Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

VANDALISM?????

I see that you removed a note I added to the Columbus page due to lack of source. I since then put in a note with a source explaining that Diego Mendez de Segura was an adopted son of Colón's nephew the Count of Penamacor and that Diego was hiding his true identity in Spain as was reported in the The Hispanic American Historical Review in 1978. DAVID41 has removed this calling it vandalism. Where was the vandalism? Please explain. Furthermore he removed an image of the mayorazgo that resides at the Seville Archives showing clearly that the date was 1598 and not 1498 as all claim calling the image unnecessary. I agree that it is unnecessary to maintain the lies, but as a source and an important document to the genoese theory, it is very necessary that readers have this image available.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Human migration

Thanks for your note. I'll try to take a look at this tonight. --Macrakis (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can help much here. The article needs a lot of work, and in particular needs many more reliable sources. --Macrakis (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please unbar me sir

Please unbar me sir, i have read all rule related copy right of image, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.40.199 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome?

user: Excalibur1sword has made one edit which was to vandalise the Petra article. There was a bot generated vandalism warning posted at User talk:Excalibur1sword followed by a welcome message from you thanking them for their contributions. If you didn't see the warning you may want to remove your welcome message as it's giving out a rather mixed message. Richerman (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, wrong template, replaced it with the vandalism one. Dougweller (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Btw, I looked through some of Profsherman's contributions. Did he basically out himself or were people just saying he was that person (you know which, don't want to violate WP:OUTING. It looks like it must have been the former given the COI messages. If so, I thought you handled him well (saw your interactions) considering that he came off as even more of an insufferable pompous jerk here (I have stronger language I could use, but this is your talk) than in that stupid Sci-Fi special. Not trying to flatter, just saying I like seeing people like him knocked into line (archaeologists hate people like that for making the whole science look silly). ^^ Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Working from memory, he outed himself. He certainly made it clear to me by email who he was and didn't suggest it was any secret, but more than that I can't recall. I do a lot of work in the fringe/cult archaeology area (although I no longer do much on my website) and sometimes feel pretty much on my own here. Currently the main problem I have is with megalithic yard stuff and fringe archaeoastronomy claims. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, good to know I don't have to shy about it. I just took a course on "Myths and Mysteries in Archaeology" which dealt with this sort of thing. Oh my God, do not even get me started on the Megalithic yard! The guy who made it up (keyword) made it clear that it was just for the stone circles in Britain and France. (I'll assume you know exactly what this coming rant is about) Yet here comes Ulf Erligsson who says "well Ireland isn't near 3000 x 2000 stadia in Greek stadia. Wait, what's this? I can use this smaller made up measurement system, make another called the megalithic stadium, and I get a number closer to it. Yay me!" I mean for God's sake, lol, it's one thing to use a made up measurement, it's another to make up a measurement from that measurement, but it is still something more to use a made-up measurement that the dude who made it up says is for one thing (the stone circles), make another measurement system out of it, and then to top it off, say that Plato would actually have used this when he was writing for Athenians who would not know even know any other stadia than their own, and would especially not know one you just pulled out your arse. Nevermind the fact that no one in Northern Europe would have even used a bloody stadium, lol. And then of course he says that anything that Plato says that doesn't fit his hypothesis (which he approached in the most unscientific way possible) is just garbled by time.
We spent several classes reading and discussing this garbage "book" (mostly because our Prof was an archaeologist of Ireland who had had a run-in with this charletan, but also because this is source material which shows how bad it can get) so I have throughly analysed it to the point of being enraged by every detail of it (as you can see). =p Fringe BS is always an annoyance. I think I can help out though. Luckily that class gave me some good psuedoarchaeology BS-debunking skills, and I almost have my BA in Archaeology (senior next year). =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. I've emailed you my website address. Off for the day now. I've got Ken Feder's newest book also - can't see it right now but it's an encyclopedia of cult/fringe archaeology. I've a geologist friend who knows quite a bit about Sarmast's stuff. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, sounds interesting? Hmmm, so you haven't heard about Ulf Erlingsson's idiocy then? =O It's out-of-print, but if you manage to get your hands on it, your head is liable to explode, mate (the amount of things wrong in it are just amazing). I am still wondering about his other book, European DNA from a Geographer's Perspective, where he uses the literature, yes the literature to examine the DNA of Europeans in the past. He couldn't get it published in English I'm afraid (one wonders why).
Oh! Ken Feder's book was one of our course books. It is very good and thorough so you're in for some good stuff. Our prof is a friend of his, she says he's a very nice guy. =)
It's a nice site, I may forward it to my prof, but there's a weird redirect that keeps happening unless I hit the stop button very quickly. Why is that? I'll look at the other matter after I catch some Z's, rather late in the Colonies atm. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohenjo-daro

Sorry about artefact v. artifact; I'm conscious of most UK/US differences, but I did not remember that one. Also, much (all?) of the article uses consistent US spelling. Agreed, I did not make a conscious evaluation, but 'felt' the edit was minor due to:

'"The Dancing girl" artifact found in Mohenjo-daro' caption uses the I form and US quotes (" not '), and the article uses -ize words (notably civilization) uniformly. No -our words are in the article. (I was surprised 'colonnade' is spelt the same UK and US.) I have reinstated my edit on the basis of using consistent US spelling (and not forcing you to edit it to back for consistency); and it being easier to edit to uniform US usage than uniform UK usage. (I'm a once-in-a-while gnome, who didn't intend anything other that a minor correction.) I have zero objection if you wish to edit the article to UK usage.

Since you are a Wikipedia Admin, may I suggest that a utility be created to 'score' pages UK v. US? Then it would be easier to judge which way to alter an article.

Respectfully, Laguna CA (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea how to create a utility to score, interesting idea. One problem is that British spelling and punctuation isn't consistent within itself, eg about the quotation markes, see American and British English differences#Punctuation. According to American and British English spelling differences 'ize' is American but also used in Britain. Now 'favour' and 'favor' are good ways to distinguish (unless it's me writing, I'm an American who has lived in Britain for a long time and I may use either at times. I agree that 'artifact' is definitely American, although 'artefact' is used in America (eg Nature Magazine) but not as much. 'Archaeology' is definitely tricky, the magazine 'Archaeology' is published by the 'Archaeological Institute of America'. The Society for American Archaeology's style guide says "The authority for spelling in both journals is Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. For anything not in this work, consult Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged). Use American English spellings (except in quotations and references and in referring to an institution when it is imperative to preserve the original spelling). When more than one spelling is offered for a word, use the first spelling listed, e.g., labeled, not labelled; archaeology, not archeology; artifact, not artefact; acknowledgments, not acknowledgements. Preferred spellings for some words commonly used in archaeological parlance include: fieldwork, rockshelter, ear spool, posthole, post mold, plow zone, use life, ball court, ground stone, pithouse, pit structure, room block, field house, X-ray (noun), x-ray (verb), cross section (noun), cross-section (verb). Spell out percent, except in tables, where % should be used(we put this in italics as it is the most common error encountered)." - so, 'artifact' would be the correct choice. Sorry for all the detail, but I agree, there's no good reason I can see to argue that the article must use British English. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Scoring: I expect one of the Wikigeeks could come up with something; perhaps you know some appropriate forum? Quotes: I hadn't realised we had corrupted the English so much (the Welsh would probably be with us to spite the English, the Scots would have a better idea!) 'Archaeology', to my surprise, seems to be firmly in US English now. MW is good; though I have a dead tree version W3NID(U), I confess I did not consult it, being written in the 1930 and my revision being from the 1960s(?), quite behind current usage; I suggest onelook.com which as a side effect of consulting various dictionaries, summarises the results (with an decided absence of Australian usage, unfortunately). 'Labeled' I would use for US spelling, but 'labelled' for UK etc. (M-W.com seems almost agnostic on it). Thanks for the details! Wikignoming aside, I'm a language geek. ;)
Thank you very much for being open-minded about things. Some article 'owners' are reactionary, to put it mildly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know if WP:Village pump (technical) is the right place but it would be a good place to start. Dougweller (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
And literally less than a minute after posting I found User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB - a script whose editor might have a suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Obelisk...

So not every obelisk is a symbol for that...? The reason I ask is because many have stated that the Freedom Tower looks like an obelisk. (66.116.4.100 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC))

I guess I'd say that there is a big difference in my mind between why the builders of an obelisk think or say they have built it and the suggestion that it might symbolise something else. 'Phallic symbol' is just a mental construct created by someone to describe something. It links to the idea that some obelisks were linked to show the power of the builder/ruler and that power is somehow a masculine thing, despite say Hatshepsut's obelisk. Dougweller (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Diyairaniyanim

Someone should look into this. His advanced-level familiarity with Wikipedia makes it almost certain that it's WP:Sock, I suspect this guy. Kurdo777 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Could be. I suspect the Check User data is stale now, so it would have to be done on behavioral grounds, I'm not sure if it's not too early, and certainly not sure enough to take Administrative action. I'll keep an eye out. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir Lamiel

Hey Doug, if you have a moment do you think you could drop a line at Talk:Sir Lamiel? The discussion has been going on for way too long and hasn't gotten anywhere, hopefully another opinion will help it along.--Cúchullain t/c 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing breach of promise

Hi Doug. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but an old friend I'm sure you'll remember ... well; have a look here, will you please? And compare to contribution history? I don't have the stomach to deal with this now, but I

Then there's also a recently deleted article he created about politics.

The problem with all this is that he agreed at AN/I to avoid controversial articles, replying affirmatively to "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc."? I don't have time to review every single one of his edits, nor should anyone have to. The consensus was he shouldn't be editing in those areas, and he agreed not to. Despite warning after warning after warning, he's again completely ignored that promise. I'm not going to argue with him about it (again) while he tries to argue that his promise didn't mean what it meant, and I don't have time to deal with it now anyway. Might you be able to take it to AN/I or just deal with it directly if you think that's appropriate? Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see the topic ban formally extended to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). I've raised it at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Those Left Behind

The Oatmeal has this one covered. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. You should search around that site btw, there's some pretty hilarious stuff. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Spam links becoming standard practice,"[1] I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link".[2]

Regards, ELNO Checking (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of religion

Hi.

Wonder why you changed my edit in 'Timeline of religion' for Prophet Muhammad SAW from 'Messgenger' to 'founder' when all Islamic texts and doctrines put him as 'Messenger.' Is Wikipedia your personal view or an encyclopedia of information from around the world and history? Just leave the correct term according to what the Muslims state it. Its their religion, they know better about it than what you (or anyone else) decide it is/should be. Muslims reject the Prophet Muhammad SAW as the 'founder' of the Islamic faith. They consider him to be a human like everyone else, not someone who can create a religion. Describing him as a 'founder' is incorrect according to Islam. Its not about you or what you think. Its about accurate reporting.

Thanks for your time

Peace!

130.194.128.44 (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't, but I have now to match our article on Muhammad where discussions decided founder was correct. As an encyclopedia, we don't just accept what religious or any other groups say about themselves. Our articles have to follow what we call a neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV, not the beliefs of any religious faith. I've amended it so that it shows how Muslims consider him as well as calling him the founder. Note that the article refers to Jesus as "the central figure of Christianity". It avoids calling him 'Christ', and doesn't suggest in any way that the article is endorsing a religious viewpoint on him. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

do you agree with the edit summary? additional noted for the expansion of universe

The extension of expansion of universe has been removed as it is a non reliable source and messy. I worked hours to make it as much a perfect. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the amazon book and I've added google book reference. Thanks for your constructive critisism, Tauhidaerospace (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the ANI thread. I was about to rouse myself to 3RR. Hopefully someone can talk sense into T; it might be nice if some of the more experienced "Islamic" editors were prepared to help, he might be more inclined to listen to / trust them William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, hope you will join in there, some discussions seem to quickly peter out. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As per discussion replaced bbc link with Zakir naik added argument from notable person W seems to reverting all of my hard work even if it is right. He is not contributing rather inputung WP:RSN which is not a reliable source. Currently my reverted amazon book isnt still their. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I missed your comment about joining in at ANI. Its not really my place, anyway. I'm here because T has reverted his material back in again [3] and I've reverted it out again. I think it has now become obvious that he isn't going to stop without being forced to stop; strong words will not suffice (I'm not even sure if he hears the strong words; I suspect he isn't an native speaker) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Danceking5

Hi. Thanks for dealing with that. Mayyyyybe it'll have some effect. I don't want to fall afoul of editwarring myself, but Danceking made another revert (after being warned etc), [4]. May I revert it back or should I leave it alone? → ROUX ₪ 06:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll deal, 3RR is bright line and it is edit warring, not vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ta. I know it's bright line (and I'm only at 2 anyway), didn't know what the current thinking on "you have been told to stop, I've (well, Qwyrxian) reverted back to the pre-3rr state, and will put it back if you do it again" was. → ROUX ₪ 06:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Extended the block to a week. Looking at it, edit warring includes more than just 3RR, so again, best to stay away from it for a while. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
More personal attacks, FYI. [5]. This is beyond futile. → ROUX ₪ 08:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep. I'd drop it now, it's pointless. We'll see what happens when he returns. Hopefully he'll read some of the links, but I expect he'll end up indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah fair enough. Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 08:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Dougweltier

Thought you should be made aware. --Rschen7754 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible revision to proposal concerning Terra Novus?

Doug, I didn't want to derail the thread by cluttering it up with alternatives, but could you further specify the language of your first proposal in the current Terra Novus thread at AN/I? (link/permalink) If you look at this thread you'll see TN dancing all around the word "controversial".

Instead of "controversial articles and discussions" could we go with "articles and discussions in controversial topic areas or any subject in which people have, or say they have, widely differing opinions, including but not confined to economics, pseudoscience, alternate scientific theories, theories of science (including social sciences), evolution, creationism, religion, race, politics, social policy, climate change, and the environment, all broadly construed."?

I'm thinking of the problems with Heim Theory, which I'm sure you remember, the now-deleted Interpretive science, problematic edits concerning the Federal Reserve, and the push to promote the Austrian School of Economics. I'd also like to capture broad brush soapbox articles like this one in userspace. Diffs to support all the excluded areas if I have to. If you agree to the change, we could ping Ncmvocalist, Resident Anthropologist, and Mathsci (who've already !voted) to see if they'll still support the revised proposal, as I'm almost sure they would. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The userspace article is politics. But in any case we'd have problems with your suggestion I'm pretty sure. If he dances around the restriction I proposed (if it is accepted), I think he will have shown he can't keep to the spirit of it at least, and maybe to the letter. I'd rather stay with a proposal I think will pass then one I think will be problematic and attract more opposition than it has already. Dougweller (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right in that any modification of the wording at this point might bog things down. But I'd give odds that we'll see nine kinds of arguments around what constitutes a "controversial article", just as we've seen before. In any case, I'll withdraw the suggestion, since you disapprove. On a practical note, have you thought about how to go about closing the process?  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about closing it, I think that will have to wait until tomorrow as I'm out most of the rest of the day. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It just rolled to archives. Would you bring it back and then ask for a volunteer at AN to close it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Grayl deletion?

Why did you delete the page I just put up? It is a legitimate article on the person who does exist and all the information contained therein is completely accurate and true. I know this because I am the author and subject of this article. Please advise as soon as possible Wannagonnagood (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2011 (U

First, see Wikipedia:Notability (people) - I saw no evidence that you meet our criteria for an article. Secondly, I saw no evidence, see WP:BIO, WP:VERIFY, [{WP:NOR]] and WP:RS. Loads of pages but they boil down to even if you meet our notability criteria, the article needs to be sourced to reliable third party sources - that's the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Revenge of the Kharsag Epics

Hi Doug, I've ressurected one of the most important Kharsag Epics as the debate between sheep and grain. The sourcing is all verifiable and non-fringe as far as I can tell now, with a brief discussion about Kharsag/Hursag included with due weight. I thought I'd check you'd be okay if we redirected Kharsag Epic pages there? Also, a new 2007 book seems to give a good review of some of the important O'Brien material and thought I'd run it by you to check on reliability and fringey-ness before using anywhere - Edward F. Malkowski; R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz (30 October 2007). The Spiritual Technology of Ancient Egypt: Sacred Science and the Mystery of Consciousness. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. pp. 345–. ISBN 9781594771866. Retrieved 24 May 2011.

I'm more interested to re-create the Kharsag Epics individually, tracing their development to pair them with whatever Oxford is calling them now - as a pose to creating any new Kharsag Tablets or anything at this point. Serious academic attention is after all what I'm trying to achieve. Thanks for any help on this. Kind Regards, Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with WP:OR. I don't have time to actually look at the article in any detail yet! First, the title of the article - is that what it is called in the:: academic literature? Because you can't write about something that isn't actually written about in the literature. Secondly, do your sources all discuss the myth? You can't use even reliable sources that don't discuss it to build up a discussion about it. A lot of people go wrong there. Thirdly, can we please drop the 'Kharsag epics' stuff?
R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz is an important figure in fringe Egyptology, so he can be used in a discussion of fringe stuff, but from an Egyptologist's viewpoint (or at least the ones Ive talked to or corresponded with), he's a kook. Malkowski, a current writer, wrote Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE - yhes, that's the date of his Civilization X, that preceded Ancient Egypt - so, reliable or not? Someone you want to associate O'Brien with? Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Quick look, that does seem to be the most common title. Sources I have looked at discuss it. BUT you simply cannot take a word in a text and change it to match your preferences. IF an author says 'hursag', we write 'hursag', not 'kharsag'. Now you've raised the issue by changing the word, I think we need to reconsider the title of the article about 'hursag'. Hursag and harsag seem more common in the academic literature than kharsag, and I'm suggesting we change it to Kramer's (and Black's) hursag, with the other two as redirects. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm coming around to your way of thinking, as long as I can put de Lubicz's Kharsag Tablets and Gardner's Chronicles of Kharsag as redirects to sheep and grain too. Could we turn Kharsag into a brief mention along the lines of Kharsag is an older term, generally revised by Samuel Noah Kramer to hursag that has been used by various non-academic fringe authors discussing the term? I suppose the problem is that Gursag, Garsag and half a dozen other variations have been used, but this one has become prevalent within circles feeding off O'Brien. It's also probably called kharsag in more academic sources, albeit admittedly the older ones. Have a think and we'll chat later, I don't mind putting de Lubicz as a source on a stubby Kharsag page that shows off that we know what we're talking about yet don't endorse it to people that doubtless will search for the term. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and if we are going to go with Black, you're going to have to put up with a reference to his discussion on hursag being a hill, not a mountain, likely located in a hilly field with tell-remains on top. That kinda quote is absolute gold-dust to me. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I did a quick Google Books|Scholar search, less the fringe writers I noticed, and Hursag came up more often. Yes, Kharsag is more prevalent with those feeding off O'Brien, but not in academic works. I'll think about the rest. Are you sure de Lubicz ever mentioned Kharsag tablets? He died in 1961, after all. I'm not convinced that there is a great difference between a mountain and a hill - people talk about mountains in Britain that I call hills. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, but Black's evidence from the third dynasty of ur dates almost contemporaneously with the tablets, highly suggesting the word was used in this way. We could put dozens of fringe writers in to source a stubby kharsag page, maybe best to single source Barton, who was the original proliferator. I've come over a bit funny since my dog died last week, a bit like Ezekiel's wife dying at my age, but anyhow, I've got annoyed and wrote this to Edmund (who still wants to sell books) and Karl (who still won't give me the photos and video) when drunk, thought you might like a read (and any advice always welcome) :

Right,

I've now become an expert at near east archaeology, it took me a while to read up and write all the wikipedia articles about the sites, archaeologists and official bodies that we need to contact to get things going.

What we need to do is to contact the people that I am gradually creating a database of on Wikipedia with a CONSTANTLY updating thesis of the Pre pottery neolithic B “megasite” that we have discovered in the Aaiha plain and temporary wetland. Linked by Edward Robinson in the 1800s to be the source of the Jordan river.

What I am doing here is completely rephrasing the O’Brien thesis into something that the mainstream of science will accept. We need to ditch the great work of Christian and move on, recognise why he didn’t get the attention he deserved but come with another angle. That of archaeology, that of science. We need to prepare a completely revised thesis, possibly leaving out ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE and soley relying on the physical remains, the limestone plaster structures, photos and videos related in a totally academic way.

If we can prepare a credible archaeological thesis to present to Frederic Husseni, Danielle Stordeur, Maya Haidar Boustani, Levon Nordiguain, Pablo from the spanish Prehistoric institute of Cantabria, Bassam Jamous, Avi Gopher, Nigel Goring Morris, Frederic Abbes, Jean Perrot, Lorraine Copeland, Peter Wescombe, Paleorient, Archeorient, Colin Renfrew, Graeme Barker, Andrew Garrod, Alex Wasse, The directors and researchers at MOM, Leila Badre, Henri de Contenson, the Fernand Corby institut, JJ Ibanez, the polish team that excavated Tell Qaramel, the university of basel people, the french guy who did Tell Halula, the germans working on baalbek and others, the americans in chicago and probably many, many others I can probably mention by studying.

I can get all their e-mails. I can prepare a doctorate level thesis without even mentioning O’Brien, who has been wiped from Wikipedia as an unreliable source.

Something like this needs to be done to get the results we all want.

Further suggestions welcome.

Regards,

Paul

P.S. Am drunk, but hope you get the point of the e-mail Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a bit late for me tonight, so tomorrow. From memory our Enlil article is a bit of a mess. I did some work on it several years ago but gave up. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Spammer?

I think there may be a spammer on the Egyptian pages. Satseshat has added a whole bunch of external links to the http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk site. See Contributions. This person was warned in 2007 about this behavior User talk:Satseshat. I don't know what to do about it. Except maybe reverting all those additions? --AB (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. Take it to WP:ELN? Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise. That was the right place to go. Cheers, Anneke --AB (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Cw6165 - unblock conditions

Hey Doug, I've just finished talking with this guy in the unblock channel on IRC and I think he is genuinely interested in resolving the problems that led to his block. I've set him a number of conditions for unblocking, which he's agreed to; these include mentorship and a commitment to better communication. There are more details at the bottom of his talk page (linked above), but before doing anything adminny I wanted to make sure you were ok with these conditions. I'm going to send you a log of our conversation shortly so you know what it is we discussed. Let me know what you decide, and if there's anything more you think should be added to those conditions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cats on Erich

I don't usually look at categories, but if the ones you added to van Daniken had been there at some point and were removed, any idea why they were removed? =p There are enough sources in the article to support the fact that his work falls into those categories, right? Psuedohistory is self-evident, but what about the others? I'm all for calling a duck a duck of course, but want to make sure no one can dispute his quacking. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories

RE: Category:Ufologists is included in Category:Pseudoscientists. Category:Ancient astronaut speculation is part of Category:Pseudoarchaeology and Category:Pseudohistory. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't cal van Daniken a UFOlogist however. As for ancient astronauts, yes, but his work is broader than that. And you haven't explained why you removed pseudoscientists. Did you note the question above? I don't see the removal as actually helping people's understanding or ability to navigate. His books are works of pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology. Dougweller (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Good. I'm just going by the categorization-scheme; if, for example, something is in the category "Chicago", it shouldn't also be in "United States" (and no, I didn't see the question above until now). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Chime in @ Talk:Erich_von_Däniken#Ufologist.3F Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, perhaps this was meant to end up on my talk page? :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, how did I do that? Thanks for pointing it out.Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::That only works under ideal circumstances I believe. Sometime the sub-categories are just a partial subset of the main category. I think that's a case by case thing and it's commonsense to keep the three unless more useful ones can be found to replace them. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Guinness Book of Records

Hi! just have a look at Cinema of Andhra Pradesh this article claims a few Guinness records and have sourced them, but the question is they haven't cited using a proper source. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 05:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Difficult. I'd be surprised if the Times of India got it wrong, for instance. If it's a past/obsolete record, does Guinness keep it? I'd take this to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

test

How well does this work looks Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed my Edit

Dear Doug,

I made a edit in a page on Abhinav Bharat, only to find it reverted because my edit was considered vandalism. I went through you link of 'what constitutes vandalism' and mine most certainly did not. I did not add anything to the article only removed a mischievous paragraph that had nothing to do with Abhinav Bharat.

The bit i removed made is a reference to some reactions that certain political parties made to accusations by a police officer against Abhinav Bharat. It is then mentioned that this officer was killed in the 26/11 Mumbai Attacks.

You may wonder why is this relevant on an article to do with said organisation - whether some fellow made some accusation, and where he died? This is a very dangerous insinuation that has been propogating through the net for a while now, by many conspiracy theorists who claim that the attacks were carried out by Hindu nationalists and are using this officers death during the attack as evidence. This is similar to the theories that zionists and americans cause 9/11 and such like. (how appropriate would it be if on an article about the democratic/ labour party, there is a line which says... so and so journalist was investigating an expose on them and guess what he was killed in 9/11)

Please do not defend such theories, mentioning where and when some officer who was on a case related died is simply horrible mischief that does not belong on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.75.117 (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


I've reverted my edit, so the material isn't there any longer. Sorry, I was too hasty. I've also brought up the question of this article at WP:BLPN as I think we need two separate articles that don't offend our WP:BLP policy.

Thanks for the advice...

... on the help desk - makes perfect sense as soon as I read it! CaptRik (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I wouldn't be surprised if I've done that in the past - you also missed a repetition of the name. The important thing is that you both tried and that you contacted the right people. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For answer on WQA. Missed that. The OP edit history does look very peculiar to me for a new user, but I'm thinking there's insufficient evidence for SPI. Gerardw (talk)

So far, probably. Hard to AGF though. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Now blocked as a confirmed sock. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Olswang

Hi, Can you explain why the different dates on protection vs move ?

Thanks

Mtking (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A change in Twinkle I didn't notice, I didn't mean to add move protection, can't see that that is needed. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem, not sure that anything more than Semi-protection is needed at this stage though. (Not that I am asking you to make a change) Mtking (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Newsrooms will be back and there's still a dispute, thus pp. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough - but then it is over to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Mtking (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello Dougweller. I have a concern that I don't know what to do with at the moment. Last October you blocked AbsoluteGleek92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for not providing edit summaries. As you will see the editor is now providing them but as I go through them I find them to be, at a minimum, misleading. As you will see this editor is now using the edit summary "cleaned the page". However s/he is doing much more than that. As you can see from this edit [6] they added a chunk to the plot section, removed a pic, made genre changes and added and subtracted cats all without explanation. They were also remiss in that they did not check their work since one of the cats is a red link and one of the EL's was damaged. In this edit [7] they changed the films run time and added gross dollar info without sourcing. Having said that I should add that many of the changes that they make are good ones so I don't want to seem to be reporting only negative items. I just don't know whether the good outweighs the negative or not. I also have not had time to examine whether this editor is still causing copyright problems as expressed in the last message on their talk page from a few days ago. My problems are that I am not sure know where to go to get more eyes on this and I am about to go offline for Memorial Day fun so I don't have time to express my concerns to this editor. I apologize for dumping this on you. If you feel that I should just ignore it then I will understand. I will also understand if you don't have the time or inclination to do any followup. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that you had a word with this editor so I wanted to say thanks for taking the time to do so. It is nice that they are leaving a more detailed edit summary. Some of the edits are still problematic but I guess that is par for the course for someone that enthusiastic. Thanks again for following up on my post. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
But they ignored my request that they show an understanding of OR. Still, if they don't do anything problematic again.... Sorry I didn't let you know I'd responded. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. As busy as you admins get it has gotta be difficult to keep track of everything that is going on. I hope that you enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 14:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Kittybrewster

FYI. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

?? Can't see where I've been involved. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
According to the log, you were responsible for "removing autopatrolled right after ANI discussion with editor's consent".[8]   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok, forgot that, I thought it was suggested I was involved in the blocks. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's the thread on ANI.[9]   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I found it. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

I was double-checking what I did yesterday and apparently I thought a 9 was a 4, so it doesn't matter anyway. Which means the source is, once again, something User:Hrafn would not find acceptable. The link wasn't in the article I got it from and I didn't know how to find it, but I can fix that now.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out, even though I misread the number of the reference, the one I used has the information anyway and I have so far been able to keep Hrafn from touching what I've done, though on the talk page it doesn't look so good.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Just work with him, I agree with him a lot more than I disagree with him. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

St John's Jerusalem

Don't you find it extraordinary that, after three years as an article no larger than a stub, this article should, first, be the subject of a series of well orchestrated hoax edits and certified sockpuppetry; then, detailed involvement by an apparently unconnected editor; and then a series of edits on a specific detailed point by an equally well-informed and equally persistent new editor? Quite amazing coincidences, it seems to me. Hmmm... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much it's a coincidence. I see that it's been reinserted. I'm trying to think where to take this. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The previous comment could be interpreted as in violation of no legal threats, and I submit that it should be removed. In addition, this section is in rampant contravention of AGF. Jokaz1892 (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Do take me to WP:ANI if you think it is a legal threat. Please. 81.109.118.115 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (sorry, didn't notice I was logged out)
You will have to excuse my ignorance, but I make no accusations against 81.109.118.115 (talk). I did not make any accusations at all in fact. However, it appears that this has inadvertently revealed by admission that 81.109.118.115 (talk) is a sock of Dougweller, and I will be making a report as a consequence. Jokaz1892 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you took AGF seriously you'd realise it was more likely I was editing logged out. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me repeat, do take me to WP:ANI - or retract your claim I'm making a legal threat (and please don't weasel about it,). Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
And now you've got another reason to take me to ANI, as you are asking for " removal of editing privileges and a temporary block ". Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I am assuming AGF on this occasion, precisely by not taking this to the ANI. The consensus was that your sockmastery was in this case acceptable, and I accept that consensus. Jokaz1892 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, I said that a comment of yours could be interpreted as in breach of WP:Legal, I did not say that it was. Jokaz1892 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems I have been dragged into this quagmire once again by my love of historical buildings and by shameful naivety - and for this I apologise. There must be something we can do about this shameless editor Stellas4lunch, who has made me look quite the fool on several occasions now; he seems to be able to evade his ban with ease and I suggest that perhaps a wider IP range block might be of use? Trumpkin (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just another lesson for all of us. At least Jokaz1892 was blocked quickly, no drawnout discussions You'd have to ask one of the clerks about that, I never get involved in range blocks - I'm always worried I'll block something I shouldn't! Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well this was certainly a delightful/annoying little bit of divertissement (cribbed from the French Wiktionary.) This is a great example of what I stated above about admins having to deal with too many things. Should you ever be unable respond to any my posts here I know that you will be dealing with this kind of stuff. In fact lets add this to my current post.
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For not handing out a trout slap in dealing with this sockmaster MarnetteD | Talk 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope that the rest of your week has some normal editing :-) MarnetteD | Talk 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks MarnetteD. Trumpkin (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


And thanks from me. I really do need time to do article work, I've got all these sources and no time to use them! Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Largest ancient canal

Your citation request at the List of ancient architectural records raises an interesting point of how to deal with implicit records: in fact, no classicist I am aware of has explicitly call the Ancient Suez Canal the largest canal in Greco-Roman antiquity. Yet this must be almost certainly the case because in the text and lists they have published in the last 25 years (worked into List of Roman canals) this canal is the largest by far. So, I wonder, is it WP:SYN to treat it in List of ancient architectural records as the largest or rather not? What do you think? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tricky, maybe take to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#To be or not to be the largest ancient canal Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Medes and other Wikipedias

Hi, I do not speak Turkish but recently, I noted that in the Turkish wikipedia they consider the theory that the Medes were Turks (the two users pushing this viewpoint were banned once on English wikipedia but apologized and now are free: [10] and [11] I am wondering as a knowledge person in history and also as an admin, what can I do exactly? In tthe Azeri wikipedia, it is worst and they consider Medes, Atropatene, Parthians, Sumerians and etc., as Turks. Of course I do not care too much about those wikipedias (although misrepresentation of history bothers me because others might get the wrong information), but is there a place I can complain about with regards to this blatant distortion of history in other wikipedias? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A content dispute would be at the notice board for such things, which I can't find at the moment, but I'm not sure there is a place where you can complain about such issues on other Wikis, I think they're considered separate projects. Or am I mistaken? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Entirely separate, there isn't anyplace here you can complain about other wikipedias, sorry. But you can edit them, we all can. Some are really a mess. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Let you know

The young user in question that you brought up before has now recreated their user page with the same information, just in an actual article format. This still isn't any better, really. SilverserenC 21:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it's been deleted. He has made a couple of constructive edits. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
And the user page is back again in the exact same format. SilverserenC 03:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted and salted (yeah, maybe not the best idea, but he can ask for it to be reinstated if he isn't blocked indefinitely, see User talk:ABG1997. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Which I've done now, but hopefully it won't last long. Alison's suppressed the userpage edits. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI at Commons. He may well end up blocked there too if he keeps it up. All were uploaded under the claim they were his own work. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add that to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Probably worth requesting a block now. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I should have read the link first. :-) Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that message from me on their AN was the way to go about it. Commons is a mystery to me, although thanks to our friend, I'm spending more time there than I'd like.;-) I'll keep on eye on that board and see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've posted there before asking for blocks, deletions, etc and had a good response. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

You appear to be the most recent admin dude I saw active so I'll bother you about this. =p Please take a look at this edit here. It seems kind of like a personal attack, or maybe just incivility, but definitely not very polite. It was after I warned him for edit warring (he kept putting in massacre after Golan Heights and that was reverted by three different editors, including myself, but stopped short of the magic number, four. In his last reversion he gave a dictionary definition as his source of info) and gave a long list of diffs for reasons of pointing out that he probably should not be involved in editing anything Jew or Israel-related.

By the way, you wouldn't happen to know why his name has that weird colour would you? It's not the same shade of red as the others. I thought it was something with my comp screen, but it's actually a different colour of red, even in the revision history. Oddly enough my browser slows down whenever I look at any changes he has made to the encyclopedia in diffs. It is very strange and I am only getting it for his stuff. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't comment on the technical issues (the red just shows he has no user page), but yes, it was an attack and I've left him a warning covering personal attacks and edits. Do take a look at the relevant edits I've just made (look at my contributions). I'm not a happy chappy right now. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Still a weird shade to me. Yep, I took a look. I have been shadowing his contribs page and dealing with bad edits (which may be hounding I know, but if you know someone might do evil, then best to keep a watch, though if it is, I'll have to accept the punishment =p). His MO appears to be against percieved Neocon bias (I hate them too ofc), anti-Israel (and in certain cases anti-Semetism as evidenced by the comments and the holocaust denial (I think calling it a fable makes one a holocaust denier)) and in a few scattered cases, pro-Palestine (which is fine, just make sure you don't cast anything positive about Israel as propaganda). Though some of his articles have been helpful. I do notice some definite cherrypicking (the bane of any archaeologist) and/or distortion of sources though as with the poll in Israel-US relations and the topic I linked with the PA. I am rather happy, though that's because I just made a hilarious birthday video for my gf that was sung completely in Hebrew and involved the wearing of various religious garments on myself and my cat. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The video sounds great! I'm trying to check on something that I can't figure out how to view to see if it's relevant. I think you know about topic bans? Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Err... afraid I am not familiar with that ban stuff, sorry. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
One of my edits was just reverted, ridiculous, loads of sources call Carlos the Jackal a terrorist. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
That is so, but it could be argued that we take the same approach as with Osama bin Laden. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:BLPN#Can we call Carlos the Jackal. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Will do, though I am sleepy. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Keeping an eye on our friend, while reviewing his edits on the Afrika Korps article, and making a few tweaks (such as removing the reference to concentration camps in Camp Shelby, given the fact that the source never referred to them as such), I looked at the history. I saw that on 4 June, there was a 3rr violation by User:Rebell44[12]. That is four reverts unless I am miscounting. I'm not sure how to fill out one of those reports tbh, and it was four days ago. =p Back to the main issue though, he appears to have moved on to LGBT pages. Now if he starts putting in homophobic stuff, I must be guarded in my reactions (I am straight, but abhore homophobia, especially since my gf is bisexual - be jealous =p), so I will start an ANI then or in one of the other of those pages on that big old noticeboard. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
June 4th is stale, no action would be taken. I suspect if he puts in homophobic stuff he'll find others as upset as you. Dougweller (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Doug

Thank you very much Doug for your assistance and advice.

Is the page I have searchable by the BBC template do you think or do I need to write to the encyclopedia when I can cite more cites of reference

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliettefarrell (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's searchable. You need to create a proper article and to do that you need to show notability by our standards, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your advice

Thanks for your advice on my talk page re COI. My understanding is that the subject of a page is allowed to make changes where there are factual inaccuracies (in my case, that I left one party and become a member of another which is not true and has been posted on a number of occasions by editors who cite no source). Is it not correct that I can remove downright lies about me? I have always made my identity clear when making such changes. If I am not allowed to make such changes, then who can I ask to do that? Also, I am writing on your talk page rather than mine because, as you will see from previous edits to my talk page, somebody has deliberately altered my comments to make them say the opposite of what I have said. I figure they won't get away with that so easily on your page. Your advice on the above would be appreciated. Rsgrayson (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)RsgraysonRsgrayson (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes you can. If you are challenged, we have a notice board for discussions of problems with biographies of living people, WP:BLPN where you can raise the issue, or of course the article's talk page. The person posting on your site was from a school and I've blocked the school's access for six months, not just because of the problem on your talk page but because of other edits as well. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your advice!! 94.13.3.105 (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Rsgrayson94.13.3.105 (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

not really outing

I know it's not outing when they register under their own name, but let's just let everyone do the same Googling we did, instead of pointing them to specific instances. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this about the esteemed doctor? Head of operations at Chernobyl etc? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarek has a good point. However, the question was whether it was a real person, ie whether it was a hoax. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, one shouldn't give direct links (esepcially when they contain even more contact info than the person gave before), though she made no secret of her identity. She should be happy though that this isn't a place like ED where such actions would often have bad results (I could just imagine someone complaining there). So it is a real person, she is just not very net-savvy it seems. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
True. But we could use a formulation like "Google would seem to indicate it's not a hoax" without actually giving more information than she did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'll remember that in the future. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

About your warning

What I’ve tried to do in Talk:Kosovo was just a way to talk about the nocive POV-forking that is happening, with editors claiming to not defend political interests when, in fact, they are doing so.

All the info I’ve posted was not offences, inside info or something like that; all I’ve said could be found in Wikipedia itself.--189.33.174.222 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo - hiding content

I was wondering why you'd hidden the content of a number of posts on Talk:Kosovo - see [13]. I've not seen this done before, and I'm not really sure what your motivation was. Please enlighten me. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's done whenever someone posts material that is either grossly insulting, violates WP:OUTING, incredibly disgusting, etc. Basically when something is far too unpleasant to be left around. You're asking why on a page filled with Serbian nationalists and their various enemies, content might need to be removed. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
And I didn't hide the content of a number of posts in any case. I simply rev/del's a small portion of a single post trying to reveal the identity of editors here. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The posts that I made are still shown, but in the page's Revision History and in My Contributions, their dates are crossed out, and they can't be shown as diffs. Is this a knock-on effect of deleting the offensive post? Regards, Bazonka (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid so. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem - I was wondering whether I'd been implicated in some way, but that all makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Bazonka (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
No, definitely not. Just the IP. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

Which parts I added are unsourced content? every thing I added has adequate sources. If you have any problem with my sources talk in discussion page.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. I see copyright violations, a personal attack and misuse of Twinkle by you. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I even didn't read [14] before! what an unfair warning :( P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It was a warning that reinstating it could get you blocked, not saying that you would be blocked for any past actions. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
After that, read what is his proof for deleting all the parts that related to the article. If he believe it is silly, he want to delete it. but they are scholars discussions. he just come and delete what he believe. Isn't it a vandalism behavior? Just read what he said.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked you to read WP:VANDALISM. It isn't vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, God! but I even didn't copy that. I just research and add data with all of my sources linked to the parts. I just wish if I copied that this warning weren't unfair P. Pajouhesh (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Can I revert it to the first step without Pico's delectations and talk in discussion page? because he deleted all of the claims and their sources without any reasonable reason. I just going to invite him to talk about the article. Can I revert it?P. Pajouhesh (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid you can't do that. You'd be reinserting copyright violations. Also, he gave reasonable reasons for each of his last five edits removing your material. Then there's the fact that you have two editors saying your material is inappropriate, one of them being me (which is a big reason why you don't have to worry that I might block you, I can't as I'm involved). What I suggest is that you try bit by bit, starting with the part you think is best researched, and see what others have to say about that. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
But he deleted all the part that was before my editing. He deleted all the claiming part of the origins of this man. It's shows that he didn't have any knowledge of Islamic scholarship from the origin of the Dhul-Qarnayn. I rewrite those part of the paper bit by bit with better resources again.

for starting I answer to his reasons here:

  • edit 01: I don't think these sources qualify as mainstream scholarship.
It is not about what we think. It's about what the scholars believe about this article. When there are different claims of the origin, it's not good behavior deleting every claim but one. From beginning of Islam there are claims of the origin. Besides, we are not in a place to deny Shaykh Tabresi, Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei, Naser Makarem Shirazi, Abul Kalam Azad, Mohammad Ebrahim Bastani Parizi and other grand scholars of Islam and grand Historians.
  • edit 02: Differences without a difference. And the Hebrew bit is silly.
Firstly, 'having, possessing, endowed with" are different in meaning and the part had written by the writer to show possibles of the meaning. Secondly, as it's come in Tafsir ibn Kathir - That is in the article too - the prophet said ask about Dhul-Qarnayn from Rabbis. so why would be silly if Its come from Hebrew? Besides, Lots of scholars throughout centuries accept it's possibility. Neither me, nor you aren't in a place to deny it and say It's silly. Arabic language and also The Quran is full of words derived from Hebrew. So, at least, it's not silly. maybe we just don't know about that. so it's better just scape from something we didn't have knowledge about that.
  • edit 03: The Book of Daniel is irrelevant - we're talking about the Koran
Wrong. Is it accepted if we talk about Goliath just talk about Jewish origins and not about its Islamic infos? there are lots of part in the Torah's The Book of Daniel that talk about "Ba'al Haqqərānayim" that supporter of the Cyrus the Great claims about the possible origin. If it is irrelevant about Torah, so we have to delete all the parts of Jewish traditions that also involve in Islamic's Quran from Wikipedia.
  • edit 04: Nah - it doesn't mean "two ages", since that makes no sense in any context
Wrong. Arabic: قرن means "horn, century, coupling, pairing, connexion, connection" [15] I think the witer means "two centuries" than "two ages".
  • edit 05: Possible identity: None of this material is well sourced, much of it is OR and synthesis.
I didn't write the Alexandre part of this article, but the other part is mine. I wondered of what he said about sources. all are with good sources. one of them is from yahoo answer that is not important because it's a translation of Torah. I can remove it. but there's not anything else.

I rewrite some parts of the article. then you come and discuss about that. if it's not adequate. then tell me to correct that. thank for your attentionP. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Consorveyapaaj2048394

I see on this user's talk page and elsewhere that you're monitoring him. Weird spate of edits earlier this evening (my time) at Jimbo's talk page. Judging by their contribs, could be a disruption-only troll account. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I still can't decide. We'll see what happens next. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My edit to the Seven seals page

Hi Doug, I guess I should have noticed this before but I am an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia but I would like to learn how to do it properly.

In 2009 I made an edit to the page for Seven Seals in which I pointed out a mention of the term in a song by Bruce Cockburn. You removed it with the comment that I "probably didn't want to do that" and then provided this information about the change.

"removing editor's signature and a promotional edit about the future release (perhaps now past) of a song, fix wikilink) (undo)"

I'm not sure what you meant by promotional edit about a future release. The song has been published for many years. I believe the information that I provided fits in the context of the other entries on the page.

Can you tell me what problem exists with the edit I made?

Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia, Glen Gatin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gating (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi - what I deleted was your signature and "The Seventh Seal is the title of MC Rakim's album that will be released in November, 2009". Later someone trimmed the section - see [16], I didn't remove the Bruce Cockburn entry, it was removed in April 2010. Took me a while to sort out what happened! Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Sorry for my belated explanations. I've put my word here [17]. Thanks! --Commander (Ping Back) 07:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Wikipedia is now so huge it's hard to make sure articles comply with our guidelines, I just found an article that had a major copyright violation starting from when it was created a few years ago! Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

86.10.119.131 aka livesintheforest

Hi Doug. I watch a few articles that the above users have edited, and IP 86 is back, with a personal attack here in the edit summary. I have no idea what I should do here, but I thought I would inform an admin that knew the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Milton_%28author%29&action=historysubmit&diff=433950060&oldid=433926317 , Oh if this is the incorrect approach I apologize in advance. Thanks Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The IP has also been editing Talk:British National Party, which is the stomping ground of the "brother", Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs). I'm all for blocking anonymous editing for a long period of time. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Following this lament from the non-blocked brother, I have blocked anonymous editing from this IP address for three months. Benign family members can still edit using named accounts. Favonian (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain me why you see my contribution as vandalism ? Zaza is Kurdish ???

Can you explain me why you see my contribution as vandalism ? Zaza is Kurdish ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diyako2000 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're communicating. The source as I read it said she denied being Kurdish. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Request for feedback

As we have started the 24 hour clock on the Racepacket case, I would appreciate a response regarding my inquiry at the talk page. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see one response there already, it will be sorted but it is really up to the Arbs. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

generally I agree but

It appeared to be just random nonsense, placed above the TOC, with no constructive criticism, or specifics, by an Anon. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Thanks. I'll fix it. That's an example of where an edit summary really helps. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Strauss-Howe generational theory

Thanks for reminding me of that. I suggest we discuss merger on the article's talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Username Blocking - ClungeLover69

Hi,

I'm not sure what is wrong with my user name. It is in fact a reference to the Clunge Ambler in Flanimals the children's book by Ricky Gervais. However, there are clearly some filthy minded pedants on Wikipedia who read filth in to everything and take offence when none is meant. I am aware I could contest the blocking. Nevertheless, as I'd rather not inadvertently offend anyone, I have magnanimously decided to put in a request to chance my name to EditMonkey. I trust this negates any objections and unintended offence that may of inadvertently been caused. --ClungeLover69 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)--EditMonkey (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great. I like the new name. I've actually never heard of either use of the word, but linked with '69' no way was it not going to offend somehow and cause you problems later on. By the way, new discussions should always ago at the bottom of a talk page, thus chronological order. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Valor Christian College

I saw in the history it was redirected a few months ago, but no reason was given, so I cleaned up the article from the last point before the redirect (which was your edit from 10:57, 30 January 2011) and placed an unreferenced section tag on the history section without any refs. Because no reason for the redirect was given and before the redirecting edit no copyvio tags were in place I wasn't aware it had a copyvio issue. I reverted your redirect, since it appears only the history section has copyvio issues, I simply removed the copied content until it can be added properly. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Better charge your lazr

[18] I could have sworn you gave him a level 4 warning about making PAs. You may fire when ready (what better quote is there?) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Minor edits & Edit summaries

I'm not a newbie editor Doug, I know what constitutes a major and minor edit, so kindly babysit someone else. If you want an explanation for it, I most likely hit "rollback" on that guy's statement which I believe automatically marks it a minor edit. The statement is a personal opinion not backed up any cited facts - what you have there is what I call a one-hit wonder vandal, (so-called because 90% it's their one and only edit ever on Wikipedia) who added his/her 2-cent take on the series and it doesn't belong there at all - not even with a "citation needed" tag. It clearly violates NPOV, and even if they did find a reference then it needs to be placed in a properly labeled "criticism" or "reviews" section. So if they do happen to find a reliable, credible source worth citing, then they put their comment there. Until then, I consider such edits vandalism - plain and simple - because it's put there only to cause problems. These one-hit wonder editors are suspicious to begin with which is another reason I call it vandalism. They have an agenda. I also know you don't like this particular series - I've read your comments on it before, and if it were up to you you'd delete the article or else significantly mar it with negative commentary. Since I spent a lot of time on that article I'm not tolerating BS like that. Cyberia23 (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Would you please take care of this request?--Penom (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably he abused Twinkle. I explained potential abuse too. It seems that editing religion related articles and trying to add academic POV is not easy in WP :) Penom (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Parrots

I hoped it might brighten the guy's day or get him to laugh. Did you even watch it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not convinced it would. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
He's off my watch list now. If he actually is a sockmaster and not just bluffing, he'll be back soon enough. And if so, I'll ignore him. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I hate to say I told you so, but did you see his response to your post? You've just got to stop this, it's not constructive. Please stay away from blocked/banned users' talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I saw that he put it back and then went off on some unintelligible tangent and had his talk page priv taken away. The one thing left to do is to sweep the dirt off his page except for any admin messages there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the fact he put it back might mean he did find it funny. Some folks love parrots, ya know. In fact, some folks love them so much, they worship them. That's where we get the term "pollytheism". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Everyone knows about polytheism and parrots, but maybe he put it back so he could respond the way he did. I thought up cleaning up his page but at the moment I'm leaving it as evidence that the block and protection were appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Good enough. That approach occurred to me also. Is the guy really filled with hatred for minorities, or is that stuff just for shock effect? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for Edinburgh

Hi,


No problem about adding Edinburgh. I added a few more English and Scottish cities finding - looking into welsh and Northern Irish ones as well but evidence of continuous habitation is difficult to find. Please feel free to let me know if you think any of my additions are not warranted or erroneous.


Best

Editmonkey --EditMonkey (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Tildes in Wikiedit

Are on the Equations keyboard, right to the left of the <. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping someone might respond. Unfortunately, I can't find the equations keyboard. I also think that 'edit conflict' is working incorrectly, as I keep getting one despite no one else editing. Thanks - I did do a Google search just now but that didn't work. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Click on the ".?123" button in the bottom left-hand corner of the regular keyboard, then when that keyboard comes up click on the "#+=" button on the left-hand side of the screen. I'm using Wikiedit right now: here are my tildes: NellieBlyMobile (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I need to consult you as you are an experienced editor. I have a question regarding NPOV in religion related topics. How can formulate NPOV and give weight to academic and religious views? Based on the number of publications on that topic? or based on the number supporters of a certain POV?

  • If the number of supports matters. What weight should I give to scientific and religious POVs about evolution theory, where studies in America show that still 40-50% of Americans still believe that first humans were Adam and Eve!?
  • On any topic related to Islam thousands or hundred hadith or Islamic sources can be found written by Muslim Mullahs. However, academic publications on these topics written by acceptable scientific research methodologies are very very few. If number of publications matters how I can formulate NPOV in Islamic topics. What is the traditional Islamic views weight? and what is academic views weight in articles?--Penom (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, NOPV is always the POV closest to factual accuracy. The circumstance that 40-50% of Americans still believe that the first humans were Adam and Eve says a lot about those Americans but nothing about Adam and Eve. Facts (which constitute the NPOV) are not determined by popular vote. An article on Adam and Eve would show how they appear in scripture and other literature and would describe what people believed about them and what the story's roots are in other traditions (Mesopotamian, Iranian), but an article would not present the story as actual or even possible history. ♆ CUSH ♆ 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this needs to be discussed where you'll get more responses, probably WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that "Adam" and "Eve" essentially mean "man" and "mother of humankind", the believers might be right, though not necessarily for precisely the right reason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok! How about number of publications. As an example, consider Muhammed's article. Number of publication by Muslim theologians and Mullahs is probably 1000 times more that scholarly publications and secular authors' publications. How do you formulate NPOV in this case? What can be weight of scholarly views and what will be religious POV.Penom (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good eye

Good catch at Nine-dotted line. I read about four sentences of that before my copyvio senses started tingling. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pashtun people

Thanks for your warning but actually that is not edit-warring. I had a valid reason to remove the newly created section in the article. I had already started a discussion at the admin board.--AlimNaz (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Hi Doug. Short answer to your question is not really. I'll have a look at it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Bilderberg Group

Yes, it's sometimes better to address these things rather than try to ignore them. I've started a thread at Talk:Bilderberg Group#Logan Act.   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, I didn't realize my little message had actually been seen my anybody before I had decided to remove it hahaha. Apologies for coming off so harshly. Anyway, I am a stickler about grammar myself and I agree, I did not quite like the way I had worded it...and although I usually somehow manage to grammatically perfect everything I type, I was unable to do so in this case; let me post the paragraph here, and you tell me what you think needs to be changed, or simply re-post the paragraph the way you think it should be worded, if you don't mind. Thanks (also you must forgive me, I am relatively new to communicating with other members on Wikipedia...that is not to say I am new to the site, but mostly I either do research or edit little facts here and there, I haven't done much talking so bear with me I guess if I make a mistake or am unfamiliar with site etiquette, thanks)

" One of the main issues surrounding the group (particularly in conspiracy circles) is that it has been speculated by some[1][2] that for American elected officials and politicians to attend Bilderberg meetings is a violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments, and that their attending is thus treason against the United States (their interpretation of the Act being that it prohibits any citizen from secretly meeting/negotiating with politicians of foreign governments). However, these claims do not hold much weight, due to the ambiguity and broad nature of the text of the Act. Also, many would argue that the very nature of being an elected official qualifies one as an "authorized citizen" under the Act. There is no record of any convictions, or even prosecutions, under the Logan Act.[3] "

Any ideas?

User:Psychonaut25 7:13 AM EST, 22 June 2011

Copied to the Bilderberg talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Again Andulasi

Hi,

Ding! Ding! He is involved edit warring with different users and keep deleting sourced materials. Please just count the number of reverts. Alsohe adds his POV (changing non-Muslim views to claims, purported, alleged,...). I tried to discuss the issues but he fails to cooperate. If you are not interested in such topics. Could you please refer me to another admin who is interested in Islamic topic.--Penom (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should take this to one of the boards we have set up. POV issues go to WP:NPOVN, civility to WP:WQA for instance. Only take him to one board. You English is great, I'm jealous (seriously, no joke). Probably the NPOV board is best. Sorry I've been so busy. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, may I barge in? I'd like to ask what the result was of the incident report. Was the user banned, or did he just quit, or what? And may I now put back the material Andulasi deleted from Islamic sexual jurisprudence? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing really happened, the discussion is carrying on at WP:NPOVN#Bigoted views in Wikipedia's voice and I believe some people are watching his edits. I don't think I can advise you what to do, I don't have time to spare on this right now. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem editor

EditMonkey (talk · contribs), even after his name change, still seems to be creating problems. The message about Anglo-Saxon propaganda on his talk page is just one example of that. The rest can be seen in almost all of his contributions. Mathsci (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear MathSci,

I am sorry to see that clearly have some sort of vendetta against me. If you have something to say please say it to my face. It is a poor show that you don't even give me a chance to defend myself form your accusations. Incidental the Anglo-Saxon comment was meant as joke to lighten the mood of the serious message welcome message I have been forced to put on 'My' talk page, due to the harassment I have been experiencing. Even if it was not a joke I do not see what is wrong with asking people to refrain form putting far right, Anglo-Saxon or any other kind of Propaganda on 'My' talk page. However, As you, for some reason, have objected to it I have now removed it. All you had to do was ask me in a nice way and I would have done - is that to much to ask.

Yours Sincerely,

EditMonkey EditMonkey (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My comments were addressed to Doug, not you. There are still problems with your edits. As far as they are concerned, you have been given good advice by a number of editors. Please follow that advice. The posting on your user page for example is an unsourced piece of WP:OR. In general editing wikipedia to push a non-neutral agenda is never a good idea. 15:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


My reply is on user Mathsci's talk page. (talk) EditMonkey (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

innocent

Hi Dougweller,

Please take the time to read all this shebang I have especially typed for you!!!

I got a message from you stating I have been in an edit war. I would like to state a few things to clarify the situation. I have been late i n my reply because of engagements in real life. Copying from wiki articles: I object to this. I research with professors, PhD scholars and other contributors. This research takes months and months. The end result is well researched and reference backed material that is genuine, free of errors and bias. In this regard, I created the article Afghana after about seven months of research, collecting both previous researches and adding some new. I first put this work in the article Pashtun people, with all the references. However, there are people who do not appreciate such work because of certain biases they hold. As you know, research especially about past nations and people is bound to much bias that needs to be stated even if some people dont like it. History is as it as, changing it for certain whims is a deliberate wrong which I abhor. Certain users tried to delete that research work which took months on end. Maintaining a watch over the page, I clarified some of their queries as you can see in the talk page. Unfortunately, they couldnt reply in any worthy manner so they (in this case the user AlimNaz) deleted all that research work in one go. I undid it and put an explanation for it. He reverted the whole deletion citing the wrong reason of it being mentioned in the article Pashtun people. I invited him to the talk page and asked a senior editor (MatthewVanitas) to help me out as I didnt want to engage in useless bickering.

What saddens me is that, he couldnt provide a single reference for his statements and deletions in wiki articles and got his way still. Furthermore, going over his contributions to wikipedia, I can get a sense of his intentions. I am afraid understanding where he comes from and what he intends with his edits would require for you to belong to that region (South Asia) and know a few things about the sects and ethnic complexities, which I do.

Anyways, I had to create a completely new page i.e. Afghana because: 1) The research I did for it was lengthy enough and the person in case important to Afghan history enough to deserve a separate page. 2) To save genuine research material from people like AlimNaz or Lysozym who have ethnic, cultural or personal biases.

I dont expect you to accept my views but I can assure you what I contribute to wikipedia is the end result of long and hard research that has taken months and years. I wanted to put the names of the professors and scholars I work with in real life, the Afghan historians and Afghans themselves but it would serve no end and only put their personal details onto the net.

Please reply, I would love to hear from you, even though you are very busy. This reasrch and the other stuff I contribute, medical or otherwise is important to me because I love wikipedia and its aim and I love my people. I have had to take time from my hospital duties for this research work and collected it from 5-6 countries and dozens of people.

Thank you!! Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you worked very hard on this and appreciate your efforts. I did think there was some confusion between historians mentioning the legend and historians suggesting that the legend is actual history - I certainly found this in a couple of the sources I checked. I've got no ethnic bias here, I'm just concerned that articles are based on what we call reliable sources - see WP:RS but most if not all of your sources met our criteria there, it was just the way you used them that I questioned. Also, the derivation of the word 'Afghan' can't be settled, all we can do is put forward the various suggestions historians and linguists have made. If you have any specific issues you wish to discuss further about any of the articles, the best place for that is the talk page of the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I left my comment here.--AlimNaz (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So you want to block me

I really don't care if you are going to block me or not. If you are going to block me, I request that you delete my user page. Thank you in advance.

Kugland (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Iyengar

Doug, this page and its subarticles (Vadakalai and Thenkalai) are part of a long standing but unattended dispute. The crux of the matter is which of the two sub-sects can lay the claim to being holier than thou! I protected the page and have asked the editors to start discussing (the revert war has now been going on for over two years or so). I've also asked a couple of hitherto uninvolved editors (who have some knowledge about the subject) to look into it and participate in the discussion. Would be happy if you can help out by using your bullshit-meter on sourcing and synth issues. I'm not involved in the dispute, I'm just trying to get a starting point to clear it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so you're aware User:Ravichandar84 and User:Nvvchar are the two I asked to get involved, the former agreed, but the latter recused himself as he has strong opinions on the matter. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rovas

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovosaman

Hello. Just letting you know I have requested for more information on this page. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. They are probably different people who followed a call on an internet forum dedicated to the revival of the Old Hungarian script. --Tgr (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's possible, although that page doesn't mention en.wiki. It still seems likely these two are the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Seen this Rovasinfo (talk · contribs)? Voceditenore (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovosaman. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pyramid of Hellinikon

Hi Dougweller

Few days ago i published a text in section greek pyramid,in which Liritzis with an article answered to lefkowitz about the pyramiid in hellinikon,Greece. This text blogged, and now there is only one line refers to the text. In my opinion it's unfair, because there is a detailed refer to the opinion of Lefkowitz and only one line for Liritzi's opinion!! I will re-add the text and i hope to be a more detailed refer to my article!!

thanks Dimitris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.233.249.233 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Armaiti's additions

Doug, I've posted some comments on Armaiti's additions at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder#Material from Armaiti. I'd be interested to know what you think. Prioryman (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Timur

Would you consider page protecting the article Timur? It appears to be going through a slow edit war from what I can tell, with no attempt at discussion. Thanks. Oh, and as for the Zaza people article, I do not have a preference one way or another. I would have to read through all the references to get an idea what they say. Thanks again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Gudea cylinders

Hi Doug,

I've offered an ALT1 on the talk page regarding the discussion deleted from this article, renaming the section Later use with a new source to back it up. Let me know if that seems acceptable now. Cheers. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 06:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. I do think that you sometimes have a problem with the appropriate use of sources. I've probably said that before. Minor thing, I think some of your external links are also references, so they shouldn't be in external links. I'm removing one of your see also links - the one about artefacts relevant to the Bible, as I don't think it's appropriate (and it's a very long list already). Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You were right about that. I brought it out of my sandbox before getting the Hurowitz reference in the right place, and that text as well sorted and clarified as it is now. I'll try and trim the external links that are also references to avoid repetition. Had wondered about that rule. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Disingenuous Editing?

DougWeller you state verbatim: "this is being discussed on the talk page, please don't just rv, let's try to get a consensus without insults." And then you perform an edit without gaining consensus! Sorta seems suspicious. Please explain your actions. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing what should go in the article. Before adding the material being discussed, we should try to see where we agree (and there do seem to be places where we do), and if there really is anything about which we disagree. I'm not the one replacing the material being discussed, you are. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the section heading. Your reply to my request to avoid insults is to say that my edit was "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous ..."? Is this really a good way to get some sort of consensus? Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally I would really appreciate it if GoetheFromm could actually respond to the points I made on the talk page rather than just ignoring them. I've posted a list of questions for him to answer. Blindly reverting isn't helping anyone. Prioryman (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected the edits =

I was working on the article, I've corrected it now. Regards, Street Scholar (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Improving the article Rovas Script Family

I tried to improve the article Rovas Script Family. If there is any imperfection in this article, please, let me know. Thanks for reviewing this article. Rovasscript (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rovas Atlas

THe originator of the page blanked it himself. I'd be happy to follow DBachmann's advice, redirect it to Old Hungarian and lock it permanently. See also new entries on my Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 10:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And I've given him a final warning for that, pages must not be redirected or blanked during an AfD. Let's see what happens, did you suggest that in the AfD discussion? Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you change the sentence from most to large.

Hi Dougweller thank you for the warm welcome. It is obvious from most Sources that the Zazaki Speakers actually consider themselves Kurdish and are also considered ethnically as Kurds even by linguists which consider Zazaki to be a separate language like Paul Ludwig. You can read it in his own written book. Thats why I actually think it is by far closer on the reality to write "most zaza consider themselves as Kurds" or at least "they are ethnically considered as Kurds". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see a source that says 'most', unless a source actually says that, we can't. It's clear that 'many' or 'a large number' is correct. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your right the article doesen´t point "most" but the article talks about " The Zaza ". If you are fine with this, than I would like to change the Article from "A large number of speakers of the Zaza language actually consider themselves Kurds." to " The zaza are ethnically considered as Kurds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

About the Article making Zazaki clearly not a kurdish language. This has only a small contribute on the Zaza People as Ethnic Group. The article is about the Zaza People and there is already an article about the Zaza language. Ironically on both articles the linguist point is given much more importance.Wikisupporting (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'article' I was referring to was the journal article in the link, not the Wikipedia article. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Well like I mentioned before. No one is arguing about the Zazaki language being Kurdish or not even while this is still on debate. The Article confirms my claim that most Zaza actually consider themselves as Kurds and are considered ethnically(linguistic is only one point of the ethnic heritage) as Kurds and are still counted as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know the argument isn't about the language being Kurdish, but I still haven't seen a source that says 'most', can you quote one? Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I could find you some Articles from famous ethnologists considering the Zaza ethnically as Kurdish. Would this help you? The Reason why I am so in changing this is cause I myself am a ethnic Zaza and beside some groups in the diaspora there are almost no Zaza in Turkey promoting Zaza Nationalism. Only Zaza which see themselves ethnically as Kurds or due assimilation as Turks. I know my words are not a source so I can understand if you don´t take them to serious.Wikisupporting (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be useful - glad you understand our policy. I have no opinion on this other than trying to make sure the article follows our policies, there is a lot of ethnic warring on this and related articles for understandable reasons, but we don't want such conflicts to affect our articles. This really belongs on the talk page though, so can you put anything new there please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No Problem I will try my best. Give me some time I will find the sources together and than first notify you about it. The Reason why I edited so much is because I am new here and didn´t knew how else I could change something on the article. I can also find you articles which split the Kurdish languages into two categories one being Zaza-Gorani another the Kurmanci-Sorani Group. The Reason is because the languages are named after the People. If the People are considered Kurds than automatically the Language is considered as Kurdish too this is my believe and how I learned it. Thank you once again for your help.Wikisupporting (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Hello Dougweller. Like promised here are some Sources.

http://www.let.uu.nl/~martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Bruinessen_Ethnic_identity_Kurds.pdf

I quote some parts.

"This makes it necessary for me to state at the outset precisely whom I mean when in this article I use the ethnic label "Kurds". For pragmatic reasons I use a rather loose and wide definition, including all native speakers of dialects belonging to the Iranic languages Kurmanji or Zaza,"

This is the linguist part. I think we both agree that Zazaki is not a dialect of Kurmanji but a language.

"as well as those Turkish speaking persons who claim descent from Kurmanji or Zaza speakers and who still (or again) consider themselves as Kurds"

These are the Zaza and Kurmanj from which I told you who are partly assimilated (linguistically ) but still consider themselves Kurdish.

"if any, Kurmanji speakers understand Zaza, but most Zaza speakers know at least some Kurmanji. Virtually all Zaza speakers consider themselves, and are considered by the Kurmanji speakers, as Kurds."

This is exactly the Point I am referring to. Beside among some Diaspora Groups there is no Zaza which does not consider himself Kurdish but only Zaza and I have never seen a sources claiming the opposite. Thats why we should change the Article about Zaza into "Zaza are a Group which ethnically considered themselves as Kurds.


I have some books written by famous ethnologist, linguists and journalists like Dr. Ferdinand Hennerbichler and Mehrdad Izady. I will share them too after I found the exact part about Zazaki speaking Kurds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 12:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Here is another Source. The author of the book is Ludwig Paul a linguist and ethnologist who claims Zazaki as a independent language but considers them ethnically as Kurds. He also mentions that the Zaza consider themselves as Kurds.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LuVSkpVuAkAC&pg=PA385&dq=zaza+paul+ludwig&hl=de&ei=sFUCTpvML8-OswbH4smODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=zaza%20paul%20ludwig&f=false

page 386.

" Die Mehrzahl der Sprecher des Zazaki bezeichnet sich heute als Kurden und hält ihre Sprache für einen kurdischen Dialekt."

translated

"The majority of the Zazaki Speakers today call themselves Kurds and consider their language as a kurdish Dialect.

Wikisupporting (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Just make sure you follow the proper inline citation methods and that you provide page numbers. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Hello dear Dougweller. Do you know who did change the part from ethnic kurdish Group to Parthian ethnic Group and removed all Sources showing this? And were is any scientific source claiming Zaza being a ethnic Parthian Group? I even added Sources from paul Ludwig a famous linguist who wrote in his book, I quote "The Zaza and Kurmandji Kurds form a unity and it is wrong to split them from the kurdish identity". This is Vandalism deleting scientific sources without Reason.

I see it was the User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erdemaslancan

He did delete all of my sources without any Reason he didn´t even gave a statement about this. Isn´t this Vandalism? how can he delete scientific Sources without Reason. There is no single Source connecting Parthians with Zaza only some Sources pointing out similarities with them. And also the Source he uses (Iranica) is pointing on only that the Zaza are a Iranian People but this Iranian refers to a wider sense and means the linguistic family Group to which also the Kurmanji Kurds belong. Thats why I wrote "the Zaza are a ethnic Kurdish group of Iranian origin " and this is pretty much the Case. You can be Iranian Group and Kurdish as well. Just like you can be a Swedish person of Germanic origin.

And also his Source doesen´t say anything about Zaza being not Kurdish. It even confirms me that they are called Kurds and distinguished from other Kurds. Still they literally are called Kurds and this is the main Point.

See here

"The Armenian term Kʿrder, literally “Kurds"

paragraph three

http://www.iranica.com/articles/dimli

So if you want we could also change the article into, "The Zaza are a ethnic Iranian Group which are referred as Kurds".


He uses a source also pointing out that Zaza are called Kurds by their neighbors and still changes ethnic kurdish Group to "Parthian Group" while in his own source there is no single sentence talking about Zaza being Parthians.


the User Erdemaslancan is from Turkey. I don´t want to claim something against him but if you know the political issues with Kurds and Turkey you can much assume that he only has a political Agenda. otherwise he wouldn´t delete two times, 9 acknowledged sources of linguists and ethnologists by only one Source which is used to be Iranica another Encyclopedia and not a scientific Person.


Here are the points which made me suspicious about "Erdemaslancan"´s intentions.

1. He changes my part of the Text from "ethnic Kurdish" into ethnic Partian. first of all. The Group is called Parthians and not Partian.

2. He deletes all of the Sources I linked to(9 in number) which many of them are scientific and puts one Source against it. One of my Sources is Paul Ludwig whom is one of the main Sources of the whole article. So it is somehow wrong to delete some parts of HIS works while mentioning other parts (like the linguistic part) made by him.

3. He uses this article from Iranica as a Source for his claim Zazas being of Parthian descend while in the whole article there is not one sentence mentioning anything like Zaza being a Parthian Group.

4. Even if Tthe Parthians were their ancestors. Still they would have nothing to do with the recent identity of Zaza because the Parthians are a ancient Group. It makes as much sense as saying "Tuscans are not Italian, they are of Roman origin"

5. That he used a source where there is no mentioning of Zazas being descend from Parthians to make the Zaza look like descend from them, shows me that the only thing he might be after was vandalism. Vandalism usually benefits them. They know that cause usually the Article is closed and they got what they wanted. It is not in his interests to contribute something to Wikipedia otherwise he wouldn´t have simply delete scientific sources and added a source he most probably didn´t even red himself before and only changed one part of the whole article. And this was the kurdish part.

6. Even in his Source there is no mentioning of Zaza being Kurdish or not. Funnily there is one time mentioned that they were called Kurds even if they were distinguished from other Kurds (probably due the language/linguistic) but still they were considered and called Kurds.

7. The Article is about Zaza being a Iranian People. This isn´t wrong but at the same time this doesen´t meant that they aren´t Kurds. Because the Kurdish Group also belongs to the Iranian family. For more details see the Iranian languages article.

The whole thing at least for me seems like this. The User who edited the article just wanted to make Chaos (Vandalism) So the article gets closed.

I am sorry if I sound a bit too emotional. But it is really exasperating to see some People having the opportunity to making their politics over my People and get away with it.


I hope this Problem will be solved.

hope to hear from you. Have a nice day.Wikisupporting (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Well thanks for the advice. but first could you change the article back like it was before the User Erdemaslancan did edit it because he did remove sources without any evidence and I think the wrong version is protected because no where in the article is mentioned that Zaza are a ethnic partian group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Erdemaslancan only edits about once a month, so I've unprotected the article and you can revert him. You might want to read WP:The Wrong Version. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Thank you. Thats what I thought. Nothing useful to contribute on Wikipedia. He is just trying to make his political Agenda work here. I think I will change the Article to "the Zaza are a Iranic Group which are ethnic- and culturally referred as Kurds", because this is also the Case on his Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 07:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Now I did change the article. And I even used one of Erdemaslancans added sources to it. If you want you can protect it now. As I have already reported the User Erdemaslancan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 08:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you have given a stament on the "Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts" board.

The reason why some users come and remove sources and try to prove the Zaza not being ethnically Kurdish is because of politics. Many Turks and some assimilated diaspora Zaza try to change the Zaza article by using the linguistic issue as a reason to claim the Zaza as a separate group. This is only a issue since the political movement of Kurds developed in Turkey. So I beg you if next time someone removes or adds new Source to claim Zaza ethnically as non kurdish. Please make sure if the source is making this statement about Zazaki and kurdish using linguistic issues or is talking about Zaza being not Kurds in ethno-cultural way because this makes really a difference and people usually equate linguistic with ethnicity/identity while this is not the case. This is also the reason why some of the people having a political agenda were unfortunately so successfully in Wikipedia. They use the linguistic part as a way to create a new identity and try so to split the Kurds from inside and weak the political movement in Turkey. Thats why it are usually users from Turkey or sometimes Germany (where the Turks are the biggest minority) are involved in this. This whole issue is based on politics. The best examples that a language doesen´t makes a identity are the Afghans, Swiss, Indian, Chinese. What makes a identity is not the language. We all know that a language is called after its people and not the other way around. The most important thing in forming a identity are history, culture snd all over it the self-designation in my opinion and not only the language . I can be a perfect German speakers this wouldn´t change my identity if I consider myself as a Kurd.

Hope I could give you at least a small picture about the political issue going on in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You raise some interesting and important issues about ethnic identity. Unfortunately I simply don't have the time to follow this up and will have to remove myself from this debate. I know this is disappointing to you but it's necessary for me. You might also wish to raise an WP:RfC but look at the other links also on the RfC page. If you need help doing it (as opposed to my taking part in it) I can offer that. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello Dougweller. Please have a look over the Zaza article. Another user is making ethno vandalism and editing the whole Article and changing the kurdish parts by using linguistic issues and not a single Source claiming Zaza not being kurdish. I even started a talk with him asked him for any sources more than 4 times he couldn´t find some. Was silence but after I have gone offline he started to edit and remove all sources like if this is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Then you need to do as I suggest above, start an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Sorry but what is an RFC? Dougweller he started a discussion with him on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaza_people#Neutrality

I asked him 4 times for sources for his claim but he didn´t answered instead of that he accused me of things I haven´t done. Than he started to constantly remove my sources and replace them with sources talking about linguistic position of Zazaki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Ah Ok my fault didn´t saw you have posted above. Well OI will look what this RFC is. Wikisupporting (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


I have red the article about "RFO" but to be serious I didn´t understand how this works exactly. Could you if you have some time try to explain me this function. It doesen´t have to be now or today if you have some time i will be glad about this.

However I think I might edit the Zaza article opening into the Zaza consider themselves as Kurds instead of are Kurds and are counted as such by ethnologists I think this seems less "nationalistic" for some Users who can´t live with the reality that Zaza belong and consider themselves as Kurds.Wikisupporting (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What you need to do is summarise the issue into 2 or 3 sentences at the most. You can do that here and I'll see if I can help. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


ok thank you for the help. Well like i mentioned. The user takabeg is accusing me for "kurdish nationalism" just because i used scientific sources and asked him to do so too. however he didn´t gave any sources but accused me for things i haven´t done. Than when I have gone offline . he changed the article permanently even while he couldn´t give me any reason why this should have been made. He removed all articles which were about the ethnicity of zaza and their self designation and added sources about the linguistic issue again which are already used in the linguistic part. And when I asked him why he did this and changed the article back. He just gave me a joke like answer and kept going to edit the article.

Here is the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaza_people#Neutrality Wikisupporting (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Dougweller please help me. The User Takabeg has reported the article to another admin by claiming I am making a edit war and the admin is from Japan has probably not much knowledge about the Issue. He removed all of the Sources. Could you please talk to him. He said if you do confirm that I wans´t doing a edit war he would change it back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kwamikagami#Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian scripts

Somebody reverted my last edit in this article. However, it was supported it by many third party references, and the content was important for the article. This article is under AfD. If I want to avoid the deletion, it is reasonable to improve it. I already deleted all the references to my own works. What is the problem with my contributions? This is the civilized solution: reverting my edits? I trust in your objectivity and the due process of the Wikipedia. Thanks, Gabor -Rovasscript (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You may have removed your work as references from them but you also left in the claims based on it without referencing them. And you continue to cite yourself in Szarvas Rovas inscription which you created just yesterday [19]. You have now created nine "rovas" articles all of which are now at AfD, including the three you made in last 24 hours. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
First, you have right: in the Szarvas Rovas inscription I left by chance reference to my own work, I will improve it. However, I refer to Prof. Vékony's results. However, he published in Hungarian. Moreover, I cited the standard proposal of the Hungarian Standards Institution (the proposal was written by me its true). Please, understand: these results are not my results. These result are available - in Hungarian.
I must complaint: my works are qualified "pseudo-scientific" many times in this debate. But I carefully translated the Hungarian results and I used correct and accurate references. What is the pseudo-scientific in this work of mine? Another incorrect qualification: "nationalistic". However, there is not any nationalism in this works. I never refer to "popular" or amateur literature. All of the referred authors are professional and officially acknowledged. I think these two Rovas scripts are the heritage of the humanity. Please, point out any term, expression in my works which are nationalistic. Thanks. -Rovasscript (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you discuss these issues at the current AfD discussions (all eight of them). I was merely pointing out here on this page that you continue to create articles on subjects which are already under dispute. They appear to be attempts to push your point of view and research (even if you remove the reference to it from the articles) and as such this is becoming disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people

Hi Dougweller. In the article Zaza people, one user committed vandalism 1, 2 with removing sourced information. Becuase formerly I have been interested in this issue, I know that there are several theses and theories about their ethnic identity and language, and furthermore, political propaganda of the Turkish government and Kurdish nationalis' are continuing over Zaza people. But I didn't want to edit that articel, because I don't like edit wars. However, yesterday I investigated those soruces (like at the article Timur) as follows (from 1 to 10, some of them are not Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources):

Kurds according to ethnologists and also consider themselves as such. [1][2][3] [4] [5][6][7][8][9][10]

After reating them, I tried to improve the article by WP:NPOV. User tried to prove one theory (Kurdish nationalists' one) by his/her own POV. So he/she used sources inaccurately with his/her own explanation. When you have a time you can control sources. Anyway, for now how can we stop his vandalism ? Have a nice weekend. See you. Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the section at the very top of this page. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Takabeg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


All sources which were added before are shown and no one of us did remove them unlike you. You are just not able to separate linguistic from ethnicity and this is your problem not mine. And for the for the hundredth time. I did not remove sources which already existed I only replaced the link with a other showing exactly the same source. And those sources also were added by me and about a study saying us that Zaza consider themselves as Kurds. Why should I remove a sources which actually is supporting me?

And beside that you did remove sources not me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaza_people&action=historysubmit&diff=437361252&oldid=437335876


I already explained all of this here. And i don´t want to do it again just because you don´t want to understand it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaza_people#Neutrality


Wikisupporting (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaiha hypothesis

Hi Doug,

Yes. I understand your concern about use of userspace, perhaps I shouldn't be using Wikipedia sandbox to put together a paper. That is what I am doing, putting a presentation together that could conceivably become an internet meme oneday. I am in breach of crystal ball rules but do those apply to sandboxes? You might have to guide me, is there a rule against that? I'm sure you'll know better than me so hope the tags you provided will be sufficient not to inhibit this side-project. I will bow to your knowledge of the rules on the matter however. I purchased a book called "Archaeology of Lebanon" from LLC books today and it was simply a book of Wikipedia articles. I think I have written more about the actual archaeology of Lebanon on here than was in the book! This is going to be really tricky if the hypothesis proves true that there was a single domestication event for emmer and barley by a single human group in the Aaiha plain. I see it as working within the ethos of Wikipedia however and my work on that page will certainly create some great new articles as offshoots to fascinate you with, like Iraq Ed-Dubb next with some interesting transitional wheat and barley dates around 9250 BCE in nothern Jordan. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg

I reverted you, I have access to the Moorehead article.... --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Gen and Genesis

Dearest Doug

On Book of Genesis, someone has put a hatnote up the top telling careless readers that if they type in Gen they'll be taken to a page about a book in the bible, instead of, say, a page about a certain military rank. In my view anyone lazy enough to type in Gen and hit Return gets what he deserves and vice versa, bit given this is apparently an issue in some quarters, would it not be better to send careless tappers to a disambiguation page? I have no idea how this is done, so I thought I'd hand it over to you, since I know you have tons of free time. PiCo (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Email from User:Kiranerys

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— kiranerys(u,c) 08:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thank you very much for the barnstar. I really appreciate it! :) kiranerys(u,c) 17:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Indian, 'Indian' and IVC technology and inventions

Hi. It seems that you are new to the debate, so allow me to brief you very briefly: the discussion has been dragging on since April, with three major votes each of which has established a majority of users which is not content with the current title and scope respectively. On the other hand, there has not been a clear majority for a change of these, either. The main effects have been the establishment of separate Pakistani and IVC lists, which, with the main issue unresolved now as much as then, unsettled. Clearly, the article is a classic example of lack of consensus to change something not being equivalent to consensus to keep it.

Basically, I am telling you this article needs attention and clear direction of an admin, otherwise you are wasting your time if you still try to establish consensus by talk. It is not possible, you will see. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

When will the RFC end?

Hello Dougweller. It is now almost over a Week since the Zazaki Article was closed/protected and the RFO has started. Since than not one single Source was posted which could refute mine. the User Takabeg himself has since than not even posted one single source or made himself any work to support his claims. In contrary some Users even posted sources which supported my view that all or almost all Zaza consider themselves Kurds. For more information please see the discussion page of the article under sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaza_people#a_couple_sources

In my opinion again a Zaza Nationalist was able to create chaos just that the article get closed under the "protection" banner and again be successful with his not supported "evidences".

If the article is not going to be changed back to my version. I beg you see the sources and at least change the part with "many Zaza actually consider themselves as Kurds" to "almost all/the large majority" or let me edit the article this time I give you my word I will not even mentioned that they are ethnically Kurdish. I will simply write that almost all consider themselves as such because this is supported by all sources which talks about this issue. I still can´t understand how his claims are taken seriously. The only thing he did was, going around from Admin board to Admin board accuse me for vandalism even the Admin Kwami recognized this and already admonished him

I hope to hear from you when you have the time because this article and issue is important for me but it seems for the User takabeg, who seems to have a connection with turkey it is almost only a "political issue" where he doesen´t even makes himself work to bring up the sources to support his claims which he made all over the discussion boards. He seems just to be happy that the article was again blocked and this was his only goal it seems. Wikisupporting (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Rooney"

Dear Doug (If I may? Am I right that this is you first name?). Thanks so very much for your help with this rather silly but ugly situation - and, also, for your thoughtful and informed comments. I am so relieved. You have been most kind indeed. Cheers and loads of best wishes are flowing your way from Beijing this morning. John Hill (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks so much for stepping in and resolving a potentially nasty situation - I am very grateful for your skilled assistance. John Hill (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Venus of Hohle Fels

Hi again Doug, It's been a long time, but I see that you've moved up from moderating sci.arch. to moderating Wikipedia. Congratulations!

With respect to the COI question you raised about my contribution to the Venus of Hohle Fels, I just wanted to tell you that, in accordance with WIKI guidelines, I added a notice to my user page announcing that I have a COI because I've published articles on this and the entries I've edited. Since I'm relatively new to this, however, I'm not sure whether doing so allows me to now edit entries that I do have a COI in, or whether publishing in a field -- paradoxically and seemingly illogically -- prevents people from editing entries in that field?

In either case, the articles I wrote were refereed and published in reputable journals by specialists who evidently saw some value in the views I was espousing. But it appears that many of the people who edited the same entries I did -- in some cases redacting or entirely removing my additions -- never published anything on these subjects, deducibly because they have relatively little or no expertise in those fields.

I should note that the position I added to the Venus of Hohle Fels is the subject of a forthcoming "Brief Communication" in "Nature" questioning Nicholas Conard's and Paul Mellars's conclusion that the Venus of Hohle Fels was sculpted to depict a headless woman as a "fertility" symbol. Berlant (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Berlant

Sorry to take so long to reply. Yes, a long time, good to see you. Not quite the same as moderation however, more to do with behavior, copyright issues, vandals, etc. We welcome people with expertise and who have published, and adding the notice was an excellent idea. We do worry about editors adding their own sources (you'll see complaints at WP:COIN and you might want to look at that and its archives). WP:COI really covers everything though. When looking at your edits in relationship to WP:SELFCITE what came to mind was the sentence about WP:UNDUE " In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others, as in a review article.". I felt, and it was just a feeling, that there was too much detail in relationship to the rest of the article (in at least on instance and I think more, sorry I can't recall which right now but I think it's the Venus of Hohle Fels, maybe another one as well). The other thing that can cause a COI editor grief is if they could be shown to be aware of criticisms of their work but avoid mentioning those. That would fall foul of WP:NPOV when coupled with the COI. Short answer: edit, cite you own work where it's published in clearly reliable sources (I'm hoping you've read the appropriate links for that), avoid giving your work undue weight, if anyone reverts take it to the article talk page, don't try to force it back in. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Your edits here [20] look far too assertive to me. If you want a discussion of them you could ask at WP:NPOVN which would also show good faith (although it's a bad time of year for that board). You might want to look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)

I also think 'ancient mycologists' is an anachronism, how widely used is the phrase? Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, Doug -- especially with an open mind and links to the WIKI guidelines I need to become familiar with.

As I admittedly do have a tendency to write assertively, I often qualify my assertions, and did in this case, with the phrase "arguably, if not certainly." I believe, however, that I am familiar enough with the world view of the people who have contributed to and edited the entry for "Entheogen" to surmise that they'll consider my addition thought provoking, as opposed to "too assertive." But, if anyone does question it, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with him or her, and redact it if necessary.

As for the phrase 'ancient mycologists', I don't think it's either widely used or anachronistic in that (1) a mycologist is simply someone who studies fungi, (2) 'ancient' refers to the period before 476 BPE, and (3) an ancient mycologist is thus anyone (e.g., Pliny The Elder) who was studying fungi before that date. If anything, I suppose I could have been more specific by using 'prehistoric' or 'prototypal', instead of 'ancient,' but, imo, the point is moot.

Hopefully, however, the people who read it won't be as semantically focused as you are :-), and none of my future edits will take up as much of your time as these did. Take care! Berlant (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Berlant

ValloVir block

Forget something important? Prodego talk 17:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I thought I'd done that! Thanks for catching it. Useless block without it. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Atlantis

Thanks for your input. I have reworded the entry, added some more info and provided references. Cheers, --Phagopsych (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost Worlds.org

Don't know if you've ever followed links to this site or not, [21], but I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with them. I've read thru a few of their articles and quit a few of them push fringe theories, usually involving a Mexican origin for the Mississippian cultures of Georgia. In fact it seems to be a pervasive thread that runs thru the majority of their articles that I have looked at. This is a theory that I believe has no acceptance in academia and is a debunked fringe theory at best. They have plenty of useful info otherwise, lots of neat graphics, etc, but their focus on this idea bothers me. What are your thoughts on it? Heiro 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask around. Meanwhile, here's another of his websites [22]. Evidently the lost worlds work was a Master's project, here's info about the video. [23]. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that first one doesn't give me alot of hope, lol. Heiro 18:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

== Chicha ==

I believe the correct source is a Don Luis G. Iza, see for example page 307 of this 1884 book. I honestly have no idea whether the "G" stands for "Goatherd", but I have corrected the article and added this reference. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Best, Btyner (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but why should it be in the article at all? It doesn't seem significant - if this is the only suggestion that the word is Nahuatl and that is from a Mexican playwright then I don't think it belongs in the article. Dougweller (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

NSW NPWS

I noticed that you removed the photograph from the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, I had a feeling it was an hoax photograph but couldn't prove it. If there was an OTRS sent or somewhere they made the complaint as I'll be listing the photograph for DR on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ticket 2011071210004476. Thanks, I was wondering about that. How did you notice it? Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have the article watch listed, must have edited it at some stage and had noticed when they added the photograph (my feeling of an hoax was the uniform and the vehicle which also lacks the logo). Had noticed you also stated "complaint" in the edit summary and thought it would have to be sent via OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Very sensible - and astute of you to notice the lack of logo. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@@@== Jan Smuts ==

I see you are an administrator. That is a bit of a shock. But no matter. I have other things to do than to spend my time on Wikipedia. Cheers. Enjoy. pietopper (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No reason to be shocked. A lot of us are pretty intelligent, it's not just me. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I see your devotion to NPOV clearly shining through on reverting an adequately (perhaps not perfectly)sourced quotation from Aristotle that I spent some time to research. Clearly you do not want the article on Holism to be dignified by anything like a classical reference. Why don't you take a little peek at the section in the Jan Smuts article dealing with segregation? It is just littered with dead links and references which point to sources that do not even mention the subject. Personally, I would just wholesale delete there, but I just know what a shitstorm will follow. Anyway, I won't be editing here no more, no more. pietopper (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that what you call research is, I suspect, what we call original research. What you needed to do is find source meeting our criteria that made the claim you made. I'm not interested in the Smuts article, but I did delete a statement in the Gandhi article about Kaffir having a different meaning because the source didn't mention him, so I don't think you can use NPOV against me. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not using anything against you and don't plan to. I promised myself when I joined Wikipedia that this was to relieve stress, not to create it. Further, I did not make any "claim" whatsoever, I merely pointed out that "the sum is greater than the parts" echoes the quote from Aristotle, which it plainly does. pietopper (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine, and I don't doubt your good faith with that, but it's fundamental policy that such statements need to be cited to reliable sources (reliable by our criteria). Our own research has no place here unless it's published in such a source. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection of Microfinance

Hey buddy, could you please semi-protect the Microfinance article? If you glance at the history, you'll see a ton of edits by IP 122.165.30.38 persistently adding an external link to promote a Microfinance software solutions company that is neither notable nor relevant to the article. Numerous people have been reverting his additions, yet he persists. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 05:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As it's just one apparently static IP and you and others have been reverting it, I don't think it qualifies. But I've given the IP a final warning (if they'd been warned each time I'd have blocked) and will block if they do it again - but someone will have to tell me, I'm not adding it to the thousands on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, works for me. Thank you. I'm not well-read on what the administrative standards are for blocking, semi-protecting, and all that - frankly I don't even know what the proper procedures are for notifying admins or seeking their help, so do pardon me if I request something out of the ordinary from time to time. I guess the Administrative Noticeboard is where I can perhaps read about this stuff? John Shandy` • talk 14:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The top of WP:ANI and WP:AN tell you what those boards are for, but for protection go to WP:RPP. Or use WP:Twinkle. And you can always ask me! Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, "Republic of Texas (group)" and another, "Legal status of Texas" has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Campaign of the Mallians

Im just trying to find people to read my article and edit it. I don't care who. If you'd be willing to help. That'd be awsome. THanks for telling me.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat2011

I notice that in June you commented at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/archive1#Resolution_3 that there might be a case to take the issue of Thisthat2011 to RFC/U. I have no idea if that happened but note that the contributor is causing issues at Talk:Kurmi, Talk:Romila Thapar, Wikitalk:India and numerous other talk pages (including my own).

His/her edits are consuming vast amounts of time that other people (including me - yes, I am involved) could be spending doing something that actually benefits the project. Is RFC/U the only way to deal with this? The user has had numerous warnings since May but nothing seems to be sinking in. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Thisthat is a new editor, only a few weeks old[[24]] but quite prolific (by my standards - 2500+ edits), so he is bound to have made lots of mistakes, everybody makes mistakes, for example there is confusion with the term Other Backward Class, in the Kurmi article, which I tried to correct, but was undone, there is misinterpretation of sources, of course user talk:Sitush is partially right, but I wished to make as little change in the article as possible, and correct a mistake (here is the diff[25]) -officially Kurmis are OBC, C stands for Class and not Caste, and wished the established editors to tweak it, but Sitush did not do that but simply undid my edit, leaving the mistake in the article, my point is every body makes mistakes you have to AGF. ((2)(a)What editors don't seem to understand is that Shudra is a slur, in independent India there is no place for caste heirarchy. It has been abolished.[26] I have given ghits because one may choose the source one prefers. In the article there are six instances of that word, which shouldn't have been used except in quotations, in historical contexts, its use should be dealt with the same caution that one would use with the word negro or eskimo. Editors who want to use it, may be more accurate in their argument, in the little things, but they are missing the bigger picture. Its use is a demonstration of lack of sensitivity. For example there were communities that were categorised as criminal by the British Colonial government in India, ethnic profiling if you may call it that. But that is history, would anyone still like to use that lable ex-criminal, more over when the original designation a mistake. You can't categorise humans like that. (3)If I am not clear, please ask don't assume. (4)My point is that the pro-S****a, is missing the bigger picture and needs to AGF and understand the grievance of the anti camp regarding the Kurmi page. (5)Locking is not a bad idea, but it should be followed by discussions on the talk page.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Diff of a perception of the issue by an emic editor, MatthewVanitas, although I do not claim to be neutral, I wonder if you have any real familiarity with this subject... The article is asserting that Kurmis are a Shudra jati in India. Fact is, nobody in India is a Shudra. Do you know that it is illegal in India to describe anyone as a "Shudra"? That "Shudra" has become a taboo word in India..."[[27]], Matthew is another editor in the Kurmi discussion.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If the Wikimedia Foundation is to meet its goal of reaching a readership of 1 billion by 2015 and increasing editors from the Global South by 37%, then relatively new editors like ThisThat2011 are the ones we have to encourage to follow rules, Wikipedia policies and more importantly to stick around. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Zuggernaut poses a good point, but also cuts to a very critical issue: how do we go about integrating new editors into our culture when the very nature of what constitutes evidence, neutrality, and civil discourse are radically different than our own? As an example of what I mean, if you take a look at many high quality, mainstream Indian newspapers, you'll see much more editorializing within regular "factual" stories. Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly not--it was even common practice in US and European newspapers until fairly recently. And what about the willingness to rely on mytho-religious or oral "evidence" as "truth"? Again, I'm not being disparaging here--I actually wish there were a way for Wikipedia to incorporate oral tradition and other non "RS" knowledge, but I know that we can't (or we devolve into endless, unsolvable arguments) and that most current users wouldn't want to, but the very different cultural mindset is making the issue challenging. Now, this is obviously outside of the scope of Dougweller's talk page, but I actually ask these questions in seriousness. This is not me saying "this is an impossible goal". This is me saying "This is a difficult goal, more difficult than I think we/the Foundation first thought. How do we accomplish it"? I've raised similar issues regarding copyvios and editors from some East Asian cultures (where copying isn't just allowed, it is often venerated as an act of great respect). I think that many times we (i.e., those from the science, capitalist dominated West) tend to assume that our views evidence, intellectual property, and analysis are universal, when they are not; if we fail to account for differences, we inevitably drive away good faith contributors (which may, ultimately, be what we want to do, if we decide our core principles matter more). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I've interacted with Thisthat2011, Yogesh Khandke, and Zuggernaut a bit, and would put in some support for all of them. They have all been tendacious at times, but I think their hearts are in the right place and the main problem is one of learning how to collaborate in the Wikipedia style, along with realizing when a battle is no longer worth fighting, and toning down their rather zealous feelings about how India is portrayed on Wikipedia. I don't doubt that Indian topics are in much need of improvement, and editors like these three are clearly capable of improving things, and I enjoy, as a kind of uninvolved bystander, seeing what they are up to. From what I've seen, tendaciousness tends to subside over time, with Zuggernaut leading in this regard, followed by Yogesh Khandke, then Thisthat2011. Anyway, to summarize, while I understand some editors' frustration, I am optimistic about Indian editors like these learning, in time, how to better work for the overall good of Wikipedia. In the process, perhaps some harshness may be for the best, as with Zuggernaut's topic ban. But I think it would be a shame and a loss to drive such people away entirely. There must be a balance between the carrot and stick, no? My apologies to the three of you if my comments here sound patronizing. Pfly (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no desire to drive anyone away but I am frustrated by tendentious editing, which even Yogesh has tried to explain to TT2011. The points at issue in the Kurmi article have been addressed time and again on the talk page for that article. I have, indeed, now done so once more in response to comments from Yogesh. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have much fewer concerns about the cultural issue if some of these new Indi-centric editors would try working on some topics they are not immediately invested in. I don't spend all my time covering my own nation, religion, political affiliation, etc., and frankly I would feel embarassed if I found myself constantly being an apologist for my background, disputing cited evidence from people that were not emotionally involved in the topic. Sitush and I have no reason to be "attacking" any Indian caste, and speaking for myself I'd be lucky if I can tell a Kurmi from an Irishman, but I can certainly read secondary sources, note disparities in coverage, and attempt to correct them. Mayhaps there could be some attempt to guide "heart in the right place" new editors to topics for which they'll find an easier time applying objectivity? From what we've seen over the last couple months, TT2011 digs his teeth into India issues and can simply not be pried off of them no matter how many people try to calmly discuss things with xim. Xe is also particularly bad about not reading others' rebuttals, but then reading exactly what xe wants to see between the lines of secondary sources. Xer obtuseness almost comes across as trolling, as it's almost difficult to believe someone could ignore so much discussion and keep barelling on heedless. In any case, if someone is trying to deal with xim to keep xim from getting blocked as highly disrupting (just look what xe's done to Talk:Kurmi in just a matter of days), I suggest getting him working on some botany articles, or Chilean naval history, or just anything where xe's not rallying to the Indian banner at every turn. Not to blow my own horn, but I'd argue one of my greatest utilities as an India-topic editor is that I've never been there, don't have any emotional investment in it, and so can edit without getting wrapped up in emotion, pretty much as though I were writing about Narnia or Never-Never Land. Detachment is awfully comfy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for information, I have mentioned some of the comments here at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.-MangoWong (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Hi Doug. There was an error in the "Tree shaping " close, such that the section Arbitrators active on this case no longer shows the active arbs for that case. Paul August ☎ 16:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Xeno has now "fixed" this by this edit. Paul August ☎ 17:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that there is a discrepancy in the number of active arbs listed in the ACA template: 15 active, 2 inactive (Chase me, and Xeno), and the PD page: 13 active arbs. Which is correct? Paul August ☎ 17:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Xeno has now made them agree with this edit. Paul August ☎ 17:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have checked, I expressed my concerns on the clerks list that the procedure at that point was wrong - I see Xeno's edit summary suggested a possible problem with "Casenav's transclusion of ACA". Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia books

Hi Dougweller, thanks for the info at my talk page. Just had a discussion at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests about listing a book of a special collection of wiki articles in the "See also" section. It seems, the Wiki rules forbid that. It is a pity because that book is more then just listing the articles. It bounds together related articles that are not linked within Wiki and that is new information and good synergism. Anyway, it seems, nothing can be done. Thanks, Fluctuator (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Old Tesetement

You're right, not technically vandalism. But see burden of evidence. --StormCommander (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I plan to try to reference what I can. And deal appropriately with what can't. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

You keep modifying my edits

Hi, this is the umpteenth time you have modified my edits. Now, you being the more diversified editor, I respect your right, but if this continues, I might feel specifically targeted. If memory serves right, this began when the user AlimNaz wildly targeted and edited various pages and did not respond to debate on the talk pages. I believe I have been very accommodating and patient with his brutish un intelligent behavior of his and I have always respected your editing of my input as well. May I remind you respectfully that neither of you are specialists in the said field. On the other hand he has been undoing the work of Ph.Ds and specialists and on many accounts you have backed him up as well. Recently, in the article Afghana, a reference verification tag was put in, to which I replied, I verified all the references, and you undid my edit, even though I am in the WikiProject Afganistan & Pashtun. If you have doubts about my verification check, I am ready to provide you with online reference check links for references that can be verified from online resources. Am I not the right person because my method of removing the tag is incorrect or because some people just dont like me?? Please enlighten me!! Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You are the wrong person because most of them were sources you added, thus someone else should be verifying them, not you. That seems pretty obvious to me. You don't have to be a specialist to verify a source is being represented correctly. And here I had to revise your text because you had written that "and many western historians argue that King Saul (Talut) had five sons not four." whereas they were only reporting what Muslim historians had said. That gave me some cause for concern about the way you are representing your sources. I'll also note that the editor who tagged the article was an editor who hadn't edited the article and should be assumed to be independent. I note that you didn't ask him why he'd tagged it. That would have been a sensible thing to do before removing the tag.
Can you provide quotations from the sources that are not online? Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Pukhtunyar, You can however help by improving those references and making use of a completely filled out Cite template wherever possible. This will aid others in verifying these references. Please take a moment to ensure that the citations are correct as well. Spelling and capitalization mistakes in book and journal titles dont help inspire confidence.
Also, consider thining out some of the references. While some claims, such as this subject's relationship to the word "Afghan", do definitely benefit from multiple citations, even for such a pivital claim, 5 is a bit much dont you think? 8 references for lineage is also overkill. Such a short article doesn't need 60+ footnotes to 45 references. Not only does so many references makes the article more difficult to read, some readers may question the importance of the subject simply based on the number of references in such a short article. References are there to demonstrate where the material in the article originated, not demonstrate the notability of the subject.--RadioFan (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is my aim. I will try to help with the tags and references. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Rational Response Squad/Brian Sapient

You mean that one edit by 65.69.248.9? It would not be a bad idea. Nightscream (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Berlant and Westcar Papyrus

Berlant has inserted a long section in the Westcar Papyrus article about his own hypothesis—published in an ethnopharmacology journal—that an incident in one of the stories refers to a connection between the crowns of Egypt and an entheogenic mushroom. The addition was reverted once by User:Nephiliskos and then restored by Berlant without discussion. I'm not sure how to handle this, because Berlant is much more qualified than the average occult loon wandering in from the Internet. Egyptologists generally believe that there was little, if any, ecstatic religious experience in Egypt, but Berlant's hypothesis makes this mushroom a key facet of Egyptian religion. I don't know if Egyptologists have rebutted Berlant or paid any attention to him at all, but at the least, his addition seems like undue weight to me. A. Parrot (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I know him of old. He may still have a post to me above. Probably should just have a sentence. I can ask some of my Egyptologist friends. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed it and then discovered he'd posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt asking it not be removed. Que sera. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Afgahana Talk

Dear Dougweller, please follow the talk page discussion on the page Afghana. I posted to your query... Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bro, I replied on the Afghana page, please take a look. Thanx. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for all your patience and time. As a suggestion, It would be nice if you used as a quotation references 1 and 7 from the references I provided on the Afghana talk page References at Talk Afghana and backed it up with one or two additional references. What I will do in the mean time (and I hope you dont mind) is that I will edit the page in that way, and then tomorrow you can view, edit and change it as you like.
Thanks again. Take care.

Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Semitic DNA - Lemba

DougWeller - I noticed your reversion of 9th July in "Lemba people". The earlier edit of that date was not actually mine, but Spurdle and Jenkins may offer enough evidence to qualify as "significant"? - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8900243 ... What is your particular threshold, to justify using that word?

In their Abstract, Spurdle and Jenkins state: The results suggest that > or = 50% of the Lemba Y chromosomes are Semitic in origin, approximately 40% are Negroid, and the ancestry of the remainder cannot be resolved. [Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1996 Nov;59(5):1126-33...The origins of the Lemba "Black Jews" of southern Africa: evidence from p12F2 and other Y-chromosome markers].--DLMcN (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Dolma" page edit

Hi. I edited the page with a new information that had a reference. Could you explain me the reason you have reverted it? Nikoghosyanm (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You removed "cuisines of the former Ottoman Empire and surrounding regions such as Russia, Iran and the Caucasus and Central and South Asia." That should be in the [[WP:LEAD[[ as it's in the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nikoghosyanm (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverts by Sitush on Kurmi

I edited Kurmi page at two places, one was Bold, another was simply a correction, which Sitush had earlier acknowledged as a mistake. Despite that he has reverted. FYI. I understand that you are the admin who is responsible for locking and unlocking.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not content dispute discussed here. It is editor behaviour. Still wrong place?Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Nimat Allah al-Harawi

Hi Doug, please check out the talk page on Afghana. Talk:Afghana Thank you. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude

Dougweller, you have an untiring attitude toward Wikipedia. How have you been? I could not keep up and shamefully have been away busy with work. Anyhow, just droping by to say hello and wish you and your family the best. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind, and the best of you and yours. I'm retired and my wife calls this my community service.For my sins I now also spend time answering email to Wikipedia/the Foundation. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mazar fact tag

My bad, missed the citation. Poliocretes (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Old discussion revived

Would you be interested in commenting on an old discussion you started? Talk:Mother goddess#Decline Thank you. USchick (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Users and edit warring.

Hello Dougweller.

I think this might interest you. Here is the talk page of the User Takabeg. it seems he did not only start a edit war with me. He does it with everything what might be against his turkish views. Be it Armenian or be it Kurdish. As a Admin please take a better look at this User. Something is very weird about him. It seems he edits things even before they are resolved simply to get a ban on the article. He works with System. He removes every Sources WITHOUT a Reason given just like he did with mine even while I asked him for sources or reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Takabeg#Disruptive_editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Takabeg#Adding_unreferenced_banner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Takabeg#Armenian_placenames_in_Turkey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Takabeg#Refs_removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Takabeg#Tughra_edit_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Takabeg#Vankli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Takabeg#Anti-Kurdish_vandalism

I am still asking my self how a user, provoking closing of articles and obviously most of them at Kurdish and Armenian articles, can still work like if nothing happened. (You might know the relation between Kurds,Armenians and Turkey.)


If you don´t know about Turkeys anti Kurdish work on the Internet you might read this if you want. The part with "many Zaza" is copied by the former Wikipedia version of the "Zaza People" article.

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34423&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=26&cHash=c82a6a69c6

And recently a man which was arrested in the "Ergenekon trial" (Ergenekon is a group of People working in high positions of the Turkish state) came out as one of the provocateurs working on the Net claiming themselves as Zazas and making Propaganda on Internet Sites and also Encyclopedias like Wikipedia.

http://www.haberdiyarbakir.com/news_detail.php?id=41870

I also informed the admin kwamigami about this Issue.

greets Wikisupporting (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got visitors until Monday night, so may not be able to look at this. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


No problem Dougweller. wish you nice weekend. greets Wikisupporting (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

History of astrology - for your attention possibly

As someone who has contributed discussion in the past - you may be interested in noticing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_astrology#Deletion_of_unreferenced_content Cheers, Zac Δ talk 00:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken to ANI. You didn't sign your post on the talk page by the way. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, late night and trying to tie up a lot of stuff at once, before I go away for a few days. Will check your post at ANI, thanks Zac Δ talk 08:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I posted this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pointy_AfDs before I noticed it was marked resolved, so I didn't know if you would see it there: Please see Talk:Militant atheism/July2011Razor for an example of how Peter carries out his "word razoring" — he describes his reasoning for the changes in depth on the main article talk page. His announced intent sounds much more radical than it is in reality and it seems to me to be a fairly reasonable approach. Mojoworker (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Iroquois

I reverted you at Iroquois, using the vandal button by a slip of the finger. Sorry!

I only wanted to return the article to having the single dab in the hatnote, taking the reader to Iroquois (disambiguation) where they can find the helicopter and whatever else is associated. The helicopter does not need a separate entry in the hatnote. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. The editor who did that, though, wants to change the name of Mohawk people as he sees the name as insulting. He put that in a template on the article as well. Problem is, he needs to convince the Sovereign Mohawk Nation to change its name first! I removed the template as it was announcing to the world that the name they use for their nation is an insult. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
No big deal, but in that sort of situation I make a null edit to allow me to explain my actions in an edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought I made exactly such a null edit, but I see in the article history that it didn't take. I'll redo the null edit. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder AfD

Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajik people. Obvious where this guy is coming from ideologically - I've asked for that AfD to be speedily closed as well. Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you see this?

User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt - It's another OR piece to advance Wyatt and his particular interpretation of Biblical and Egyptian history. LadyofShalott 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

So what is an acceptible solution

What solution can you offer that allows some discussion (in main space) about who was the Pharaoh contemporary with Abraham, Joseph, Moses (and also the Isralites who were in Egypt for 430 years and grew from 70 to 2 million in that time). I understand about what you say about original research and reliable sources but your policies put Christianity at a disadvantage because you do not accept the Bible as a reliable source of Historical information.--Drnhawkins (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 08:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply to pointy AfDs at ANI

I have taken the liberty to move this thread out of the thread above that it became part of, probably because of my typo. See response at the bottom. Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Life intervened to take me away from Wikipedia for the weekend, but I posted a reply to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Pointy_AfDs thread. That may be inappropriate because it is now archived, and because you have already closed the AfDs anyway. If my dissent from your decision would be more appropriate in a dispute or mediation forum, perhaps you would point me there. My goal is, at the very least, to get some answers to what I believe are pertinent questions. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to appeal my decisions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. My answer to the questions you raise about sources (the ones in the box) are of course no, as implied by my statement that I feel very strongly about reliable sources. My attitude towards astrology is that it is nonsense. But it did exist and in that sense was real, just as reading entrails - or religion - is real even though none of them have any 'validity' as descriptions of the way the world actually works. The articles are about notable subjects in their own right and I don't think you are going to get far in having them deleted, but I don't mind you raising them at DRV. What you should be trying to do is fix the articles. I'm clearly not defending the present state of the articles, but AfD is not a way to fix articles. I suggested working on them one at a time. I see others are working on the history of astrology article from I think the same philosophical viewpoint as yours (and mine).
It's your approach, not your goal, that is causing the problem. The articles need sourcing and removal of stuff that can't be sourced. You simply can't use AfDs as a way of making a point. You're the second editor in the last few days (at least) who has tried this -- eg to Cyrus cylinder where someone else closed an AfD for basically the same reasons I did.
I presume you noticed the kudos to you for your talk sub-page on militant atheism.
You'd probably get a lot of support if you avoided trying to use AfDs and such short time scales. I'd help if I knew anything about the field (although :I do worry about ". I, however, assert, again, that in order to call something Babylonian, Hellenistic, Decanic or any other kind of astrology, there must first be an agreement on what is and is not astrology." How can we as editors make such a call without it being original research? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why you have such a doctrinaire adherence to keeping every page, no matter how obviously flawed. I also notice that you persist in your probably earnest desire to refashion my rationality into a subservient Wiki robot, obedient to rules and precedent without context or judgement. That won't happen. My point is about Wikipedia rules applied in a rational, logical and appropriate fashion, plain and simple. Reject the arguments I present, or reject Wikipedia rules. I don't think you can do both at the same time without exposing some glaring contradictions.
I noted an observation that my intent was at militant atheism was less severe than it sounded, but the two instances are entirely different in that I did not nominate militant atheism for deletion. Regardless of how gratifying it might be on an egotistical level to gain support of praise, I don't do anything here for kudos. I do it because I believe in the encyclopaedic project. In that vein, I may think that believing astrological prognostications is superstition, but I also believe astrology is a known part of the wider sum total of human knowledge, and therefore deserves to be accurately represented in an encyclopaedia.
What I don't believe is an unverified assertion that astrology, as we know it, existed in ancient Babylon, or the ancient Egyptian and Greek civilizations, but that's exactly what we are saying to the world as a matter of fact by maintaining the pages so labelled. I see you have been active at the Babylonian astrology page, possibly verifying sources. I think it appropriate for you to satisfy yourself to a degree of certainty that it is not nearly as easy to find credible sources that explicitly state what the Babylonians did was actually astrology. In the absence of such sources, the only other way to label what the Babylonians did as astrology is to refer to a set of characteristics that define astrology in general, and that's what the bunfight at astrology talk is all about. My argument is that you cannot presuppose the outcome of that bunfight to pre-emptively assert that something the Babylonians never called astrology was actually a Babylonian practice under a different name. That's content forking to avoid debating the characteristics of astrology. Why is it so difficult to apprehend that defining, according to credible sources, what astrology actually is and is not, is a necessary precursor to labelling pre-astrological practices as predecessors? Put another way, if astrology talk rejects the suggestion that astrology is about predicting fertility cycles in agriculture, husbandry and women, can a practice in Babylon that did just that be justifiably labelled astrology or one of its pre-cursors?
That was my point about about divination and reading of entrails: just calling these practices astrology does not make them so. Ergo the need to define what astrology is in the astrology page before assuming what it is in in sub-pages. My challenge to the existence of Babylonian astrology is no different than one I would mount against any assertion about the existence of a Babylonian stock exchange, or petrol stations, or a parliament. We may find evidence of forerunners, but they are not properly described as stock exchanges, petrol stations or parliaments, and I doubt whether even your redoubtable self could find credible sources tracing the history of stock exchanges, petrol stations and parliaments to Babylon, except to say that Babylonians were people who probably had concerns similar to our own today.
Your comment that it requires original research to define astrology is logically unnecessary: existing credible sources on astrology are what ought to guide us in defining this topic. The arguments I refer to should be about sources, not opinions. The credible sources about Babylonian astrology should determine the existence of the article, not our arguments about Wikipedia rules, nor the simple unreferenced assertion that Babylonian astrology existed or did not exist. On that point, I reject as ridiculous your repeated assertions that I should find sources to evidence what I regard as a deliberate distortion to support content forking.
You keep saying that I should fix the pages as if they have a right to exist at all. If that point can be proven based on credible sources, this argument becomes redundant. I AM trying to fix the pages by removing from them all unverifiable content, which, in my opinion, would leave blank pages. Is that preferable to deletion? In other words, you appear to support as an article of faith a proposition that the correct way to approach a dubious article is to find some way of maintaining its existence. I suggest that sometimes the correct way is to say: 'It's bullshit. Get rid of it.' The deciding factor should be verifiability.
I don't have time right now to formulate a response for an appeal to deletion review, but I predict for you that I am likely to do so. My reply to you cost me considerable time. An appeal won't be any less time-consuming. I hope you understand that I don't oppose you personally, just what I regard as your irrationality and intellectual torpor in applying rules to an ends other than the rules themselves. My commitment stands: I will withdraw from Wikipedia if the rules are meaningless and unverified content is allowed to stand just because that's the way it has always been done. I care about what is said to the world as respectable fact and opinion. That is not a matter I care to compromise on just to keep some intellectual luddites or process-oriented administrators happy about consensus, precedent or even self-esteem. Sometimes precedent and custom must be questioned to avoid complacency and complicity in counter-encylopaedic outcomes, like agreeing to perpetrate a fraud about astrology to comply with guidelines on avoiding page deletions.
Having said all that, I am still disappointed that you addressed so little of the substance of my reply at ANI, though I will say that your tone and attitude on this matter has been much more constructive than the dictatorial obstinacy of mop at militant atheism. I am particularly encouraged that you would fight for astrology articles given that your views aren't necessarily sympathetic to astrology as a practice. It shows you know the difference between principle and partisanship. Now if I can only get you to fight for verifiability and against deliberate content forking ... Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You say "I don't know why you have such a doctrinaire adherence to keeping every page, no matter how obviously flawed.". I took two articles to AfD yesterday. I suspect a number of editors would call me a deletionist. I wasn't just working at Babylonian astrology yesterday, I found an IP who had added material sourced to a self published book on 'Star-lore' by a Gavin White and I've been busy removing it from a number of articles.
As for reliable sources (you know we don't use the word 'credible') about Babylonian astrology,Mesopotamian astrology: an introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian celestial divination [28] and of course there is this bibliographt. [29]. I'm sure there's enough there to justify the existence of the article and define the topic. It isn't at all clear to me why you disagree and I'd be amazed if DRV reversed my decision since the reliable sources clearly exist. These scholars are not perpetuating a fraud which is what you seem to be suggesting. People like Gavin White are of course. And my views are antagonistic to modern day astrology as a practice (I don't criticise the Babylonians for what I hope are obvious reasons). Dougweller (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Your source is impeccably respectable. You were right to reject my AfD nominations. This probably ends your interest in the matter, and I would understand if you just said 'sod off and stop wasting my time', but may I ask two questions: 1) how easy was the Koch-Westenholz book to find; and 2) does that source, in your opinion, label astrology as a method of divination (quite separate to the discussion of Babylonian astrology)? Your methodical and courteous approach is refreshing and appreciated, even if I am left with more unanswered questions now than at the beginning. I suspect those questions must be raised elsewhere for the sake of your time (and sanity). If I didn't think they were such a juvenile distraction, I would nominate you for a patience barnstar thingie. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Your response is much appreciated. I found the book in Google Books very quickly, less than a minute. And yes, it labels astrology as a method of divination. "Within this deductive divination, it is practical to distinguish between two genres, provoked and unprovoked omens. Provoked omens are actively sought by ritual, e.g. extispicy and lecanomancy; unprovoked divination is the interpretation of occurrences that, so to say, appear without being asked for, e.g. astrology." I don't like barnstars either, by the way. I'm still working on removing any use of Gavin White's self-published work as a reference, but it's time consuming as it's been used to source stuff about origins of constellations and I'm trying to replace the text with decent references (and correct information, it's not just that he's self-published or believes in astrology, he's factually wrong also at times about simple things). Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

RFCU for Drnhawkins

I'll certainly work with you on crafting it. I've not done one before though. Have you started it in a sandbox or anywhere yet? LadyofShalott 21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the relevant diffs are deleted - specifically those in the Talk:Joseph and Imhotep. Do you know the protocol on including those? Maybe we could temporarily restore the talk page only as a subpage of the RfC so that the diffs can be seen not just by admins. Do you know if there's precedent for that? LadyofShalott 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, this is tedious. I'm nearing the end of what I can do for tonight. LadyofShalott 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at LadyofShalott's talk page.

Please comment on Talk:Turkey

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your post at WT:FOOTY about the IP edits

Hello. I checked a random few with a Swedish stats site and they all correspond. I've left a note at the IP's talk to suggest they add a link to their source at the same time as they update the stats. Maybe they'll listen... Thanks for raising the matter, Struway2 (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear it wasn't vandalism, we get a lot of number vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rare Earth hypothesis

Hi Doug, please see this and the previous edit. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just thinking about that. It's clearly OR. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I reverted with a clearer edit summary and also tried to explain on the IP's talk page that the source doesn't discuss the rare earth hypothesis so can't be used. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi article ANI

Hi Dougweller. I agree with most of what you said in your comment while recommending closure of that thread. However, I might have agreed more if you could have said that eds who have familiarity with the topic also be allowed to finger with the article. I do respect our policies like NPOV, NOR, V. Its a huge thread, but if you investigated the matter, you could probably agree that the whole thing erupted only because I tried to apply NOR, V on an unsourced claim. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Another 'pointy' AfD

If you can spare the time could you take a look at what seems to be another pointy Adf request and consider how it relates to this COI dispute, which could do with an fresh pair of eyes from an uninvolved administrator?

Yesterday the editor who initiated the COI dispute placed 3 tags, including a 7-day notice of deletion on the National Council for Geocosmic Research page, claiming that it lacked references and failed to demonstrate notability.

I fixed the problems and gave two references to independently published books that substantiated the brief summary of information on the page and demonstrated the notability of an organization that has over 3000 members and 40 international branches.

Today he has nominated it for deletion again, continuing to argue on the deletion request page that the notability is too poor and the references are only trivial mentions in "astrology from a-z" type directory books.

He only had to make one mouse-click the Google-books links to see how the references were two from many published books that could have been used instead or as well as. But how many independent references does a 100-word stub page need? Other editors have now added more. This fits the long-running pattern of this editor trying to generate dispute where none need exist, and in particular by questioning the references that I propose as necessarily unsuitable for one reason or another. Can the deletion request be speedily closed for the time-wasting exercise it is?

For the record (shouldn't need to say this but because of the COI issue I will) - I have no affiliation with, or concern for, the organisation itself Zac Δ talk 16:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My old man once told me that I should be careful what I wished for when I tried to bring some US Marines home for dinner one time when I was about five. At the time they looked hungry, and I meant well. But today I understand that inviting US Marines for dinner might have consequences. We live and learn. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I closed the AfD linked to here. What a waste of time and effort cleaning up after someone with a clear vendetta against another Web site. CycloneGU (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been preoccupied with other things, including some real editing! I've seen quite a few pointy AfDs recently, although I appreciate that at least one editor understands why theirs were closed! Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

missing signature?

You may have forgotten a signature here. --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sinebot must be on holiday. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Garnik Asatrian

Hello Dougweller

This is a very Important issue for me and while you are the only Admin who I know and understands such issues, I came here to share this Problem with you.

It is about Dr. Garnik Asatrian which is used in the English Wikipedia as a source in Kurdish matters. Garnik Asatrsian is already disqualified as a Source in the German Wikipedia because he has obvious anti Kurdish agendas and he and his Institute give false and unconfirmed claims as facts.

I searched some days now for sources to demonstrate my claims.

1. Most of his controversial claims are in fact anti Kurdish and refer to Kurdish minorities.

2. The Yazidi for example. He creates on his own within his institute, a new ethnic identity for them. He claims that they are non Kurds while they speak Kurdish and the large majority considers themselves as such according to the representatives of the Yazidis

Here are two interviews. One with Garnik Astarian claiming a non kurdish identity for them. And the other with the Yazidi and Kurdish representative which confirms that the Yazidis consider themselves as Kurds.

Here are two interviews which show us the anti kurdish and unprofessional behave of Garnik Asatrian.

http://groong.usc.edu/orig/ok-19980630.html

I will cite one of his whole unproven and made up claims. However you should read the interviews if you have some time because they are important to see his behave.

"Although they speak Kurdish - Kurmanji - they do not consider themselves as Kurds, so this is the problem."

Now an Interview with the Yezidi/Kurdish representatives Hasan Tamoyan/Knyaz Hassanov http://www.groong.com/orig/ok-20061011.html

"OK: What is your opinion on the fact that some Yezidis consider themselves [ethnic] Kurds while others do not?

KH: The overwhelming majority consider themselves [ethnic] Kurds. This issue is one of concern to us, but it is not so worrying as the number of Yezidis who don't consider themselves Kurds is quite small. All over the world the Yezidis consider themselves as Kurds, so if 1-2,000 Yezidis [in Armenia] do not consider themselves as such it's not significant enough of an issue. It's also their human right."

How can a Doctor give such statements like "Most Yezidis feel not Kurdish" as if it is a fact while at the same time the representatives of Yazidis/Kurds agree that the majority of Yazidi do feel Kurdish and speak Kurdish.

Here is another interview with Dr. Karlene Chachani who is President of the Department of the Kurdish Writers of the Writers' Union of Armenia, and Chief Editor of "Friendship" - an Armenian-Kurdish political Journal.

http://www.oneworld.am/journalism/yezidi/chachani.html

In his interview he explains very well the Issue. And he also notes that Garnik Asatrian has joined the Dashnakutuune (Dashnak) Party.

For more informations about the Dashnak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Revolutionary_Federation

"The ARF advocates socialism and is a member of the Socialist International.[1] It possesses the largest number of members from the political parties present in the Armenian diaspora, having established affiliates in more than 200 countries.[2] Compared to other Armenian parties which tend to primarily focus on educational or humanitarian projects, the Dashnaktsutiun is the most politically oriented of the organizations and traditionally has been one of the staunchest supporters of Armenian nationalism.[2]"

How can a man who belongs to a Nationalist Party be used as reference in other Issues belonging to geopolitical neighbors?


3. On This Example we see the behave of Garnik Asatrian when he calls a Professor of the Harvard University a stupid man.

"for example, Mehrdad Izady in "Kurdish Life" has accused some Armenian nationalist newspapers of printing racist articles regarding the Kurds and the Yezidi-Kurdish identity.

Garnik Asatrian: Mehrdad Izady is a stupid man, a very stupid man. He is a Professor at the University of Harvard, and I wonder why Harvard has Professors such as he. For example, he could not even be a mere teacher here in Armenia, even teaching children. It's amazing, it's amazing, it's very amazing."

Is this how someone with the Doctor title should behave? How can Doctor G. Asatrian who calls Professor of the Harvard University, Mehrdad Izady, a stupid man just because he supposed a Armenian Nationalism behind this Yazidi/Kurdish division. In which he didn´t called any names but seems to have been right like we see on the Dashnak Party _G Astarian relation.

4. The same Armenian institute which belongs to G. Astarian made some books in Kurdish and called it "Ezdiki" while this name is not in use by any Yazidi family and most of those families refused to use this books.

" OK: From speaking to some visiting academics researching Yezidis in Armenia as well as hearing reports from some [Yezidi] villages, it would appear that some [Yezidi] schools are refusing to accept textbooks supplied the Armenian Government written in `Ezdiki.' Have you also heard about this?

KH: Not some, but many. Out of 12 [Yezidi] villages in Aragatsotn, only 1 has accepted these textbooks. The rest are not using them and nor do they accept them."

Garnik Asatrian however claims in one of his other biased works. That the Yezidis call their language Ezdiki

on page Eleven.

http://www.hra.am/file/minorities_en.pdf


5. I have read some of his other (obviously biased) books and they are full of wrong and unsupported claims.

Just like this. Page 5.

http://www.archive.org/stream/ProlegomenaToTheStudyOfTheKurds/Asatrian_kurds#page/n3/mode/2up


He claims that Assyrians, Armenians are traditionally considered Kurds (This is wrong there is no single Historian or scholar which could confirm this claim. The Kurds did never claim Armenians or Assyrians for Kurds.

However at the same time he calls the Laks as a other ethnic group. Another false and unproven claim of him. The Laks are known as accepted by all Ethnologues and recent linguistic researches as Kurds and speaking one of the languages belonging to Kurds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_(Iran)


There are many other examples which show that Garnik Asatrian has a obvious nationalistic and anti Kurdish Agenda. The use of Garnik Asatrians works as source is already disqualified in the German Wikipedia and this should be done here too in my opinion.

Greets Wikisupporting (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you overestimate my understanding and involvement in Kurdish issues. But in any case, this is not an issue where Administrators have any special role, as it's a question about whether this meets our criteria at [{WP:VERIFY]] and WP:RS. The board to discuss this is WP:RSN so I suggest you copy your post to that board. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Ok Thanks I will copy it to the board Wikisupporting (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Please comment on Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin

Hello. Wasn't sure how to go about addressing this properly. I left a message on Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism about a week ago explaining the situation, but haven't seen any response, there. I've seen you on a few pages I've had interest in, and PiCo suggested I might speak to you. Would you have any feedback to the situation I left at the Talk page linked above? Also, any feedback on what I should properly do for any future situations like that. Many thanks. — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Astrology in Hellenistic Egypt

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astrology in Hellenistic Egypt , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed James

Hi Doug. I've moved the page back for now because it appears to be the only Ed James related article we have at present. We can always move it again if and when other articles are written, but for now it seems pretty pointless to me. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a note at the top of the page, however, directing people to Edward James (disambiguation). If more Ed Jameses are added to Wikipedia, we can redirect Ed James to that page and add them to the list. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I did that because Ed James the writer and conceiver of Father Knows Best was linking to that article, and I wanted to change it into a red link rather than just unlink it. Now it's linked to the wrong Ed James again. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Try changing the link at Father Knows Best to Ed James (writer) or something like that. I'll take a look if you like and change it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Made the change at F Troop as well. The page is now at Ed James (writer). Are you planning an article about him? If so then we can move the other Ed James again. To be honest, he's only really known in the West Midlands area of the UK, so your Ed James probably has a higher profile. Let me know what you decide to do anyway. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I really got involved via an OTRS request on Father Knows Best by a relative of Ed James to verify that he was writer/conceiver. Then I noted the blue link leading to the DJ. I agree he's probably more notable than the guy in the WM, but I don't plan an article. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look around and perhaps add it to my to-do list. If he's notable enough I think he should have an article. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Found him on IMDB and he has quite a lot of credits so started a basic stub - see Ed James (writer). Hopefully someone who knows more about him can expand it. I also moved the other Ed James, but couldn't seem to over-redirect again, so have moved it to Ed James (disc jockey). Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, well done. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help settle a dispute regarding page numbers when citing long articles and books

Please help settle a dispute at Talk:Evolutionary psychology#Page numbers II. There is disagreement about a proposal to allow editors a month to provide page numbers for book and long article citations before the sourced material is removed. The parties have agreed to get help with this dispute. Thanks, Jojalozzo 22:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

George Alfred Henty !

You completely removed my several amendments to the Henty listing. I've checked the Wikipedia list for why and the only possibility for deletion seems to be citations which I thought I had included. As a committee member and researcher for The Henty Society see 'www.HentySociety.org' were you perhaps a little hasty to delete all. eg I quoted book titles with their exact publishing detail and you deleted them. Why, when another book is similarly quoted and quite rightly remains listed. Why was my detail regarding the lady deleted. Surely if the detail currently listed can be put into context by stating that politically correct views were certainly not the views a century of so back, that is fair comment is it not ? Confirmation of all I wrote is available through The Henty Society if and when needed. Most of the detail on the Henty listing has been made accurate by me on behalf of The Henty Society yet for some reason you delete all of the latest considerable detail I wrote. Clearly I have no wish to fall out with anyone but I am just a little annoyed that my hard work is deleted in such a cavalier manner. Now you can easily confirm who I am and who I represent, does that help with knowing me and perhaps leaving my comments in place ? My Regards, RogerC HentySociety (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What have we made of WP?

Dear Mr Weller, since our last encounter I have spent much of the time I devoted to Wikipedia re-reading policies and guidelines, and looking through archived pages for resolutions to perennial disputes and conflicts. I have arrived only at preliminary conclusions, and none of these are encouraging. They relate directly to the coincidental discussions in recent days on Jim Wales’s talk page about Wikipedia biases and apparently declining new contributor numbers.

Rules that appear designed to protect the ignorant and malicious from the kind of scrutiny that other encyclopaedia enforce as a matter of credibility don’t help in this regard. But I’m not yet quite ready to pass final comment on Wikipedia guidelines.

What I am here to do is to draw your attention to the product of administrator intervention in the astrology debate, which now appears to be entirely in the hands of mystics. Take a look at the wording proposed in the core principles section. Can you honestly say that this convoluted concatenation of horseshit does anything to explain astrological principles? Can you honestly say that this phrasing belongs in an encyclopaedia?

If your prescription for fixing this, and the continuing content forking that is occurring in the astrology sub-pages, is still that ‘exemplary’ editors should be seeking to find new sources to underpin this kind of crap rather than getting rid of it, the answers to the Jim Wales discussions mentioned above are uncomfortable: rational, sincere people will not waste their time arguing the merits of mysticism, metaphysics, divination or just plain fantasy.

Moreover, political biases aside, Wikipedia is exactly what we make it. If the decision is made consciously to treat the endeavour as a sheltered workshop for intellectually impaired or dishonest zealots seeking personal fulfilment, then that will be what Wikipedia will become — the blog I referred to last month.

All this to say that your actions, and those of millions of others, have consequences. One of those consequences is that the astrology article currently speaking to the world on behalf of Wikipedia is risible for an encyclopaedia, and the zealots have won: they have managed to wear down all rational contributors to once again make this page the plaything of superstition and personal flights of fancy.

I don’t expect you to do anything to fix the problem. That would be asking a lot. But I do ask you to consider the consequences of administrators getting complacent about enforcing the letter of the guidelines while apparently being oblivious to the underlying spirit of the Wikipedia endeavour as a whole. I mention this to you because I gained the impression that you are rational, even if beholden to that Wikipedia self-talk that suspends all normal rules of good judgement. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lendvai giving information

Hi, I'm writing you because you appeared to have included some comments in in one of your edit summaries. [30] The fact that Lendvai gave information to autorities was never challanged by anyone, in fact it was confirmed by hundreds of pages of archival documents and by Lendvai's own account as well(see for example [31] "kötetlen beszélgetések formájában természetes és szokásos újságírói gyakorlat volt, és ma is az. Ilyenkor a dolog természeténél fogva a felek információkat is cserélnek" ). I think the confusion stemms from misunderstanding Lendvai's position where he states he is not and never was an "agent" or "spy" in service of communist intelligence. The difference is pretty simple, like between someone who is 007 or 005 (agent, spy) and someone who gives information to the authorities (informer, contact). There are two batches of archival documents one from the foreign ministry and one from the archives of the national security services archives. Many of the documents are actually available online in scanned form, but since they were declassified anyone may enter the archives and look at the originals so there can be really no debate about them being real or not. So there is no debate on the fact of giving information only how this fact is Tüzes fal (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you didn't finish that sentence - if you meant 'how it is presented', then I agree. The word 'informer' is questionable of course and has to be used, if at all, very carefully (probably directly attributed). Meanwhile I don't see any improvement so I am reverting to the short version and fully protected. Other Administrators will review any requests for edits. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Two things, I did improve the article but it was an ongoing process and of course the article was weak to begin with (lot of anonymous edits, also other problems that you mentioned I welcome your input also) One example of how I improved the article compared to the earlier version is I sourced a couple of things, which took a bit of time as well. For example I sourced the books written by him on Tito and France, sourced various other stuff in the early section, thrown out the "capitalists are throwing ppl into fire" bit which might or might have been not in the book and was inserted by another user. And i am OK with the protection If you are willing to reinsert stuff I propose one by one I actually have no problem with that but you will have to then reinsert and go through the pieces one by one. If you don't have the time it's not a good solution but if you do I think it will be workable. Tüzes fal (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Lendvai

I've unprotected this article; it is inappropriate to protect an article where you have also made content decisions, and chosen the version to be protected. In addition, the issues seem to come from one or two users at most - which provides a rationale for blocks, but not for actual protection, which is unnecessarily strict. Ironholds (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough but will you please deal with the BLP violations? This is being written using very partial sources. And actually I'm not sure that removing BLP violations and then protecting is inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The version is still "your" version; if you're happy with it, it's fine (although you can, of course, contribute to the article yourself). I'm going to drop the other chap a note just to say that he must discuss it on the talkpage, and if I see any BLP vios, I'll be more direct than you and simply block him. Ta, Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, just saw that as I was writing to ANI as I am a bit bothered by this, but if that's what you intend that might work. Just so you know, here's what I wrote "I removed some BLP violations at Paul Lendvai after seeing a discussion at BLPN. I semi'd the article as this is currently in the news. The edits I removed were replaced, so I reverted again and fully protected, intending to leave any decisions to other Admins. Now the article has been unprotected on the grounds that I'd made content decisions so shouldn't be protecting it. My own take is that this is a BLP issue and that my protecting it was not inappropriate, but I may well be wrong and I'd like other opinions. Thinking about it I also believe some discussion with me would have been a good idea also. My only reason for editing the article was to remove BLP violations. I've explained a bit about what I see as the BLP issues on the talk page, but I didn't and don't want to get involved with actually editing the article. Protection and letting other Administrators deal with edit requests seemed the best way forward. Now where do we go? Anyone else protecting the article may be seen as edit warring, which is unfortunate." but luckily didn't click save! But I really don't want to be involved with the article, protection was a way of avoiding that. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough! My .02 of a dollar is that, BLP or no, Protection is something which impacts on a whole lot of people, while blocking is something which impacts on one. If the situation can be resolved with blocking rather than protection, that's a better way to go about it. Ironholds (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It looked to me as though it has had so much media exposure that further problems shouldn't be a surprise, and given how bad it was protection seemed appropriate. I have mentioned this, mildly I hope, at WP:BLPN hoping that other editors will get involved with the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
And I've just seen the edit summary you left. Now that does annoy me. Why not discuss it with me first? What happened to AGF? I'm not at all convinced it was 'completely inappropriate', and if Admins can't use their tools on articles where all they have done is try to remove BLP violations I think that's wrong (and I'm not convinced everyone would agree that that is the case). Maybe the general issue needs discussion Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My apologies; I may have overreacted, and in that case, I do apologise. I agree that WP:INVOLVED needs to be tightened up one way or another - but at the current state of things it only allows for things such as blatant vandalism, and very minor edits; the other provisions are (to quote the policy) "broadly construed" when deciding what behaviour it covers. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think that an Administrator who has never been involved in an article who responds to concerns at BLPN by removing contentious material and protecting is not involved in any sense that we should be worried about. I'd like to take this somewhere for discussion (ANI is I guess inappropriate although it's high profile). AN? Or just the talk page of WP:INVOLVED? I'd also appreciate it if you'd replace the protection so I don't feel I need to get involved in the article! There's no reason you can't and I don't see blocking anyone as necessary at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest the talkpage; we certainly need to clarify it. I can't really get involved, since I'm now helping the user in question fix up the article; I would suggest that if blocking isn't going to help, protection isn't either. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Some User-Ip has requested to edit the protected Iyengar page, in Talk:Iyengar . It is a disputed page with no consensus. I believe the request should be rejected.

Hello Dougweller. A protetion request in Talk:Iyengar exists for a long time, with no reponse from any amdinistrator. However, i feel the request should be denied, because it is a disputed page, and there is no consensus to support the edit request. It is from a one "User Ip 65.219.4.7", who has already received multiple warnings in the past, for inappropriate edits. Also, the reason given by the User-ip in the talk page violates Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in every way. The user has made egregious attacks on - "other living personalities and other religions in that message". I'm mentioning some of the statements given(for the edit request) by the User-ip in that talk page, below:

1. The user ip had mentioned - "it is a shame to mention kamal haasan, as he is an atheist with anti-brahmin sentiments". Here the user ip thinks of this website as a pro-iyengar forum, and does not understand wiki' npov policies. The user had also attacked the celibrity(kamal haasan), and has defamed another religion(atheism). Also the "anti-brahmin sentiments" claim was dubious.
2. The user Ip speaks of "main stream iyengar views" as authentic. However here in wiki', especially w.r.t challenged data, neutral party views(from reliable sources/non-iyengar sources in this case) are those which matter.

3. The user ip had also communally offended authors/editors by saying "i suppose the author is a vadama, hence he had the agenda". Again he says "random sources cited are not trusted", thereby not complying with wiki' policies.

4. Finally, he refers to some sources as "not reliable". But they are the most "relied upon sources", as any indian wikipedian would say. "Castes and tribes in southern india - by edgar thurston" , and book sources which display genetic test results are highly authentic. But the user ip had just termed it "unreliable" as he was too uncomfortable with the facts. Check his contribs please(a long history of inappropriate edits by the user ip).

I hereby request to reject the "edit protected page" request made that user-ip, as it is a highly disputed page, and there is no consensus to support his request. The user-ip has often made vandalising edits in the past, and has given some egregious explanation for the request which highly violates wp talkpage guidelines. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I tend to agree with Hari7478 regarding the overall suitability of the request, there are a few things that I must object to. First of all, the IP has never been blocked and has receive comparatively few warnings, none of them recent, so there's no cause to reject the request based on its originator. Secondly, there are several different points to the request, and though they are a bit difficult to identify, they should be considered independently. Just to pick an example, some uses of the "sri" honorific are contested, and removing them may be in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. That being said, most of the request is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT (yes, I know that pertains to deletion discussions) and objecting to statements referenced with "random sources" won't persuade me to remove them. Favonian (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for the response. Even w.r.t to the User-Ip mentioning of "random sources", actually they are not random sources. I can explain it. But it would be too big an explanation, and only an expert in the subject could probably understand it. For example: The user ip said that "Ref [35] and [37] talk about people in Andhra that converted to thenkalai. They do not even 0.5% iyengars." Actually the refs say that non brahmins were brought into thenkalai fold. Thenkalai is an iyengar subsect and the name is not used anywhere outside "iyengar". The User-Ip is simply trying to dodge and brainwash some senior editors who dont have knowledge about the article. The only area were i approve of the user ip would be that of the "honorific suffix sri". Otherwise the Ip user's request is almost completely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you mentioned earlier. Requesting to reject the "edit pp request" alone, while the message could be kept. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOBBegSomWs @ 1:10
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzISuNNCJDw @ 6:10
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_20&oldid=1257768301"