the text.)
Also, you reverted my edits to change the category from Category:New Age to Category:New Age organizations and to add the NRM template (I'll add Summum to that template}. I wasn't sure if those changes were intentional and, if so, what the concern was.
Before I make those changes again, I just wanted to make sure we had a consensus.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[•]14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
South Africa
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed two edits to South Africa in which an editor changed a statement that says South Africa is the largest economy in Africa to saying that South Africa is the second largest economy in Africa, but I don't see any change in the source. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. I think I've been afraid to undo edits like that in case I did not see or misunderstood a reference. CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Dougweller. Would you mind taking a look at Mindfulness? This IP has a history of OR and evading discussion; I've had some clashes with this guy before, and I'm reaching my limits here (again). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!10:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
} In 1938, Ben-Jochannan earned a BS in Civil Engineering at the University of Puerto Rico.{cn}} In 1939 a Master's degree in Architectural Engineering from the [[University of Havana]], Cuba.<
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
OK, so why didn't the Mesquito get to remove his "Discussion" section? I was just going to thank him for doing that. Sigh. Well, I'm done, both on Josephson's page and on ANI. See my final messages on both. Bishonen | talk15:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your remarks. The point of the opening statement distinguishing between bare awareness and mindfulness is due to the fact that sati is often translated by the followers of the Vipassana movement as 'bare awareness'. However, Professor B. Alan Wallace, a leading academic in the field of Tibetan Buddhism in his letter to Bhikkhu Bodhi, former President of the Buddhist Publication Society, Sri Lanka, and the world's leading English language translator of Pali texts, points out that in the canonical literature sati means something other than mere consciousness (awareness). Indeed it was for this reason the early translators of the Pali Canon such as T.W. Rhys Davids used the English word mindfulness as opposed to awareness. The word awareness, however, does convey an important dimension to the meaning of sati such that it is, for example, the preferred term used by the Vipassana Research Institute. Rupert Gethin at the 2009 Mind and Life Conference at Dharamsala (where Professor Wallace acted as translator and clarifier for the Dalai Lama and his personal interpreter Thubten Jinpa) explains that simple awareness or consciousness in Theravada is signified by the Pali word citta corresponding to the Sanskrit word Cit. Since secular mindfulness therapies are largely based on the Buddhist concept sati and because there are prevailing misconceptions about what sati actually is it seems to be a necessary task to explain why English translators use the word mindfulness to translate the Pali word sati. And because the OED is the most authoritative dictionary of the English language it would appear to be a natural place to derive the standard definition. None of this, to my mind, is original research. It is only clarifying what is already known and understood by leading scholars. regards 81.106.127.14 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Article help
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can you please look at the article Armenians, the user who was IP edit warring the Armenian Language article is doing the same here. They keep reverting sourced information because they don't agree with it. The source says there are 500,000 Armenians in Iran but the user claims, using the source for Iranian Armenians for Russia, that there are 500,000 Armenians in Russia. The user also claims, using the source for Russian Armenians, that there are 3 million to 5 million Armenians in Iran. I explained to the user regarding the sources but they won't listen claiming there are not 5 million Armenians in Russia. Thank You. Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
What does the word "zugang" mean in German?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Mr. Weller, The information I entered on the entry for Rockland Community College was removed by User:Dougweller. The reason given was that copyright material was added without permission from the copyright holder. The information I added is attributed to the following sources:
1) Rockland Community College Catalog 2012-2014. This book was produced by RCC Campus Communications. I am employed by RCC Campus Communications and was authorized by the head of the department to make changes to the RCC Wikipedia entry. Since we produced the catalog, and I am using material from that catalog, can we not use that information?
2) "Rockland Community College: The Early Years," by Jamie Kempton, The Donning Company, 2000. I am the author of this book. I used some information from this book for the Wikipedia entry. Is that not permissible?
3) RCC Institutional Research, Jim Robertson, Director, Fall 2013 statistical information. I drew some statistical information from our Institutional Research department for the Academics section of the Wikipedia entry.
Our goal is to remove inaccurate, extraneous and outdated information currently existing in this Wikipedia entry for Rockland Community College, streamline the entry down to basic information about our college, and include a link to our website.
Kindly let me know how I can do that within the parameters set forth by Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can you help resolve a disagreement? It has nothing to do with my edits, and very little to do with Rothorpe's edits, but someone posted a request for help on User talk:Rothorpe#help's talk page under the heading "Help", and a total of three editors are appealing to Rothorpe to resolve it, and he doesn't want to, and then one of them appealed to me on my talk page. I don't know anything about the issue, so I can't help. CorinneSD (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The same standard should be applied to all the ethnic groups. I am the one who added the Notable Oromo People section. But it seems that you guys target the Notable Amhara people section and remove it while you keep the other ethnic groups intact. There looks like some other motive behind your actions.STOP disruptive editing,Gembres (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't be paranoid. No one has time to deal with all the articles that mention notable people to keep them in line with policy. You need to discuss and show good faith in other editors. I see not doing this got you blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
now you can edit the article and resolve the issue since you found a source that says he was the founder and does not mention the others as "founders" 95.199.210.43 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Emperor Wen of Han article,
I have struggled to grasp the English keyboard and find it even difficult since they automatically correct me when I speak. My source on the Han has been a compilation of many articles I have written. Also it has been proven that rulers after Lui Bang and before Han Wendi were never official emperors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XinChiJuan (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Questionable pages (again)
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for reply. I just tried to undo his changes to those pages, but I got the message "The edit appears to have already been undone", even though it appears not to have been undone. Perhaps it takes time to register properly? I have not moved (or unmoved) pages before, and I may not know how to do it properly. In any case, I will leave on a note on his talk page.--Akhooha (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Akhooha. If up at the top of an article (under the menu that leads to your pages and watchlist) there is a drop down menu that says Page, click on that and it should say "move page" as a choice. Read WP:MOVE. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know how to do it. (Note: on the WP pages I see, there is no drop down menu under "Page" --- the drop down menu is labelled aith an inverted triangle and is next to the searchbox). In any case, before you told me how to do it, I took what was probably the long way around, the end result being that the pages I'd mentioned have now been restored to the names prior to Omar Choudhry's unwelcome intervention.--Akhooha (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Message
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
watchful eyes
Thank you for keeping your eyes on articles and reverting vandalism, for inviting to discuss, for greeting new editors, for boxing yourself nicely, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (4 October 2009)!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nordic race, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dane (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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Unblocked.[6] What can I say, I'm a soft touch. There are certainly problems, but they did respond to your appeal for an explanation, and also I think the socking was inadvertent. Bishonen | talk14:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
BishonenSounds good, but he isn't discussing it on the article talk page and is still removing the same templates and adding his favorite images. He's been reverted by 5 editors and he still insists on having things his own way. And the images may be deleted as he's shown no evidence that they are copyright free and they will be deleted in 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
How I can change the information in the Wikimedia Commons?
These pictures are public plates, as you can see, they are very old photos of racial anthropology. The pictures don`t violate copyrrights . I want to edit the information of the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maeveh (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Krizpo
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Sican National Museum is located in Ferreñafe. The Pomac Dry Forest (where most of the Sican are found) is in Ferreñafe, meaning within its jurisdiction. The Sican also predominated in other areas of the Lambayeque Region.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please send some feedback here here. You seem like a very experienced editor with fringe theories and original research. Khazar (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
David Pakman
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have been listening to this show for a long time and Pakman has made it clear that he identifies as Jewish. I don't know why Jewish shouldn't appear anywhere on the wiki. Here's a video saying very clearly he is ethnically Jewish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjOYXnP3XPw
that takes care of the ethnicity part. This is important because it has come up with anti-Jewish guests who use his Jewish ethnicity and religion as a topic of discussion. The least we should do is properly show he is and does identify as Jewish. The library of videos of him clearly identifying as Jewish are widespread. What else can be provided to properly edit the profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.71.115 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Made the change with the reference you OKd and S.M.Samee reverted it twice arguing that the website isn't acceptable. It is incredibly that the subject of the page themselves making a statement is not acceptable. it is hugely concerning that someone widely self-described as Jewish can't be identified as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.71.115 (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Dougweller, I see you're making more progress in undoing Omar Choudhry's undiscussed page moves, the most recent undoing being the page Aalameen. The page had originally been Alamin, which Choudhry first changed to Aalameen and then to 'Aalameen. Since his second change still reflects his non-standard transliteration, it may be a good idea to revert it further to the original Alamin. What do you think? Thanks for your attention.--Akhooha (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Dari (Persian dialect)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
An editor undid an edit, rightly, at Dari (Persian dialect). However, the edit summary says nothing about undoing vandalism. I'm just wondering if, when one specifies that vandalism is being undone, the IP address is somehow taken note of somewhere, so that if that IP demonstrates a pattern of vandalism, the address can be blocked. In other words, I just wondered whether it is important to specify that one is undoing vandalism to establish some kind of record for that IP address. If not, then O.K. I just thought I'd ask. CorinneSD (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I ask again, for the purpose of building a paper trail for future appeal, what does word "zugang" mean in German? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.22.81 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Replied on apparent Holocaust denier's talk page - we don't translate words this way, we simply represent what the sources (which are in English) say, and the IP is misrepresenting the sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The IP is edit-warring. Their first revert quite dubiously removed a reference,[10] and they continue to remove the reference. The IP should be blocked for edit-warring at the very next revert. Doctalk12:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Removing all information re Amy Vickers on Lloyd Pye just because you don't know whether she majored or graduated seems excessive. Being married is quite a significant part of a person's bio and was properly cited so should be restored. Feel free to rephrase as "then a student of archeology" or similar if you think it improves the article. Darmot and gilad (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Darmot and gilad, that's why I said properly sourced. He is dead, but not that long, so [{WP:BLP]] might still apply for his marriage. In any case Red Ice Creations isn't a WP:RS for his marriage. Can you find a better source? Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
At the moment I have no other sources for the material. I consider an interview with a dead man's former wife to be a sufficient source. One could argue that the source does not say Amy Vickers "is an archeologist" merely that she was a student of archeology and I could accept an edit which clarified this but am minded to revert your wholesale excision of my contribution. I will leave it a few days to see if you come up with something better. Darmot and gilad (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would you mind checking the latest edits to Mal'ta-Buret' culture? An editor made an addition, with a few stumbles along the way, and included several edit summaries. I cannot judge the appropriateness of the added material (unless I do some research, which I will if necessary), but I think there are a few problems with the syntax and with the type of quotation marks used. If the material is acceptable, I can work on the syntax and quotation marks if you don't want to, but feel free to do so. CorinneSD (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Vishnu at the helpdesk
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
He can be unblocked? If he takes his legal threats back, and inform that he had no intention. If I am not wrong, you should notify him about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That's what the block notice said, but he was warned before and ignored it. I'll leave it up to other Admins. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Credibility of the Authors
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am a regular visitor of Shiva,Vishnu page. I have checked with the References section. They have taken quotes from a controversial author called Wendy Doniger.Her book "The Hindus An Alternative History" got banned by an Indian Court. Despite its commercial values, One country's constitutional decision has to be respected. You are already doing a wonderful job of banning miscreant sectarians like Mirtuh who was fooling around people with legal threats. Please take into account the reference being made and also the author's credibility. It's not about gods but about Truth and Neutral content.I think this is not done yet. If i am allowed, i request you to extend your fabulous work by removing controversial references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atif Aslaam (talk • contribs) 10:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I hope this is the right way of responding to this. I am not sure if I should attempt to further reason, I did however have the question how I could remove myself from Wikipedia's list of Editors. I am still considering this, being an Editor here and contributing is important to me, however, the way I was treated and threatened here leaves a very bad taste behind. Would you be able to let me know how I could remove myself from Wikipedia, if I chose to do so?
As for further reasoning, I feel uncomfortable to further post on the board given the things people like Stephan Schulz say, I see this as clearly threatening behavior, I am surprised it is tolerated! A few facts, perhaps you can use them on my behalf in order to get the paragraph changed? Or, alternatively, if you can give your OK, so that I can post this without being attacked, then I would post something like this on the admin board page in order to contribute to getting the article improved.
1) A large majority of Americans is opposed to affirmative action (http://prospect.org/article/where-do-americans-stand-affirmative-action) which may indicate the exact opposite of what you have claimed, e.g. that only the far right denies that minorities are disadvantaged. It seems to me from this data that a majority or at least a very large group of people believes that minorities are no disadvantaged. The source specifically mentions also that discrimination against white people (European Americans) is seen as a serious problem by many.
2) http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-medical-school-acceptance-rates-from.html ; . As you can see from actual data (!), medical schools, as but one example, in the lowest MCAT and GPA brackage admit 7% of Asian American students, and 12% of European American students, but they admit 67% of African American students.
3) The issue is further detailed in Wikipedia's article on Affirmative action in the United States, showing further similar statistics when scrolling down. 67% versus 12% and 7% is not a negligible disadvantage for European and Asian American students, it is a huge disadvantage. In the lowest bracket of MCAT and GPA a European or Asian American student basically has virtually no chance of becoming a doctor (no certification without MD), while an African American student has a 2/3 chance. In the second highest bracket, a European or Asian American student has only a 50:50 chance of pursuing his desired profession as a doctor, while an African American student is virtually guaranteed a place.
4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo ; Thomas Sowell, who is not a right wing nut, but basically a libertarian, he was closely associated with Milton Friedman (who argued similar to Sowell) a widely respected economist and winner of the Prize for Economics in memory of Alfred Nobel, analyses and dismantles the very claims that the paragraph in question makes. This was 30 years back!
I am arguing with actual data from reliable sources, some of it sourced from Wikipedia itself. This kind of data has to be taken into account when making sweeping statements such as the paragraph. Why is it claimed that I do not understand what verifiability means (why is data that can be found on wiki itself called original research and dismissed?) when I am presenting hard numbers, while the other side merely parrots what a bunch of academic sociologist opinionated? Academics are of course the very people who perpetrate affirmative action in college, so how could they say anything else than what they did? They are biased and have a conflict of interest, the source is hence not reliable! How can actual data(!) that show a massive disparity in opportunity to pursue a rewarding and highly paid profession (European and Asian American students being vastly disadvantaged) simply be ignored and overruled by the opinion of a bunch of academic sociologists who need to somehow justify their action of favoring African Americans?
@Eracekat: I'm not sure you read all of the American Prospect article. Besides casting a bit of doubt on the Washington Post poll, it ends "As a country, we invested a tremendous amount of time and energy into building a caste society of racial inequality, and we’ve taken huge strides in dismantling it. But to build a society of racial equality and opportunity takes even more time, and even more energy. Which is why I can’t help but feel dread as we wait for the Supreme Court to announce its decisions on affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. It’s clear that a majority of the Court is willing to end the former and sharply limit the latter. And if it does, it’s another sign that, regardless of what we say, we aren’t prepared to do what it takes to secure genuine racial equality. We never have been, and likely, we never will be." And of course the Supreme Court did just that as I recall. Anyone can leave Wikipedia but accounts aren't deleted. Don't post that on the Admin board - simply because that is not the right place for a content dispute, Administrators don't do that. You could try WP:DRN. But I suggest you just walk away as this is making you uncomfortable and frankly I don't see you gaining consensus, which is what you need. I've had to do that at times. Concentrate on other articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
What the author thinks is irrelevant, it is merely an opinion. The reference does however contain hard numbers verifying my point of view. Furthermore, you can see just how biased the author is, because it is claimed that racial equality can never be achieved, which basically implies that racist policies favoring some over others need to continue indefinitely. This is not logical, if something cannot be achieved, then why try achieve it? Are there people who sit above administrators who I could contact or are you guys the final authority? Has the Grub been asked to refrain from threatening other editors? How about Stephan Schulz with his boomerang?Eracekat (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a dispute resolution system that sometimes even works. There are several options, from a WP:RFC via WP:Mediation up to WP:ARBCOM. This topic has been escalated more than once - please read WP:ARBR&I for the latest outcome. I'm sorry you feel threatened by my comment at WP:ANI. But your behaviour is not in line with Wikipedia policies. Quite simply, you are wrong on the substance (that is my educated opinion), but you are also wrong on the understanding of policies - and that is as close to fact as you will get in this environment. What you do up on this page is a poster child of original research. It's also wrong, but that's neither here nor there. WP:V says we reflect what reliable sources say. If you can find a number of good reliable sources that state explicitly that there is no systemic bias against e.g. blacks in the US, we can include that (it has to be a number because the published literature overwhelmingly says the opposite, so you need to overcome WP:UNDUE). Your argument that there are no discriminatory laws anymore, and that affirmative action is discrimination in the other direction, and that therefore there is no systemic bias, is based on wrong assumptions and a wrong deduction. But even if it were right, it would still be original research, and hence unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Responding to point 1 above, since I don’t see it being made on the article‘s Talk page, I don’t think one need deny the existence of systemic bias or disadvantage in order to oppose affirmative action. For some it will be an ideological position: while recognizing the problem, they might be categorically opposed to governmental regulation of hiring practices, for example, or to the very notion of discrimination, whether positive or negative, on racial or ethnic grounds—in any case adopting a position that the end cannot justify the means. For others, some sort of cost/benefit analysis, based on their own weighting of the collective vs the individual, or of matters of principle against economic considerations, could lead them to oppose such policies. Then some may just believe the strategy to be ineffective, or prefer a different approach. So it doesn’t seem to me legitimate to treat opposition to affirmative action as a proxy for disbelief in the problems it’s intended to solve.—Odysseus147920:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are a number of reasons to oppose affirmative action, and I don't think any polls have actually been able to break those down. It was the entire change to 'supposedly' and 'supposed' that I objected to. I don't think that was based on a disapproval of affirmative action. I don't think it is the perfect solution or a terrible/unethical thing, I'm more pragmatic. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You may want to have a word with this user.[12] After a discussion, it appears the source, a journal, did not mention "Proto Turkic"[13] and now, Yagmurlukorfez expects me to make a blind judgement concerning this sentence, "haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) is often believed to be a marker of the Proto-Indo-European language speakers". Yagmurlukorfez did not like my response of how the source(s) have to support the sentence and accused me of taking action(s) within the article.[14] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I didin't "accused" for anything Kansas. Don't need to be a histerical. I suppose, you're an adult person. "Yagmurlukorfez did not like my response of how the source(s) have to support the sentence" Wrong. I think you just acted irresponsible about that issue. Firstly you blamed to me a "biased" and another user (florian) called me directly "idiot." Have you any comment for that insult? I'll report that soon. And now you're reporting me to dougweller for nothing. Really shameful. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Promotional content
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dougweller, I saw this (and the thread above it) on a project talk page I follow. It looks like several of the article's regulars are not getting through to an editor (with potentially multiple accounts) that keeps reinserting promotional content. You might drop by and check it out when you get a chance. JohnShandy` • talk01:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dougweller, this discussion seems to have stalled. The article has been updated in line with the discussion. I think that in the harrying section, there is as much space given to discussing the anti-genocide view as not, so I think that you'll agree that it's more balanced now. In the light of that do you thinkl that it's time to remove the NPOV tag? Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The IP user, who was edit warring previously, is at it again on the Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) page. The page just became unblocked and they immediately began reverting back to there edits. I, as well as User:Kentronhayastan told the user to take there position to the talk page and discuss but they ignore it and call our reverts vandalism and POV pushing. Is there anyway to do an IP ban on the user because they keep using numerous IP's to revert changes or put a padlock on the page to prevent unregistered users from making changes. Ninetoyadome (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I see this has been dealt with by preventing IPs from editing the page. I reverted the IP at Hayk without realising it was the same one. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This IP refuses to discuss anything. The Kingdom of Armenia page was semi-protected for three weeks, so the issue is resolved for now. We'll report it again if it restarts. Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, can I ask for you take take a look at the recent sockpuppet investigation? As far as I can see an administrator did a language check (check of the used language) and recommended denial of CheckUser and check of the IP, and a polite note with an invitation to teahouse (I am not sure what latter means). May I ask if this has been followed? I am asking because further down on the sockpuppet investigation page it would appear (to my untrained eye at least), that a checkuser and ipcheck was nevertheless performed, after the recommendation that it should not be. Is this the case? When I look at the page, I see a red cross where it would appear an IP address would be shown, may I ask if some people can see this IP address and if this IP address could be my IP address?Eracekat (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Eracekat You've misunderstood this. The comment on the position taken by the IP was not made by an Administrator but by an ordinary editor. The red cross means that the IP address is neither yours nor that of the blocked editor BeauPhenomene. So no one can see or know your IP address unless you inadvertently edit logged out. You're ok, don't worry. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Michael Shermer discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have to question the wisdom of bringing this both to the NPOV noticeboard and BLP noticeboard at the same time. I don't think that will be helpful in the long run.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Instead of discussing the category, I request you to delete it. I will take care of it next time. And I also request you to restore category to the article Aamir Liaquat Hussain, which is supported by sources cited in the article. I had not removed any text but moved a portion of text apropos section. SAMI talk21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There was not scarcity or lack of ingredients, but of resources bring them to the country.
Since the adaptation to peruvian rich biodiversity has not been forced, and after a couple of centuries around in contemporary history, it is authentic to what is know today as Peru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caballito de Mar Peru (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Caballito de Mar Peru, I see what you mean, but when we talk about any ethnic food being authentic we mean as made in the country of it's origin. You might have authentic Peruvian Chinese food, but it would be a version of authentic Chinese food. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
In Peru, before the Incas, existed the Moches. Today many dishes are created using an ingredient they portrayed in their pottery: the loche. The techniques of cooking had evolved, as much as the human race, but we do not call a typical "rice with duck" being "Moche-Inca-Spanish-Peruvian" dish. Since predominance is by country these times, then we call it authentic to what is know today as Peru, with all its sub-cultures that every culture has. Dougweller— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caballito de Mar Peru (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. As suggested I have stopped editing. I strongly feel that merging is the best for that article. Which I did not think previously. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Help
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for informing me about always leaving reasons for page edits. It seems that Wikipedia is nowadays adding more and more tasks to people who simply just want to edit simple information these days. By prompting people to get accounts to edit things now on top of everything else. But thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David31584 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
From my viewpoint, edit summaries make it helpful to the editor as it makes it more likely that their edit will not be reverted if it's a good edit, and are helpful to people who have it on their watchlist or are on vandal patrol. They aren't new. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here is info from Orion_(mythology) -> Orion is also a constellation, one whose rising and setting with the sun is used to reckon the year.[5]
Orion is one who rises in the East with the sun, to put it in some astronomical sense. I thought people should know this by now. Can you indicate somewhere on the Orion constellation page that it rises East with the sun? Im not asking to put it directly where it talks about Armenian Hayk/Orion. Thank you. 66.214.143.68 (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions for Islam- and/or Islamophobia-related articles?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Dougweller,
Thanks for watching out for this page. I had reverted an ip edit which had deleted the "governing_body" section from the infobox, but I am not sure on the reason why getting it back has been reverted. The diff for reference [18]. Thanks --Karan1974 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What do you think of the latest edits to Mumbai? I know that sometimes, "British" and "English" are interchangeable, but I know one must be more correct for an article such as Mumbai. CorinneSD (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Close 3RR?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Can you explain why are you hovering over my edits? Are you auditing my edit history? I hope is not because of my interaction with you at Persecution of Muslims (completely off topic). In any case, my edits are self-explanatory. Of course, you can undo then or block me if you feel I didn't follow policy. --Jmundo (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Jmundo I don't see you as having done anything blockable, just a bit uncalled for. And if you look at User talk:Froglich you will see I have posted to his page a number of times - see the history of the page and you will see for instance my 3RR warning plus more recent posts to his page. It's his page that's on my watchlist, not yours, I am not hovering over your edits nor is your page on my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The map as well as the most recent edits reflect the table of nations from the bible. And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord : wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim. And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha. These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations. (Genesis 10:6-20 KJV)
If the articles concerning the table of nations is to be used, would it not make sense to post accurate or complete information that is describes. Nimrod (son of Cush -Therefore Hamitic not Semitic) created the nations of Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh and Shinar. All five are Mesopotamia. Then it says out of that land came Asshur (son of Shem) who founded Neneveh, Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen. Both hold claim to parts of Mesopotamia, Cush created five cities, and when they fell, his cousin Asshur founded the four that still stand today. So the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad, Calneh and Shinar should be listed under Ham, as shown in the map, and the cities of Neneveh, Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen are highlighted under Shem as shown in the map. Thank you.Tatertot1112 (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Tatertot1112 Ok. We don't know where Calneh, Shinar or Akkad were. You mentioned Ashur in your edit, but that's a person. There's an ancient city called Assur but that's not mentioned in the Bible so far as I know. Likewise we don't know where Resen was (or, like some of the others, if it ever existed). So we can't show them on a map. Your map File:Billygambelafroasiatic (Hamitic&Semitic).jpg both assumes we know the location but also the extent of various areas, which we don't. We can't use the Bible as a primary sourse in this way in any case. You need to find sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS - well accepted biblical scholars/historians, etc. Copying this to your talk page as well. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
By the time I got to see it (accusing me of using sleepers) the above editor had been blocked for disruptive editing. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I found the high ratio curious, Stinney would never have even been accused were he not male, and if I decide to waste some time I may just spend it providing a citation for my good faith edit of Rogers. --Slenderdan (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
[User:Slenderdan|Slenderdan]], you may find it curious, but we have to keep our own opinions out of articles. And Stinney doesn't belong in the category - again that's your interpretation not backed by anything in the article. If I had wanted to show lack of good faith I would have been very clear. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I apologize as I am new to Wikipedia so I may not be doing things exactly the way I should. Cyrus Forough himself requested that I make the change for him. He wants it to read Iranian/American (My son takes violin lessons from him and I help him with some of his computer needs). Is there a more appropriate way to source this information so that it can stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JComella88 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC) JComella88 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This is strange
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Granted, he does make some useful contributions to some articles occasionally now, but I wonder whether we are basically supposed to be a free webhost for an editor's Russian-language poetry [19], which seems to be the bulk of his contributions of late. I don't know if any should be done, or even if anything can be done, but thought it worth mentioning. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
At your earliest convenience, you might check out Sonici's latest edits.[20] Which include, removal of references and referenced information and using wikipedia as a source[21], inserting his own personal opinion into articles[22], and just plain changing of referenced figures.[23] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Would you mind to keep an open horus-eye on Khufu? I observe frequently various vandalizings by IPs and others. Best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure. On the one hand it looks like a legit publication and OK for a reference. On the other hand it is a new publication (2011) and is being added a lot. Some of them fit but others look as if they had to add material to work the reference in. Also I just noticed that it doesn't appear to have been updated for a while. Oh yes, I fixed the space in the section header above. It was bugging me. Sorry. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper?15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
CBWeather - I noticed that some of it was removed by other editors as inappropriate, so it certainly does look as though they were spamming it to me. I don't know why the IP added that documentation stuff, but then I don't know why the IP thought they could complain that I was insisting on using the actual source rather than their translation of something in the source - well, I probably do, they seem to be pushing a holocaust denial position and that helps them. Great 2 days, ANI yesterday (boomerang) and AN3 today. The joys of editing Wikipedia! Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I'm currently searching for sources to improve the Henry Taylor Blow article. I found a book by Carol Ferring Shepley and according to goodreads.com[24], she is/was a professor of Art History. Would you consider her a reliable source concerning Henry Taylor Blow's life? I'm rather skeptical, myself. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kansas BearI think this book by her scrapes through. It's a University of Chicago Press book[25] and because of that and because there is hardly anything written about this which explains why you won't find her cited much), yes. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. I will see what information I can squeeze out of it. Did you notice that the article, initially, did not even have a reference for Henry's freeing of the Scotts? Amazing. And I don't even like American history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I don't know if you remember Tamsier, but he was a single-purpose editor focused on Africa who did a great deal of damage to articles relating to the Serer people and quit Wikipedia after being temporarily banned for insulting you. I suspect that he has returned with the account A Bartenders Vegs.
My reasoning is as follows: near the end of his career on Wikipedia, Tamsier spent some time sifting through my edits and attacking pages which I had created: Liber Ignium, Frei Caneca, and Peasant leagues (Brazil); however, he missed Gaúcho United Front, which I hadn't edited in a while. I did, however, begin adding more content to it recently, and it was then that ABV nominated it for speedy deletion. This was his very first edit on Wikipedia, yet it was done correctly while also being obviously inappropriate. His comments on the talk page contained gross distortions about the quality of the article and its sibling article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, something which Tamsier did at both Peasant leagues (Brazil) and Frei Caneca.
A final bit of evidence is that, besides the article on the FUG and his own userspace, the only edits he has done is in defense of an article about an African organization, which is again reminiscent of Tamsier's protectiveness of Africana. Is there any way that I can be protected from this person, or will I have to endure another summer of arguments and struggles over tags? The last round almost burned me out, and I don't know if I can endure another. Eladynnus (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Dougweller for commenting on your talk page. I received a notification that my name was mentioned here by Eladynnus. I have been editing Wikipedia articles (unregistered) for some time. I am interested in lots of subjects some of which include sports - especially Italian and Brazilian sports, politics and so on. My interest in Brazilian sports accidentally led me to Frente Única Gaúcha under the name Gaúcho United Front. I scoured the net trying to find reliable sources under that name but could only find 1 reliable source in English, which led me to believe that perhaps it is too soon. I don't have to explain myself to anyone but I but decided to do so here. I think Eladynnus should exercise good faith when talking about other editors. Sorry again for commenting on your talk page. A Bartenders Vegs (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Doug. Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I replied there. Curious what you think of my suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Please respond
Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
Look here from the Orion mythology article:
Hellenic solar legend: the Sun-hero is captured and blinded by his enemies at dusk, but escapes and regains his sight at dawn.
If you read the Orion mythology article, that's the story of Orion blinded by his enemies, and is healed when going east where the rising sun heals him.
So, Orion is the solar hero. Please put back that info. 66.214.143.68 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't finished working on Hayk, sorry. The problem was that "solar hero" was piped so that when you clicked on it it went to Sun god and a solar hero is not the same as a sun god. If you are looking at Graves interpretation, you need to know that Graves interpretations aren't taken seriously. As I haven't read that bit of Graves I don't know exactly what it says, but in the actual myth we have Orion going to the Oriet (the East) to join Helios who is the sun god who heals him. Modern writers say that makes him a solar hero. But not a sun god. Give me 48 hours and I'll try to edit both. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. By the way I'm not a ip hopper I have a iPhone and laptop. My wifi connection is slow so I switch to my other connection. 166.137.210.21 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I replied in talk Hayk page did you read it yet? You mentioned here you will edit and add the info in 48 hours. The info regarding solar hero, or to mention the part of the actual myth of joining with the sun, Greek Helios , in the east. 166.137.210.46 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Will it be better to copy these discussions on talk:Hayk ? That way it's clear what you were saying to do. We already have Hayk Orion. I was mentioning for you to add solar hero somewhere there , or atleast mention that part of the actual myth of Orion joining with the sun in east. Are you still busy? Didn't get your replies yet. 166.137.210.37 (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I replied at the Hayk talk page earlier and will reply again - would you copy anything you want over there please? I'll post there now. I've been trying to figure out and source the Orion sun thing and did find something maybe relevant but Eyptological. I'll go there now. Real life keeps getting in the way. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There are also a few sites on the net that have this info:
Orion - He was the Sun-god of both the Egyptians and Phoenicians.
It mentions that both Mithras and Orion are solar heroes. It explains because they go to the east to meet the sun god. Further interesting note on this, Armenians also worshipped Mithras in pre-Christian times known as Mihr (Mitra-Mithras). 66.214.143.68 (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Another interesting point is the word Orient (East, rising sun) and Orion. If you are not familiar with how others pronounce Orion, its actually pronounced how you say Orient, and not O'Ryan. In Armenian, Latin, and I even heard Japanese pronounce it same way as how you pronounce Orient without the t at the end, like Orien-t. Understand what im saying right? So, its also possible this Greek name Orion might not even be Greek to begin with. It could be an earlier form from Proto-Indo-European, as the root of Orion Or- is also Ar-, which is the Armenian root for sun, light etc. Orion is also known as 'coming forth as light', so it seems to make sense , when you mentioned Ara as the sun-god, the Armenian sun-god is Ar or Ara. So, like I said its possible the roots of this name Orion is something else with the root Ar- or Ur- , which in ancient records is associated with the sun and light. 66.214.143.68 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I read what you wrote in Talk:Hayk. I didnt get your response here, I gave you further sources regarding Orion, and its association with the sun. Did you find more? You said you looked at other comparative myths besides Greek. The comparative method helps to notice the solar cult of Orion, as you said --> I've been trying to figure out and source the Orion sun thing and did find something maybe relevant but Eyptological. Can you mention somewhere on those pages I listed about Hayk/Orion associated with the sun (solar hero etc)? Can you use comparative myth explanation with the Greek or Egyptian astronomy and myth? Can you add this source with it?
Orion - He was the Sun-god of both the Egyptians and Phoenicians.
Can you add this source in Hayk, Orion constellation, Armenian mythology articles, to mention Sun-god Orion (Hayk), or solar hero, or its association and link with the sun. That section in Hayk article that mentions Orion, is called "Comparative mythology", so we can mention Egyptian myths, we already have the Greek comparisons. But even by the Greek alone we can add the part in the Greek myth of Orion joining with helios the sun in the east. We can use that to mention Hayk is the solar hero , or joins with the sun in the east. I just want to get this bit of info on these articles, so people can get more understanding and idea of Orion (Hayk). The astronomical side of this, and further on the myth. Did you also notice the part i was mentioning of August 11? Thats in the Hayk article, that day is known as the day of the sun, the first day of Navasard , equal to August 11. Thats when Orion (Hayk) joins with the sun in the east. At different times in history, Orion rose with the sun in the east at different seasons. Now, its at the summer solstice. The point is at a certain time of the year, or certain season, once a year, Orion joins with the sun in the east. So, can you mention that bit of it on those articles i already listed? You said you would add that part few days ago already. Thank you. 66.214.143.68 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I just saw this also on my talk page:
Orion constellation, solar hero
I need 48 hours as I'm busy in real life. See my talk page response. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out and source the Orion sun thing and did find something maybe relevant but Eyptological
One more interesting info. If you look at the Armenian cross-stones khachkar's, the symbolism and art also represents Orion (Hayk) and the sun. The cross on the khachkars (cross-stones) is Orion, and you also have a sun-disc below it on the cross-stones. The khachkars are also put to face towards the east. Its also interesting you mentioned Christian era times with Ireland. Ireland also has cross-stone arts, and possibly the symbolism again is linked with Orion the cross and the sun, as you find those on the Celtic crosses. There is much more info, but you also see the 3 stars of Orion as the trinity. The idea of trinity, and many other Christian teachings are pre-Christian ideas. Can we use the above source: Orion - He was the Sun-god of both the Egyptians and Phoenicians.
It mentions that both Mithras and Orion are solar heroes. It explains because they go to the east to meet the sun god. Further interesting note on this, Armenians also worshipped Mithras in pre-Christian times known as Mihr (Mitra-Mithras).66.214.143.68 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I copied the discussion in talk:Hayk. Did you read it all ? Can you add the above sources with Orion's association with the sun? Mythologically the term is used as solar hero or sun god. It's actually means Orion joining with the sun in the east astronomically. Makes sense? 66.214.143.68 (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but what was it in the Egyptalogical comparison you said earlier that you found connecting Orion with sun? And we can state the astronomical significance , yes? Osiris is later shown in Dendera zodiac as Orion. The comparative mythology section of Hayk article we can show the astronomical side of it and use Osiris's link with Ra the sun god , yes ? You understand my point? Orion rising in east with the sun astronomical info. The Wikipedia article on Osiris link with Orion has this source: Oxford Guide: Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology, Edited by Donald B. Redford, p302-307, Berkley, 2003, ISBN0-425-19096-X for its link with Orion you see ? We can mention the astronomy side of it, because in Orion mythology article we have Hesiod mentioning Orion rising and setting with the sun to reckon the year ? You see? And as I said , we have comparative mythology section in Hayk to state that. I don't see any issue with this. 166.137.210.35 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 166.137.210.35 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Doug, what is the problem with mentioning the astronomical side of this? Hayk is already stated as Orion, and the mythology article states Hesiod's astronomy of Orion rising with the sun to reckon the year. I don't see a problem there? 166.137.210.16 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disappoint you. I didn't find anything comparing Orion with the sun at all, it was something about various constellations and the sun, not Orion the god. Redford says Osiris was associated with the circumpolar stars, especially Orion (which they didn't call Orion). But again, he doesn't talk about Hayk. But really this should be at Talk:Hayk. I did find something useful on Hayk (but not Orion) but no one has commented on it. Once again, please read WP:NOR. All we have about Hayk and the constellation is 2 mentions in a translation of the Bible - which is of course irrelevant to the time when Hayk might have been worshipped as a god. Sources need to directly discuss the subject, unlike writing an essay when you can take two sources and create an argument using them. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thats fine, but what determines one source being more reliable than the other? What I'm saying is, what makes the source provided for Zeus comparison with Hayk reliable, and not other sources which I mentioned to you of the sun god or solar hero Orion? We already went through the astronomical knowledge of this. The Michael Speidel source [32], why is that not considered reliable? I find him sourced many places on Wikipedia. Since Armenians worshipped Mithras/Mihr in pre-Christian times, can we atleast state that somewhere and use Michael Speidel's source that he was the solar hero Orion, which as we see Hayk again linked to it. Hayk or Orion, or Mithras, whatever name we want to call it by, the astronomy is found in ancient Armenian stone arts, petroglyphs. We see some of them show the archer Orion killing the Bull (Taurus), the same story is in the myth of Mithras slaying the Bull. Michael Speidel [33] saw the comparison correctly. This is also besides the fact both of them join with the sun Helios in the east after the defeat of the enemy, the bull taurus. The story of Hayk and Bel is similar, you noticed this? Hayk kills Bel, but the timing is based on Hayk-Orion joining with the sun in the east again. So, Im asking again, can we use the above 2 sources I provided here? What determines them being reliable or not, its not just onces personal feelings on a source from another is it? The tacentral.com is not unreliable, it has info that is based on facts , on the Armenian calendar, that one is found a lot of sites, I already gave you another one from Talk:Hayk. The Armenian calendar is advanced, so much that it has even the hours of the day named. Armenians were astronomers and they made an advance calendar. What tacenral has on the astronomy is correct, and it shouldnt be unreliable, just cause someone feels it is. 66.214.143.68 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Comparative mythology is the comparison of myths from different cultures in an attempt to identify shared themes and characteristics.[1] Comparative mythology has served a variety of academic purposes. For example, scholars have used the relationships between different myths to trace the development of religions and cultures, to propose common origins for myths from different cultures, and to support various psychological theories. You see? Isnt this what we are trying to do here? 66.214.143.68 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Doug, I agree I was being snarky. I will try to refrain in future. I've decided that a blog would be a much better idea for me for that sort of thing. I'm surprised you left the prior comment. Regards Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Notice
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:Akocsg is falsifying information from a reference
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
This editor is using two sources, falsely, stating that the Huns used a Turkic language, thus allowing them to be listed under List of Turkic dynasties and countries. I have posted on the talk page explicit information showing that both of Akocsg's sources do not state the Huns to be a Turkic language, that the Huns had Iranic and Germanic names, not simply Turkic, and that the Hunnic language article shows multiple theories. Akocsg's edit war to include the Huns gives undue weight to one theory. Since Akocsg has no interest in using the talk page, instead issuing a threat, "No, you are wrong. Stop your edit-war! My whole (!) source is about the core of the Huns bearing Turkic names, I'll report you now.", what is your suggestion?
Akocsg clearly noticed I had removed the Huns earlier from the article[34] stating "per talk page", Akocsg then tried to remove said section from the talk page,[35] and is now edit warring under the guise of "referenced information" to re-add them.[36],[37],[38]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree that this is disruptive, besides edit warring. Dr.K. has joined the fray, and now I see that Rajmaan is working on article improvement, so those are good signs. Especially the talk page edit concerns me: Akocsg should be advised that with such edits (and summaries) they are basically advertising themselves as a non-neutral editor, and coupled with the edit warring they are walking a very fine line. Any more of this warring and they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Ha, and I managed to say nothing at all about the alleged falsification of sources. If you can argue this case convincingly, then that's cause for an immediate block, I'd say--but I'll leave that to Dougweller, who is more knowledgeable than I am, and on whose premises I am intruding anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I looked at the Hunnic language article. That section is awful, esp. the beginning, sourced as it is to HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE which, as far as I can tell, has no status to speak of. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I just saw the ping. Rapid-fire edit-warring coupled with loud edit-summaries and non-participation on talk are not good signs. After my 3RR warning on their talk they appear to have stopped. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις16:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the discussion under "Notability", you wrote, "None of them are particularly positive, but we can use them as sources." But I'd like to point out that positivity isn't necessarily a good thing. My grandfather held the opinion that he got a lot more mileage out of bad press than good press. Funfree (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I think it is inappropriate and biased to state in the article on Barbara Thiering, especially early on in the article, that people disagree with her. Would you have such announcements in articles on any other religious denomination? None is accepted by consensus, or majority, or even large minority. Are there warnings in the articles on Roman Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, atheism, and so on, telling readers that they have critics who dismiss their positions? It's an extremely trivial issue, and it goes without saying. It adds nothing to readers' grasp of the subject of the article.
This is an extremely important article for me, the only important article on Wikipedia, because I'm utterly convinced that Barbara Thiering's theories are utterly correct, that it is only a matter of time before they become widely accepted, and that her gospel must get out. If not on Wikipedia, where else?
My name is Marshall Price. I live in Miami, Florida. I read Barbara Thiering's three books for the lay public a long time ago, and then acquired a dictionary of Biblical Greek, the Greek Bible she recommended, lots of books on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, downloaded texts of ancient Jewish, Roman, and Greek historians, and works by her detractors, none of which had anything to say directly about the validity of her work, except to comment on other people's opinions of her (almost all of them falsely claiming to be experts, and biased by their own religions against her interpretations) and make up lies. When carbon dating seemed to prove her wrong, and was widely cited as evidence against her, it was only a matter of time before the early estimates were proven wrong, and newer estimates showed her dating to be plausible. Arguments about the calligraphy were also wrong. There is no valid argument against anything she says except for one thing: I think she used the wrong word for medicines which induce vomiting, calling them emetics or something. I forget now. This came up in a Yahoo newsgroup, where she remained for a year or so before finally giving up, due to the annoying and ignorant people who intruded on the group and made it unusable.
My old username was "Unfree", but I lost my password and had to start a new account, which I did only recently (having been away from the Internet for a long time), now under the username "Funfree".
I try to avoid bias and practice courtesy at all times, especially on Wikipedia.
The three books Professor Thiering has written for the general public are very hard to get outside of Australia. People say otherwise, but they haven't been through the challenge. I have. The books are listed everywhere, but when you try to order them, you run into difficulties. That was my experience when I first tried to get them, and discovered I had to have them shipped from Australia. I've fallen into poverty since then, and haven't tried since I lost everything, including my library.
Somewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps right in that article, the details of her findings ought to be aired, so the world can judge for itself the validity of her work.
When I deleted the sentence from the opening paragraph stating that she has detractors, I believed I was doing the right thing. It's like saying in the opening paragraph about a composer that critics have panned him. Big deal. It's irrelevant and annoying to readers who come looking for information. Funfree (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I, obviously, am not Dougweller, but I like butting into conversations anyway, and saw this thread on my watchlist. First of all, I regret to say that, as far as scientific theories go, regarding Barbara Thiering, which is I believe the article to which you are referring(?), so far as I remember having seen in the various reference works and overviews that I have seen regarding topics relating to her theories, her specific theories are more or less regarded in the academic world as fringe theories more or less as per WP:FRINGE. I don't know if there is a clear guideline regarding where in articles we indicate to potential readers that fringe theories of academics do qualify as fringe theories, but we are more or less obliged, in the interest of NPOV, to do so somewhere prominently. Now, I know that lots of academic theories regarding religious beliefs are considered fringe, including some of my own. But, as per our policies and guidelines, it is incumbent on us to present theories which have not received much academic support as not having received support, at least when discussing those theories from a scientific viewpoint. And, for all I know, I think there may well be article on composers, or poets, or other artists, in which the lead indicates their work received negative response. However, those are creative artists, and Thiering is an academic. In the case of artists, what is involved is matters of taste, in the latter matters of academic opinion.
Regarding your comment about "other denominations," I admit I am at a bit of a loss. Your comment seems to be indicating, perhaps, that there is a group of people, either of a specific denomination or, perhaps, a loosely organized group which might cross denominational lines, which does clearly adhere to her theories. If that adherence to those theories is specifically to those theories as "her theories" per se, there clearly might be a place to indicate that, specifically in an article on that group, provided it is notable as per our notability guidelines. Unfortunately, I regret to say, not all denominations do meet notability standards here, and I have no way of knowing whether the group you are discussing does or does not meet such notability guidelines without knowing its specific name, if it has one.
Regarding your statement that there should be a place to present your theories, I agree, and think that the appropriate place would be in either the article on her or on her works in which she advances those theories, provided they meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, and I have every reason to believe they do. Feel free to put together such an article. Personally, right now I am wading through reference books of all sorts trying to get together lists of what they cover, but would be more than willing to e-mail to you any reliable sources I could find which would provide material which could be used in such an article. I might also try, depending on if your request coincides with a time I need another break from these seemingly interminable lists of encyclopedic articles, to try to help bring such articles up to GA or FA level, if you so wish. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting that this has come up several times in the last few days - editors making the fundamental misunderstanding about how we work. To quote a discussion at Talk:Bart D. Ehrman "Per No original research, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." See also Talk:Richard C. Hoagland/Archive 3#RfC: Should article be trimmed down. Our articles are meant to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject, and if what they say is that she is fringe or dismissed by academia, our article needs to make this clear. Wikipedia is not meant to air someone's work in the way you want it to. Try Wikiversity. Your comment about religions is irrelevant, Thiering is not a religion, she is a person and people are treated very differently from religions. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall my comment about religions, but considering that Thiering's work is almost entirely about the New Testament, and that her revelations contradict the firmly-held positions of many millions of Christians, and thousands of highly respected professional experts on the New Testament, it ought to be obvious that she has an immense opposition, and her own safety is at risk. Even espousing her findings invites hateful insults. Funfree (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You said you believe her, which I mistakenly took as being a statement of religious belief. It also seems to me that you are rather dubiously acquainted with much of the major scholarship of the past few years, including Bart Ehrman, who is a self-described agnostic and has gone out of his way to point out the errors in the transmission of the text of the Bible, Elaine Pagels, who has shown remarkably sympathy to gnostic Christianity, and others. Surprisingly, so far as I've heard, Ehrman, who is much more visible and much better-selling than Thiering and has pointed out errors in the gospels, has so far as I can tell never complained about any risks to his safety. I regret to say that your own comment above shows a tendency towards the statements of conspiracy theorists in general, and except where specifically notable and/or indicated in reliable sources, we don't base content on them. Also, it is I regret to say true that even some of those considered most reliable on Qumran matters, some of whom hold their own fringe beliefs, have indicated that even among the Qumran community of scholars, including some pagans and Jews with no particular interest in Jesus, the idea of the later, Christian-era Qumran has little support based on the evidence of Qumran as opposed to the Maccabeean-era theory more widely accepted. Yes, it is always possible that the academic world is wrong and/or biased, and a small group of individuals have caught their mistakes. Unfortunately, as per WP:WEIGHT and our other content guidelines, whether we particularly like them or not, we go by the academic consensus, which so far as I can tell is clearly against the Christian-era Qumran hypothesis. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Neutral point of view
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
You have said to keep a neutral point of view, but bias is running rampant on the Far Right Wikipedia page. It emphasizes nazism and gives a history lesson on the Nazi Party rather than talk from a neutral, truthful prospective. When I removed a section that gave a briefing on Nazi ideologies, you sent a warning. I will not proceed to edit any articles like that again, but I do hope you would consider revising that article to a neutral perspective.
TheWkThink (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Doug, I have no patience with the Nazis are left-wing kind of soapboxing and I've blocked them indefinitely: they are not here to improve the project. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh! Well, guess where I was just at. Sorry to, ahem, steal that thunder. On another note, how are you all with Norwegians? I had one over for dinner yesterday and he was very nice. He was not blond so I am a bit distrustful. He refused to tell any jokes about Swedes though I pressed the point. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I can see it's been busy while my wife and I have been watching 3 episodes of The Closer!. Off to bed soon. Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
He did have a pretty weird accent. And he had been exercising. On those skis with wheels under them. In Alabama. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Those things are OK, and not being blond. But not knowing any Swedish jokes is a tell. Wanna hear a Swedish joke? A Dane, a Norwegian and a Swede went up together in a small plane. The Norwegian pilot realised they were about to run out of gas. "OMG, we've only got two parachutes!" The Swede said: "You only brought two, you idiot? Gimme one of 'em! I don't care how you two jokers settle the rest between you!" — "Oh, OK, I realise it's my fault", said the Norwegian. "Here you are. We'll think of something." The Swede put on the parachute and jumped out. — "Now what?" said the Dane, considerably irritated. — "Not to worry", said the Norwegian. "I gave him the rucksack." Heard it, huh? Bishonen | talk19:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC).
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Doug,
Please note that your edit to the "Stop Islamization of America" article (where you changed "anti-Islamic" to "anti-Islamist") has been reverted as that appears to be a controversial change. I encourage you to come back and provide your reasons for the change for discussion. GrinSudan (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
information and services (GI&S); formerly referred to as mapping, charting, and geodesy). It includes, but is not limited to, data ranging from the ultraviolet through the microwave
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Durupınar site 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:
visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made".{<ref name=Noorbergen>{{cite book|last1=Noorbergen|first1=Rene|title=The Ark File|date=2004|
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sir i am no more allowed to edit the page. And most of the info is false and is not in neutral point of view. It is against Raashid Alvi. Plz help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazhatafroz (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Dougweller. At your convenience I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Molinaro and then this on my talk page. I go to extreme lengths to avoid getting into inter-personal conflicts with other editors but when rude behavior threatens to drive another editor off the project I get a little irritated. This guy seems to be really badgering another editor and the commentary is down right rude. I was wondering if you couldn't drop a friendly "tone it down" note. Thanks -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
, many apologies. Do you think I still should intervene? He seems to have calmed down. Given the arguments about notability not being conferred by a book, I'm wondering if David Wilcock meets our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
At this point I think things have moved beyond the point of any useful intervention. Woz2 has resigned and vanished himself from the project. Maybe he will come back. Some do. I will take a look at the Wilcock article when I get a few minutes later today. Thanks for the reply... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, although even if I had responded it looks as though he'd decided to go, and the latest exchange between him as an IP and EEng seems civil. And EEng did say, early on at the AfD, "I'm afraid all your effort will be wasted, which would really be too bad". You could say he's a bit abrasive I guess. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Harold Covington
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Good job. You really did your homework, finding an obscure cite to his blog, in a book about American constitutions that was just published about a month ago.Wasp14 (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Simply Google. Interesting book, but are you being sarcastic, Wasp14? I didn't really think a cite was necessary, but as it was asked for, I found one in. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I only questioned it, since when I checked the blog, the blog is anonymously owned by someone using the name "The Old Man" with a photo of a squidbilly as their profile pic. This cite also drives another nail in the coffin of my rejected opinion that Covington is not notable. I think he is a minor figure in the white supremacy scene, and his being mentioned in a few old newspaper clippings and obscure books discussing white supremacy doesn't rise to notability, but here he is mentioned again in some academic's book. Wasp14 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Wasp14 thanks for clarification. I've got no reason to doubt that the blog is his but take your point. You could indeed argue that if he doesn't acknowledge it's his we should remove it. Not sure about the notability issue. This[39] and [40] are probably enough to establish notability though. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 6
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Requesting title change for articles: Jubilees to Book of Jubilees and Sirach to Book of Sirach. My reason is that these are the only books that don't have "Book of" before the name like the Book of Enoch or Book of Baruch -- ♣Jerm♣72904:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re your question on my talk "Did you actually do a search on the phrase before creating the article?"
Yes I did and found the Analysis of Alternatives used the term but not describes it, and otherwise found some English uses that had the three words together as a descriptive combination rather than a term. Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Pending revision awaiting review?
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
User:Daru Dakitu If you are referring to your edit, now accepted, this isn't unusual on articles. It's less stringent then just stopping IPs and brand new editors from editing an article. 21:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Malta
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I read somewhere that you are knowledgeable in history, so I thought I'd ask you whether you approve of the latest edit to Malta. An editor added "much later" to a sentence about the Roman occupation of the area on Malta called Mdina. Perhaps it is true, and the phrase is a positive addition to the article, but I think "also much later" is an awkward phrase. If you approve of the addition of "much later", I think either the word "also" needs to be deleted or "much later" needs to be moved to a different location in the sentence.
Can't say that I do. Any suggestion of early Kurds needs to also mention significant view that disagree that 'Kurd' is an appropriate term at that time for an ethnic identity. Does it contradict our article Kurds]? Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
My personal beliefs don't matter. Even if I were a Neo-Nazi who hates Turks with a passion and regularly beats up foreign-looking people, if academic consensus is on my side on Wikipedia, you're out of luck. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You're still doing same thing. You judjing people on their etnicty. I'am not thinking you're "neo-nazi" because of you are German. Seems you're already convinced that.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't really understand rhetorical techniques, do you? I was intentionally presenting an extreme example (apparently it was not extreme enough ...). You do seem to think I'm some sort of Neo-Nazi, though. You know what, I'm getting bored of this.
The cracks are showing. Our buddy attacks editors and when called out immediately whines about being on the receiving end of insults and bullying: classic. Doug, could you put him out of his misery? I think he needs a wikiholiday. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Is Doug your personel bodygurad? Yes I agree, you're getting boring. I'am not keep going this argue with you. You acting like a clown and you're a totally death end. Good evening.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"Bored" is not the same thing as "boring". Brush up on your English. You totally messed up that comeback, buddy. Bzzz!
Read his so-called "constructive" comments on those talk pages. He calls other editors as "idiot". Every editor who oppose him and his Turko-centric biases is a victim of his attacks. Even he calls scholars as idiot! Really ridiculous and nonsense. Best example of a POV/biased editor with battleground/non-WP goals. This Turkish nationalist thinks he's has a holy quest to fight bad western scholars, because experts don't support his Pan-Turkist/Pan-Turanist dreams/version of history. Also. he tries to cheat other editors with false edit summaries. --188.158.64.228 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Heinrich Schliemann
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Dougweller! I see that you reverted my "citation needed" tag on the Heinrich Schliemann page. I did see the reference in the next paragraph, but I thought it preferable for a self-standing paragraph to have its own reference. Unfortunately I don't have access to JSTOR to check p. 339 341 of Easton's article. If you're certain that the claim I had tagged comes from there, could you please add it to the end of the first paragraph? Otherwise, keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
MadalibiDiscovered this year that Yale has finally opened JSTOR access to alumni, so done. "He was not very good at separating fact from interpretation. It is a recurrent problem in Schliemann. The burnt citadel of Troy II was Troy; the gate was the Scaean Gate; the building inside the gate was Priam's palace, and the treasure was Priam's Treasure. He learned to express himself more carefully as the years passed, but one still detects the underlying conviction. And he was wrong. Even in 1872 Frank Calvert could see from the pottery that Troy II had to be hundreds of years too early to be the Troy of the Trojan War, a point finally proved by the discovery of Mycenaean pottery in Troy VI in 1890." Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, and thanks for checking this out quickly! The statement I had a problem with was not this one, though, but the one that "His excavations were condemned by later archaeologists as having destroyed the main layers of the real Troy." I just subscribed to JSTOR for a month to check it out, but couldn't find this statement. Easton seems to be defending Schliemann from some of his critics, so I doubt he would let this kind of accusation go unanswered. The [citation needed] tag would appear justified after all. What do you think? (I have to go out right now for a few hours, so I won't be able to reply quickly.) Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I just saw your new edits to the section in question. They solve the issue, and are clearly better than adding the tag back in. Thanks for that! Madalibi (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
COI editing
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
It depends both on the situation and on who you ask.
In this case in particular, user:Dannyruthe submitted the articles to AfC for review by a disinterested editor, which is what he or she should do if they choose to write about a subject where they have a conflict of interest. Additionally, given that their real-name is in their username, this is a sufficient disclosure where I think we should AGF. They even edited other articles first, presumably to gain some experience with Wiki-code and whatnot.
The articles should probably be merged per WP:ORGVANITY. Regarding the COI, I don't see any disruption, manipulation, etc. worth drawing special attention to. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
CorporateM thanks for your attention and your edits. AGF, but I have to say that I've seen articles pass AfC which would never pass AfD, that were basically copyvio, promotional etc - AfC generally does a good job but it can alway fail magnificently. If they'd actually disclosed their COI I'd AGF with no reservations, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a reviewer to search for the username. Dougweller (talk)
This is a problem with the Bright Line in general - it's based on the presumption that the disinterested editor will show better judgement than the conflicted one, but they don't always. This means sometimes COI edits are accepted by proxy, for example through AfC and other times good edits are declined. This margin of error is natural for a amateur-run site and we should avoid the reflex to find errors more offensive merely because COI is involved.
Regarding disclosure, you are correct, but it is not obvious where to add the disclosure in an AfC submission and any experienced reviewer knows to presume any company or person article they get was COI-written. Also, many marketing reps are not aware of disclosure requirements.
I made a lot of poor COI edits without disclosure before making good ones. But editors AGFd, taught me the rules and now I've made dozens of GAs. Also, given that there is no disruption or large-scale problems that require the attention of other editors, even if you ABF, there's nothing for COIN to do about it...
I often check old versions first, then do as Florian suggested. Sometimes they are reverting back to the stable version - not necessarily the first version, I recently found one that started with one era style, but was changed in 2007 or maybe earlier and had remained there until last month. That's the stable version. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. I went through the entire revision history and found the following:
1) The first time a date from ancient times was added to the article was on 4 Feb 2006 by Jastrow, who added a photo of a statue. The caption said "2nd c. B.C.". This was later changed to "1st or 2nd c. B.C.".
2) On 22 April 2008, an edit added a date for Vesuvius (last sentence in article): 79 AD. This stayed this way until 6 June 2014 when it was changed to 79 CE.
3) A date for Attis' birth of December 25, 1170 B.C., was added on 4 May 2008 but all deleted on 7 May 2008.
4) On 4 Dec 2009, "Born Greece, 1200 BC" was added. Changed to "1200 BCE" on 28 May 2010.
5) "1200 BCE" was changed to "1250 BCE" on 23 Dec 2012. Changed to "BC" 30 April 2013. Chgd. to BCE on 6 June 2014.
6) Material added to end of 1st parag. in lead on 8 Nov 2010 ending "200 BCE"; all deleted 8 Nov 2010.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your help in better understanding the policies and rules of Wikipedia. I will delete the inserted reference book "The Compassion of the Feathered Serpent: A Chicano Worldview," since it is, as you mention, a self-published source.
However, I feel caught in a Catch-22 here regarding editing native terms, as academic sources do not cover the native perspective as a general rule. Thus 99% of academic sources available on native Mexican society and philosophy of the same come from a European perspective, totally different than the native Mexican worldview. As an example, oral transmission of knowledge without any publication of the same is the usual form of transmission within native pueblos of the Americas, not the creation of voluminous libraries.
So, at the end of the day, Wikipedia needs to decide if it will promote only written (European) perspectives, or make allowance for knowledge to be based on oral tradition as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozomatli1 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Very rarely does Wikipedia "make a decision" because we lack any decision-making bodies for almost everything. However, generally speaking I think it is acknowledged that for all its drawbacks, we just can't accept oral sources. Unfortunately this makes it difficult to cover cultures, histories, etc. that are undocumented, but we need reliable sources to confirm the information is true. CorporateM (Talk) 23:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 June 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't know how much - if any - interest you have in the page, but there is currently a discussion here about whether the article should be restored to a prior version. The page was protected after an edit-war, so a consensus needs to be built before an admin can consider making the Edit Request. CorporateM (Talk) 04:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hiDougweller,
how are you,after long time later i received message from you.thank you for your monitoring.i will consider and do the needful in future.your support always needed .. thank you.Eshwar.omTalk tome12:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Transhumance
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have read a large portion of the article on Transhumance and made some edits to improve clarity and conciseness (parts, especially the section Transhumance#The Iberian peninsula were written, I believe, by a non-native speaker of English, so that was particularly hard to edit). I've been checking with Rothorpe at User talk:Rothorpe#Transhumance to get his opinion on some things. There is one that neither of us us sure about. If you want to look at our discussion on that one item, see Item #2 (written 2) ), all the way at the bottom of our long discussion. It's about something in the section "The Iberian peninsula". It said "the lower Roman empire", but it says "during" and mentioned the Visigoths, so I was thinking perhaps it meant "the later Roman empire", but we're not sure. Can you help us determine what was meant? Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think you‘re right; although “lower“ means earlier in geology and archaeology, I think it’s likely to do with the linguistic issues you’ve noticed: idioms relating time & direction vary considerably—even within a given language, let alone between one and another. The Visigoths certainly belong to the late history of the RE, indeed the end of it so far as the western provinces were concerned.—Odysseus147901:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Odysseus. I had already changed it to "later". It appears that you would support that edit. It's a fairly interesting article, but (and I think there are tags to that effect) it lacks citations. CorinneSD (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Cinosaur's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Qumran not located in Israel under International Law
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Doug,
Even though I value your work as editor, I also consider your editing as vandalism and you help disperse political disinformation.
Qumran is located in Palestine, in the Occupied Westbank, and under International Law, Qumran can not be considered Israeli.
Thus writing that Qumran is located in an Israeli National Park is helping the Israeli government spread lies via Wikipedia.
If you will not correct your editing, I will address this with other people in wikipedia
User:Toatec, at the moment the article simply says it is in the park and we can reference that. If you have an acceptable source that says the park is in Palestinian territory discuss that on the talk page. What is importNt to me is that this is sourced correctly, shows any significant views, and that there is no edit warring, particularly by IPs hopping. Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Quote:
Archeological sites in the Occupied Territories have a double political significance: spatial control and influence over public consciousness. The sites of Susya, Tel Shiloh, Qumran, Herodion, and others, are presented as part of the past of the Jewish people. Visits to these sites and the display of their archeological remains ( including those whose origins are disputed) are meant to imbue visitors with the feeling that they are standing amid an integral part of the past of the Jewish people. For the most part, the guided tours and explanations in the sites mention nothing, or very little, about other peoples or cultures who live or have lived in the region. In some sites, such as Susya, the Palestinian inhabitants were even physically expelled from their houses in order to make room for visitors. Claiming these sites as part of the Israeli national heritage, while ignoring the Palestinian villages and residents in the area, is aimed at strengthening the legitimacy of the settlements within the Israeli consensus.
Quote: If a settlement is ever reached between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, under the so-called Road Map for Peace, due to reach its conclusion in 2005, it is likely Qumran will fall into the area of a new Palestinian State and one of the most important of all the Jewish historical sites will no longer be under Israeli jurisdiction. Prior to 1967 the area around Qumran was controlled by the Jordanians and had been since the end of the war which saw Israel established as an independent State in 1948.
Quote:
Price says his own work underwrites Israeli precedence in some Palestinian land. "Despite the fact that Qumran is probably on the map as the Palestinians', the fact is we're unearthing ancient Jewish heritage," he said. "There's nothing here that speaks to any other people."
Price's politics are unlikely to disrupt his access to the Qumran plateau, however. Located in the West Bank, permits to excavate around Qumran are not issued by the Palestinian Authority, but rather by Israel's Civil Administration. It's a bizarre arrangement, which critics say allows Israeli officials and religious pseudo-scientists to cooperate in raiding cultural treasures.
Archaeology in the West Bank--specifically, who has the right to dig, interpret, and store artifacts--is a wedge issue that ties into broader struggles over resource control in the occupied territory. "Are we trying to be nationalist?" Price said. "In this conflict of religious ideas that affect the political situation, you have to take a side somewhere."
You've done a lot better than I have, as I was only coming up with stuff such as [48]. What is obviously needed is an entire section discussing this, with a short bit in the lead summarising it in a sentence. I hope you can draft this. If you haven't already, copy this to your edit request. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, give me a bit of time then...I thought looking on a map would suffice for all...but if you want this added ok, I will put in more effort and reformulate the above.
The thing is, User:Toatec, it's more complicated (and interesting) then just looking at a map. Looking at a map for instance won't explain why it's controlled by the Israel Antiquities Authority, or any of the stuff you've found. Hopefully we can put it in a way that also minimises edit warring. Please sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry with the 4 tildes? where ? It has been some 5 years that I last edited an article...
If I sum up the things above, where and how do I place it ? I can't edit the article at the moment.Toatec (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which under International Law is considered illegally occupied by Israel. Even though Qumran is not in Israel, it, like the rest of the Westbank is controlled by the Israeli military, and since Qumran holds important historical Jewish treasures has been put under the administration of the Israeli Qumran National Park authority. The aim is to claim this historical site as Jewish, both physically as well in the minds of visitors to Qumran. Often treasures from Qumran are also illegally transported to West-Jerusalem, and placed in the Israeli Museum.
Ok I placed the above text on the talk page of Qumran, as you told me to. When will this be modified? Otherwise I will do it again next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toatec (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You were the admin who fully protected Raashid Alvi, during an SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamdirfan987) which was closed with all the socks and the puppetmaster being permanently blocked. This full protection is due to expire on 17 June.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm not exactly sure why you've reverted all of the Brazil pages that have recently been edited. The edits were in no means spam, and were in fact trying to provide in good faith very accurate, and high quality data to citizens hoping to learn more about cities prior to the world cup. Please take the time to do your research into data sources prior to deleting or reverting posts. If someone added newly released United Nations data to a number of pages on wikipedia, would you revert them all?
Can't have been in the last couple of days, I can't recall the pages. And as you haven't edited any either, I can't answer your question. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Seleucid Empire
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the article on the Seleucid Empire, in the section Seleucid Empire#An overextended domain, sixth paragraph, it says that the Greco-Indian kingdom lasted until about AD 20. In the article Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, the last sentence of the first paragraph says, "The expansion of the Greco-Bactrians into northern India from 180 BC established the Indo-Greek Kingdom, which was to last until around AD 10." I assume that the "Greco-Indian kingdom" is the same as the "Indo-Greek kingdom". If that's true, then there is a discrepancy between the two articles in the date of the end of the kingdom. Can you or someone else help resolve this discrepancy? CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As you know many editors especially the unregistered ones keep edit warring and insrting text that is not correct or shouldn't be there because of their devotion and because they think their edit is "right". For example the infobox should only contain those children who are mentioned in majority of scriptures and legends. However some people keep inserting Ashokasundari since they watched it in that tv show "Devon ke Dev Mahadev". Also they keep inserting Kaali, Durga, Adi shakti as Shiva's wife. However they are not his wife only Parvati is his wife and Kaali, Durga etc are his various forms while in actual she is an incarnation of the goddess Adi Parshakti. More of all they keep inserting Shiva's "damru" (small-headed drum) and his third eye as his weapons. However those especially the damru are not weapons. I think the article should be locked so the edit warring can be mitigated to some extent. What do you think? MythoEditor (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry and breach of rules
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I would like to ask could u please investigate these 2 users. As I believe they are sockpuppets as both editing same article in same section, which looks very strange.
Yacatisma, I don't see diffs (links to edits) that show they are the same editor. I see one adding text to the other's edit, but that isn't enough. Note the restriction I placed on Ninetoyadome (1R per week per article). Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Atropatene
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Noticed an addition of "Turkic" to Avicenna's ethnicity. Sourced by:
Theodore Levin (ethnomusicologist), The Hundred Thousand Fools of God: Musical Travels in Central Asia, page 40. Has a degree in Musicology, not history. Would you say this academic falls outside the realm of specialization for history(ie. Avicenna)?
Ravil Bukharaev, Islam in Russia: The Four Seasons, page 95. According to this site[49], he graduated as a mathematician from Kazan University in 1974 and in theoretical computer science at Moscow University in 1977. Which means this source is not reliable.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I remembered that you had replaced some controversial material to Koç family on June 1 with an edit summary saying "Replaced well-sourced content. Dislike of it isn't a reason to remove it". You've probably been following it, but since then, two editors have been alternately removing and replacing it and arguing over sources. That material, and in fact most of the material in the article, has now been removed. The editor who removed it referred in the edit summary to WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard#references for specific family connections to Armenian genocide where there is a lengthy discussion. I can't tell whether a consensus was reached or not. If you have time, maybe you'd like to look at it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It was pretty clear that there was some sock or meat puppetry going on there. I probably shouldn't have added 'well' as I hadn't checked the sources in detail but was working on the basis that there were sources that look good and the deletion reasons were unacceptable. Looking at the discussion I don't see a consensus and don't have time to do more research, sorry. From about now on through Sunday I've only a few hours for editing. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
That's O.K. I have no vested interest in either position in that discussion. I just thought you might be interested in it. That's all. CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you continue to harass Yossarianpedia I will block you. Don't post to Yossarianpedia's talk page anymore unless you find the ability to apologise, which doesn't seem likely. Yossarianpedia (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have a new editor with like 6 edits that signed up today. They are blanking out whole sections of this article, and putting really negative BLP type stuff up. I warned her a time or two and she stopped. So I went to work to try to piece the article back together from the old diff, but they have started again. If you are an admin, can you take a look? I am going to hang back now and will try to help fix the article later if needed. If you are not an admin, could you try to get one to look at this page?
My first time using Wikipedia, trying to figure out how to add Citations[edit source]
Would you mind giving me a few minutes to figure out the process? In fact, would you be open to helping me add the references with me? I can email them to you and we can split them. There's a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningstar90 (talk • contribs) 5:35 am, Today (UTC−5)
-Morningstar90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningstar90 (talk • contribs) 5:32 am, Today (UTC−5)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Dougweller. I may have a problem brewing with another editor. User:Mintu.Awal789 is routinely adding unsourced content to Hariti. I stumbled on the article during an anti-vandalism patrol and saw it was very old and completely unsourced and then tagged it accordingly. Unfortunately the editor in question keeps adding material to it. I have reverted the additions several times and have explained in the edit summaries and also in an exchange on my talk page that RS sources need to be cited for all articles but I don't think he understands. He seems to think this is personal and that articles about religious subjects are exempt from RS and V. He has deleted a bunch of stuff from his talk page but the edit summaries on the article and the exchange on my talk page I think summarize things pretty well. To be clear, I am not suggesting bad faith. I strongly suspect that this is just a case of failure to communicate. English does not appear to be his native language. And I really do not want this to land in ANI or the Edit War notice board. Any help would be much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! I think he is getting the message and hopefully we can move forward. On a side note I do not doubt the notability of the article. But no sources on an article that old is not good. I have it on my watch list and I don't think I will allow any editing (except redactions) without citing sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Kadir Topbaş
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo Dougweller,
I need your help for a new user, User:Kaankaraca, who is currently repeatedly inserting a spam link on the article about the current mayor of Istanbul, Kadir Topbaş, removing at the same time what is for me a good link. Another user reverted him already, so I think that he breached the 3RR, but he is new, and I have the impression that he does not understand the rules here. I saw that yesterday had contact with him, so can you have a(nother) :-) look please? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Alessandro57 He removed my explanation so I've blocked him for 24 hours. By the way, I don't think [51] is a good external link - not only do people put up their own bios, do they check to make sure they actually are the person they say they are? Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A few days ago, an IP editor messed up a block quote in Edmund Wilson. I fixed it and added an edit summary saying see WP:Blockquote. Today, the same editor again put the text of the quote into italics and added quotation marks. Do you want to warn that IP editor not to do that again? CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
User:NeilN- I cheated. The district was identified, so I went to its article and found other village articles, looked at them and copied categories and talk page headers over to the new article. Learned how to find hidden article categories also through HotCat - entered Sri Lankan and then the word articles, the word 'article's doesn't show up automagically. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please don't threaten people over abject trivia. What was added was factual material known to any scientist who has been through the tenure process and recognizes that "propriety" is far more important than the unfettered quest for knowledge. You Wikipedia editors would insist upon one providing a reference for the statement, "Grass is green"—unless the contributor thereof happened to be your buddy. Whom are you kidding?
When I add frankly informative material that is NOT of a confrontational nature, some joker still complains about it—or, perhaps, not. You folks really do a wonderful job of discouraging any creative or, indeed, intellectually stimulating input. "Scientific" articles sound dreadfully imbalanced and staid if only the "official" position is authorized (avoiding a readily misconstrued word such as "sanctioned"). I would think you folks would be more interested in encouraging those who know something AND can write to contribute; judging by the content of many, many of your articles, the typical contributor has more than enough difficulty with grammar and spelling (spell-checkers are useless when dealing with, e.g., homophonous situations—as well as flagging legitimate words, such as HOMOPHONOUS, just there!). Also, I can't help but notice that not one of you omniscient "editors" bothers to correct an article that has "multiple issues," though you're quick to jump all over anyone who, according to your duplicitous policy, errs in the least. Altogether, that's very cowardly, as well as brainless.
Yawn. Ah yes, that was your 3rd warning this month, all by different editors. You're right and all the other editors who have given you warnings are wrong. We need to change our policies and guidelines to accommodate you. And of course we all have time to fix every article (although I have no idea what article you are referring to, I guess that wasn't aimed at me but just a gratuitous jab). I love the way you changed "A cognate is Old English: dréag "apparition, ghost".[2] Irish: dréag or driug, meaning "portent, meteor", is borrowed from either Old English or the Old Norse." into "A cognate is Old English: dréag "apparition, ghost".[2] Irish: dréag or driug, meaning "portent, meteor", is borrowed from either Old English or the Old Norse, it is theorized." That's supposed to show that you know your grammar? Luckily someone has reverted you. By the way the editor you called a Sysop at Torture isn't one. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Olympias
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I've read the article on Olympias and made a few edits. In the second paragraph in Olympias#Origins, I noticed a tag after reference 5 that says "self-published source?". I found the book on the website of the publisher, Wiley-Blackwell, which is a division of John Wiley & Sons. Waldemar Heckels is listed as Editor of the book. I couldn't tell, though, whether Wiley-Blackwell enables authors to self-publish or whether the book was published in the normal way by a reputable publisher. I'd just like to resolve the question posed by the tag. Can you help? CorinneSD (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT Wiley-Blackwell is a respected publisher of journals and textbooks, and their website does not appear to solicit self-publishing clients. The reference here is ultimately to Plutarch’s biography of Alexander the Great, but I guess Heckels (a classics professor) is being cited for associating the name Olympias with Philip’s Olympic horse-racing win. (I think there‘s a minor error: Chapter 3 has only five sections, the passage about the coincidence falling in §§4–5.)—Odysseus147921:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Odysseus1479. So, would you support the removal of that tag? I'm sorry, but I don't see where the minor error is. I have another question. At the bottom of the article in the list of references, next to #5, it says, "Heckels 2006". It looks like a link, but when I click on it, nothing happens. Is it not a link? CorinneSD (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I‘ve done some digging in the history; the suggested name-origin first appeared in September 2006, citing the Britannica article, which still supports it. The Heckel cite was added in July 2009 in the course of a substantial overhaul that saw the original mention removed from the lead. It was tagged as self-published, without explanation, that October; the editor who’d added it asked why on the Talk page, but the question remains unanswered there to this day. I can’t see page 181 in the Google preview to check the content, but I notice in the introduction “I am particularly grateful … to Brian Bosworth, Frank Holt, and Daniel Ogden, who helped to persuade Blackwell Publishing to undertake this project …. AI Bertrand and Angela Cohen at Blackwell demonstrated their usual patience and goodwill as I moved from one missed deadline to the next.” That doesn’t sound like self-publishing to me.
The problem with the Plutarch reference is that it should read “3.4–5” or “3.5“, not “3.8”. It should probably be turned into a footnote as well, like nºs 6 & 7. (There seems to be some redundancy between the Origin and Marriage sections.) Sorry, I don‘t understand the “Harvard” referencing style, so I don’t know what that link is supposed to do: I’d expect it to point to the Bibliography entry, but it doesn’t seem to.—Odysseus147901:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the work that you put into this and your explanations of what you found, but I'm sorry to say that I don't know much about adding or changing references, so I can't do anything more. If anything needs to be done, you or another editor will have to do it. Besides copy-editing, I am only able to point out something that doesn't look or sound right. CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Doug. I looked at those two links. It was all a bit confusing, but I did see a small screenshot of a toolbar that looked familiar because I see it above the edit window when I'm in Edit Mode. I checked in my Preferences...Gadgets...Editing and saw that not only had I enabled WikEd, but RefToolbar was also enabled already. I guess I have it but don't know how to use it. There are a lot of buttons, or icons, in that toolbar that I don't know what they are for. I guess I should spend some time studying them. Is there a particular place that will explain each of the buttons (or whatever you call them)? CorinneSD (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: Sorry to take so long, see this video.[52] It may be out of date, and didn't work on IE but does work on Chrome and maybe FF. 19:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Accusations by an IP
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I find IP 183.219.58.106's[53] ranting on Praxis Icosahedron's talk page as unacceptable. Accusation of sockpuppetry[54] and edit warring(calling it vandalism) to keep such merde on Praxis' talk page.[55]
Kansas Bear At 06:15, 19 June 2014 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 183.219.58.106 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 05:59, 19 June 2016 blocked proxy . So come back in 2 years if there are any more problems. :-) Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
gotcha
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Don't you just love having to turn down the exact same request about once per month? When Talk:Adam's Bridge appears on my watchlist, it's like déjà vu all over again. Someone thinks they have this really great original idea that Wikipedia policy should be overlooked *just* this once, just to be told no. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Great to get that out my system, now on to the point: I was wondering if putting a FAQ on the page might at least put a dent in the number of requests. Some editor sees the FAQ laying out in detail why the page is referred to as Adam's Bridge and why it isn't known as anything else on the English Wikipedia. Of course, this is assuming that in their outrage, the editors don't see the FAQ and go "tl;dr". I tried using the round in circles template, but I think something more detailed might at least cause someone to pause. We need to make clear that, while their arguments may have merit, they have already been answered. Paris1127 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Paris1127 Sounds good, but are you offering to draft it? I suspect that with the new government there will be more effort to change this. I worry about our articles on Indian archaeology as well. Did you see the post from another editor that I replied to but finally removed as it was just an attack on other editors? Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not offering to draft it, as I don't think I'm qualified enough to do so. Perhaps we could put something on the talk page asking for suggestions for wording? I saw that edit; I hoped it was sarcastic, but now suspect it was not. The India article renamings were already out of hand before I stumbled upon Adam's Bridge; I had to deal with someone who, over a previous discussion, moved Prince of Wales Museum to its official, non-English name: Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya (you can tell that's the name of a museum, right? It took some doing, but I fixed it). Mumbai's Kings Circle is now Maheshwari Udyan, and an interesting article called "Epic India" is now (over my strenuous objections) Bharata Khanda. While names may be changed (which is fine, and some names are now accepted in English: Mumbai not Bombay, Kolkata not Calcutta, Beijing not Peking, Guangzhou not Canton), people need to understand that, on the English Wikipedia (which is, as you know, the largest Wikipedia), the most common English name is the one that's used. As for the new government, I too am concerned, although probably for reasons beyond the ones that affect Wikipedia. Paris1127 (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't tolerate
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
WP:OWNTALK ABUSE! Now my restore is reverted and you even support NewsAndEventsGuy to abuse WP:OWNTALK? He did a Bold, revert, revert, revert in WP:EW. This user destroys UW/AN Templates and that will attract admins to revoke talk page access, like 74.72.250.43. This user deleted warning templates and did attacks. Finally, Darkwind made 74.72.250.43's 6 revisions invisible. Admins are expected to be an good example, not a bad counterexample. Do not tolerate it. If you do so, I'll report it at WP:AN/I after discussions. If no desirable results is enacted, I'll request de-adminship of you. Thank you! This is CloudComputation09:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
User:CloudComputation, I look forward to your ANI report. Please let me know when you file it. Meanwhile, if you don't allow editors to remove your posts from their own talk pages, which is why I posted to your talk page, you are likely to be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.
It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Cilicia
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just started reading the article on Cilicia, and I have found a sentence in which something doesn't seem quite right. It is in the middle of the first paragraph in the section Cilicia#Geography and nomenclature. It reads:
"Ancient Cilicia was naturally divided into Cilicia Trachaea and Cilicia Pedias divided by the Lamas Su. Salamis, the city on the east coast of Cyprus, was included in its administrative jurisdiction."
Can you figure out how it ought to read?
Also, at the end of that paragraph is the phrase, "the northwesternmost part of the peninsula", but no peninsula has yet been mentioned in the article, so my reaction was "What peninsula?" I don't even see one in the map of Cilicia. Perhaps the northeasternmost corner of Cyprus? CorinneSD (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have to say your conduct is a disgrace. This isn't an attack. It's an observation.
I have been editing Wikipedia for a decade now, and I not only deserve more respect from the likes of you, I also don't deserve you strolling onto my profile page and threatening me with warnings.
How about entering into civilised conversation with someone before rolling out your position as admin and threatening someone with blocking.
My point that I made was a valid one. Ie: That the reason this individual removed my edit was because the UKIP official website was not a valid one. Yet he has allowed the Liberal Democrats reference on their membership to stand. It's a Liberal Democrat website for goodness sakes!
So where is the even-handedness. The even treatment.
I didn't see any warnings put on his page exactly?
He asked for a third party reference. To which I added a third party reference and then suddenly that wasn't good enough either?!
This whole matters has dissolved into a joke! I would kindly ask you to remove your threat from my talk page and enter into civilised debate instead of abusing your position to threaten people.
This is a civilised world is it not?
It seems to me that the user in question is making up justifications to his undoing of edits.
I also note that the user in question has been questioned on multiple occasions accused of engaging in Edit Wars. Not that you noticed that I am sure?
How can anyone think it's acceptable to make an Wikipedia entry solely based on Newspaper articles and references. I look through the main political parties pages every day and see direct sourcing from official lines.
So why is it any different for UKIP? User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2014 (GMT)
Hey rover, the thing is this guy seems to have a liberal dem slant as well. He's denying credible sources because they disagree with his worldview, in spite of their factual accuracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.232.202 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
what makes one website a legitimate source and another one a "conspiracy theory" website, Mr. Gestapo man sir? is it all based on which books and records you like and thus don't burn, and which books and records you decide to destroy all trace of? i'm sorry, sir, i'll try to remember from now on that only sources which *YOU* deem are legitimate thus truly are so! please don't send me to reeducation camp, okay great and glorious leader? from now on I only read state-approved news sites and not anything from those "conspiracy theorists"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.232.202 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ad Orientem. Love the IP's edits, eg ". It is useful to note that the crescent moon and star looks like the falling star, Lucifer, as he falls through the atmosphere ascending to earth during his fall." And at the Sandy Hook shooting article, "It is very important to note that to date, no pictures or any other evidence of victims has ever been revealed." with links to the usual suspects. Etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It gets even better, found this edit to Veil by the IP:" It is important to note that the word "veil", when rearranged, spells out "evil". The veil is primarily used by Muslim men to force their women to hide bruises, scars, and other telltale signs of domestic abuse." Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
spending on programs outside the organization's core mission. At a 2008 National Convention speech], a graduate of the Foundation's flagship training initiative, the Veterans Business Training
programs he bankrolled through the Foundation litter the internet like virtual abandoned houses (e.g., http://www.purplehearttechsupport.com/, http://www.purpleheartcallcenter.com/, http://www.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Page was originally a redirect, and it was turned into an article a few months ago. Re: this edit, which part of the article you wanted to comment out? You know that most of the paragraph is based on that reference, so you may have to clean up more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
thanks for your comments. I would like to tell you that we have a long tradition in our family that we are the descendants of the Raja Tripur Chand but unfortunately we have no documents to prove this. Some of our elders had tried to get the priest to let them see the title deeds that the Raja had given to him but of no avail.There are relatives in Farrukhabad and Shshjehanpur who also confirm that he was a Saxena Kayastha. We are still searching for relevant papers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleepeare (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
bakshi ka talab
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
thanks for your comments. I would like to tell you that we have a long tradition in our family that we are the descendants of the Raja Tripur Chand but unfortunately we have no documents to prove this. Some of our elders had tried to get the priest to let them see the title deeds that the Raja had given to him but of no avail.There are relatives in Farrukhabad and Shshjehanpur who also confirm that he was a Saxena Kayastha. We are still searching for relevant papers.. hope you understand.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Unless User:Torontas produces a quote from "Sykes, Percy, History of Persia, Vol. 1, (Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, 1969), pg. 492" to support his edit-warred[56][57] inclusion of "Arab Christians", I believe Torontas is falsely using said source. Just thought I would give you a heads up. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Zgmet/62.147.217.114 (whom you have warned once warned) keeps inserting their poems and essays into talk pages despite repeated warnings and reverts by several editors. What would you suggest? --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Bhumihar brahmins/babhan
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hi Mr X i want to make some comment on you. you are always referring the fake or defamatory stories of aswani kumar book as the origin of bhumihar brahmin. Any storis or fake rumours can not be cited as a reference. Even the author has mentioned it as a tale and i do not think that i need to tell you the meaning of this word. If u are so keen to know about bhumihar caste then gather all the clans information of bhumihar caste and their origin, that is done by noted personalities like swami sahjanand saraswati. he was a noted freedom fighter and many brahmins refer his book to know all the facts about their origin, since he has compiled it well. If ypu want to practically know the clans you should visit the village of BABHAN(Bhumihar) and ask them about clans and search for their origin. It is a nice sociological topic, you can do phd on this topic just like bibha jha has done. swami ji material will be helpful for you in this course.
so i request you repeatedly not to put up some story or myth on wikipedia that is derogatory and contested. wikipedia is the collection of most credible materials not rumours or stories so please do not revert those stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk •
contribs) 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Bpandey89 - this is the thing. I could visit and do a sociological study (and I have studied some sociology), but unless I got it published academically it would be of no use on Wikipedia. My knowledge, or your knowledge, would be fine if we were writing blogs. But this is Wikipedia and our articles should be based on sources that are reliable by our criteria, which are at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. It isn't up to us to judge them, although if there are sources that disagree and also meet our criteria we can use them. Sometimes this can mean that our articles aren't entirely accurate, but if we follow our policies and guidelines articles will reflect what the best published sources say. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Check this out
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Seems posting evidence(ie. a quote) is way too much effort. So notifying anyone he can is in order.[58] Not to mention, a paragraph at Adam Bishop's and two at Callanecc's about me, and no mention of the quote, of course. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Rima Laibow and 3RR
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
BC/AD notation for this article was actually begun on July 27, 2003[59]. I did not, however, check later, where all era notation was removed for a few years, until a BCE system was added in 2006 as you point out. I'm not going to fuss about it though, since my main concern is when wholesale dating changes to BCE wind up incorrectly changing the titles of cited articles. Russ3Z (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Russ3Z, that's one reason why the original era notation isn't the deciding factor. Here you have an 11 year old article which indeed started with BC but has been BCE for 8 out of those 11 years, and some of the 11 had no era notation. Clearly BCE is the stable version. Any wholesale changes whether it goes BCE to BC or vice versa, spelling changes in names, etc can cause problems (including renaming books and journal articles). But please in the future remember the word is 'stable'. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
H. L. Mencken
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You might be interested in a request for consensus regarding the proposed addition of some lines to H. L. Mencken that is on the talk page at Talk:H. L. Mencken. You'll see that the first section, written on March 23, 2014, proposes the addition of material which is now in the article (I don't see any response from any other editors). This is a new request for consensus. CorinneSD (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Phonetics
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Good work in removing "Veterans.today.com" links. Sometimes I couldn't decide if recent edits were constructive or not, and then I would see edit from you, I would know right, for example.[60] On my watchlist there are many of your edits, at times they seemed so essential that they would often resolve the content dispute. Thanks a lot for your contributions! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Religious persecution
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The article talks about multiple incidents which happened all across China and not just Nanjing. The Japanese smearing of pork fat on Mosques and deliberate recruitment of Hui Muslim girls as sex slaves happaned in other provinces and which were targeted at their religion, the article mentions they opened a special school for Hui girls for that purpose. What happened in Nanjing is in fact is only mentioned on one or two pages of the article.Rajmaan (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Rajmaan, the source makes it clear that this as anti-Hui. It also talks of an Islamic policy of "mobilizing Muslim forces against the United Kingdom, Holland, China and Russia in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.” It says "Many available sources reveal the brutality and violence of the Japanese against the Hui." No where does it say Japan was being anti-Muslim. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hui means Muslim in the Chinese language. Being Hui in the Republic of China (1911-1949) by definition means being a Muslim, you could not be a Hui without being Muslim. Hui jiao (Hui religion) meant Islam and Hui meant Muslim in the Republic of China and still mean that in Taiwan today, the Communists changed the name in the 1950s to Yi-si-lan jiao (Islam religion) and Mu-si-lin (Muslim). Only in the 1980s did the People's Republic of China let some non-Muslims like the Ding (surname) classify themselves as Hui because of their Muslim ancestry. Japan mobilizing Muslim forces for its own pursposes has nothing to do with Japan being Muslim friendly. Inciting other people to do their bidding as slaves does not make them their friend. Japan made it clear that the Yamato (Japanese) race was superior, that they regarded the Emperor as a God (which is offensive to Islam) and wanted to use Muslims as its puppets in its war against the west.
User:Rajmaan I have copied this and replied at [{Talk:Persecution of Muslims#Japanese]] so that others can respond. Please continue this there, not here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Requesting lock
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Wondering how to proceed regarding what is to my eyes one of the most obvious cases of group misconduct I have seen in a while. I am referring to the Dorje Shugden content. @JzG: has some experience regarding this so I am pinging him as well. So far as I can see 3 POV pushers User:VictoriaGraysonUser:Heicth and User:kt66 are all historically rather obvious SPA POV pushers apparenty intending to stifle any disagreement with them on their topic of primary if not almost exclusive interest. Two of them are even apparently trying to get their “opponent” banned from editing. And I have received indications regarding the latter which I have asked the person who raised them to send to ArbCom. To me this looks very much like the earlier Falun Gong cases which between them led to the banning of pretty much everyody involved particularly those with obvious problematic behavior like the three mentioned above. Personally I am finding the conduct of the one most active of them to be increasingly tiresome and am coming very very close to starting a request for ArbCom involvement now but I do know I have a bit of a short fuse and I would welcome review by you and anyone else who might see this for their opinions regarding whether there is any good reason to think these matters will improve without intervention of ArbCom.
Also on a more or less unreated note I was wondering whether someone under an interaction-ban who might be clearly seen to be stalking the person he is banned from interacting with is grounds for going to AE.
And probably next week I look to be starting an RfC on “major holidays” as we use that term here. Right now I'm still getting material together but I would very much welcome any input regarding that matter when I raise it as well. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I knew it wouldn't take long for John Carter to call me a SPA POV pusher as well. My main interest is the Hinduism pages, and only got involved after John Carter specifically asked for neutral editors to be involved.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of your disagreement with him, he seems to me to be entirely right in his characterisation of you. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I acknowledge you had in your short history here only become singularly involved with this subject recently and I apologize for that error although I cannot remember asking you personally to be involved. However if as you say you only became involved at my request then I guess I can now say I withdraw that request that you seem to believe was made to you on a personal basis. That is at least until you show a better grasp of policies and guidelines than you have displayed to date. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Bluntly, right now your conduct is much worse than anyone else's. Others do not engage in the virtually constant failure to abide by WP:AGF,WP:TE, and other policies and guidelines that you do. The best and most reasonable way to go forward at this point is to give any reasonabe editor access to the materials I and others have gathered and decide how to proceed. But given your own recent history and the very dubious judgment displayed in it, I think development of a reasonable encyclopedic article would probably be easier without your involvement than with it John Carter (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Doug! I really don't mind fielding all the Original Research that comes up on the Leonardo da Vinci pages. The things that this latest editor has come up with are really very much better than the news story that some conservator had found microscopic initials written in the pupils of her eyes.... That was a real, published story and is probably now in the article.
Sometimes the stuff comes from kids doing Leonardo as their homework. I had one little boy there who put up a really solid case that one of the flying machines was intended to work like a hovercraft. We analysed the mechanical problems in quite some detail, before he was done. He's probably back here on Wikipedia as an engineering student, by now.
Anyway, the particular discovery that this man had made was really very observant, even if his video was very poor. He was more perceptive and less fanciful than most of the people that I have had to deal with. I left him a message on his talk page, which will hopefully encourage him to come back and do some Wiki editting.
The real problems with the Leonardo articles arise when someone thinks that they have discovered an unknown or lost Leonardo da Vinci. We have had five of these in the past few years. The problem is that if the painting can be reasonably firmly attributed to Leonardo, then it could be worth an extraordinary amount- possibly $50 million or more. On the other hand, it might be worth $5 million, $50,000 or $5,000 if it is by a lesser Renaissance painter, or a 19th century imitator. So it is in the interest of the owner/discoverer of the painting to get it up on Wikipedia and prove to the world that it is indeed by Leonardo. Because of the money involved, some of these guys can get quite bullying. See Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci
Amandajm, thanks for this and for your work in this area. Do let me know if there are any future problems where you could use my help. Your point about the financial interest is well taken. Does this relate to the IP who was just reverted at the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it certainly doesn't! It refers in one case to a blustering American real-estate tycoon who bought a very obvious pastiche, which may have been painted by a contemporary of Leonardo's but was more probably an outright forgery.
In another case a couple of Italian brothers, one who worked in a small gallery and the other a solicitor, came across a nice little portrait, almost certainly intended to represent Leonardo, and done some years after his death by a 16th century painter who had been commissioned to produced a very large series of small portraits of famous people. The artist Cristofano dell'Altissimo, copied his pics from every available source. They are a nice series, but not especially valuable individually.
One of these two men found the painting in a stack of pictures in the cupboard of the private home of an old noble family. The family thought it was meant to represent Galileo, but he recognised it as Leonardo. It was quite damaged- the sort of damage that occurs when one painting with large hooks on the back is dragged across the surface of another picture that it has been stacked on. Anyway, this pair immediately put out that they had found a Leonardo da Vinci self-portrait. In publishing this, they had the assistance of a girlfriend who was an American journalist. A number of people bought into this, including a pompous New Zealander who was in Italy studying Tarot Cards (his specialty). He really tried my patience as he wrote at great length, without formatting, and generally on top of my signature, rather than his own. He was incapable of comprehending what constituted Personal Opinion in the context of a Wikipedia article, and got furious when I deleted lengthy chunks of his idealistic waffle.
The brothers first approached a reputable Museum Director, Alessandro Vessozi, with whom I have had previous dealings and with whose small museum in Vinci I am familiar. Vessozi spoke to the British media (Guardian?)and was quoted as saying that it was probably by Cristofano (which was my thought, as soon as I saw the reproduction). Now, it is most unlikely that the British press made this up, because Cristofano was not a great painter, and no-one trots out the name of some little-known second-rate copyist, without a good deal of knowledge of 16th century painting. However a little further down the track, Alessandro Vessozi left a message of the talk page to say that he did not tell the British press that it was by Cristofano. He refused to answer my emails, and was never in the office, from that date onwards.
Meanwhile, the brothers got funding from two regional councils, that in Lucano where it had been found (if I remember correctly), and that in Milan, where Leonardo spent many years. The work was subject to forensic examination, which indicated that the board and the paint were 15th-16th century, so the work really did date from the right period and was beyond doubt not a forgery. A fingerprint was found which was said to match a fingerprint on a painting firmly attributed to Leonardo. (There are a lot of problems with this which I won't go into here). Basically it doesn't prove anything. Several people who had published books or articles on Leonardo, including a German art historian, Hohenstatt, who is quite well known, apparently came to the party. However, I have never been able to get a definitive statement from any of these people that they actually believe the work to be by Leonardo. They are merely cited as believers.
Then they got out the big gun- Carlo Pedretti. Pedretti is an elderly Italian scholar who is often cited as "the world's expert on Leonardo". He is incredibly slippery. He looked at the picture and said "We must be very cautious! It is definitely not a forgery! Anything that is related to Leonardo is interesting! How wonderful that the council funded research! More research is good!" .... and he hasn't stated any opinion whatsoever. They published a book on the provenance and forensic findings, got Pedretti to write the preface, and he still cleverly evaded the question of whether it was a Leonardo self-portrait.
If this painting was indeed a self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, then it would be the most important discovery of a painting for 200 years. Its discovery would be as significant as the Lascaux caves, King Tut's tomb, or the entombed Warriors. It would be worth unprecedented millions of dollars. It would tour the major galleries. It would be the subject of block-busting exhibitions in Milan, London, Paris, and New York. None of this has happened. Plainly, no-one with any real knowledge believes that it is a self-portrait.
I told these guys that I would put up whatever published written opinions from art historians they could make available. Basically, what it needed was for someone to publish an analysis of the form and style of the image by comparing it with Leonardo's works, and a statement to the effect that it had all the characteristics of a Leonardo. At the end of the day, the only way to tell if it by a particular artist is by its appearance. If it doesn't have any of the visible characteristics that a connoisseur would expect to find in the artist's work, then it isn't by that artist. In this case, the painting has all the characteristics of Cristofano del' Altissimo, and lacks all the characteristics of the renowned master, innovator and teacher, Leonardo da Vinci.
Well, the process of writing an article that stated the known facts, rather than fulfilling the ambitions of the painting's finders and minders, was a very difficult one. In the process, I put my own OR on the subject onto the talk page and told then to get their support party (Hohenstatt and co) to look carefully at some comparative images.
They were never able to produce either definite statements from art historians, or a critical analysis from anyone except the New Zealander who added his opinions to the article and was seriously out of his depth. A great deal of bullying and blustering went on. I still don't have any idea why Vessozi was reported as making an attribution to Cristofano that was almost certainly correct, and then suddenly denied that he had made that suggestion. That in itself is worrying. Amandajm (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Per your semi-protection and this can you please look at the latest edits to the article? There seems to be some POV-pushing going on (I reverted back to the version you protected). --NeilNtalk to me09:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Dougweller, Thank you for your message, you're right it is sourced further down the page, which begs the questions why should the note be added to the article twice, essentially repeating itself? 195.162.87.201 (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There was quite a bit of discussion about this article and it was considerably rewritten. The lead is a summary of the article so some of it will naturally be repetitious. Minor pedantic point, "begs the question" doesn't mean "raises the question", it means "the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place". Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
From reading previous interactions you'd had with other users, especially newer or less experienced users you do seem to revert to pedantism quite often, to each their own, however I believe the repetitious nature of this particular passage of text in the article would be better off removed or at least significantly revised, I'll be back in touch. Thanks. 195.162.87.201 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to lighten up. And I need to be less self-effacing and not refer to my own comments as pedantic. Take your issue with the lead to the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source?
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I don't see how any crat can resist that call to arms. You're dead meat. :-) Seriously, if you're tired, take a break. You know how this place is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Once in a while I actually do try to string a few sentences together in a meaningful whole. One such attempt can be found at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet which actually isn't about me. Some review and input particularly on how to deal with such people would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
John Carter - nice start. And a nice example here] and in general at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Laibow. How to deal with them? Politely, patiently, but don't get bogged down in walls of text as you usually want other people to be able to quickly grasp the problem. So succinctly although that can at times appear brusque. Make sure the effort you put in isn't disproportionate. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yosef Ben-Jochannan 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.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gembres reported by User:Gyrofrog (Result: ). Thank you. —Gyrofrog (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
Madalibi (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you continue to harass Yossarianpedia I will block you. Don't post to Yossarianpedia's talk page anymore unless you find the ability to apologise, which doesn't seem likely. Yossarianpedia (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
