Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page.
Message added 07:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help Please

Hi, I am glad you got involved in the dispute at Southern Poverty Law Center article. I wanted to indicate in the article that the SPLC has received criticism from the right-wing. There is a reliable sources debate is posted at [[1]] on this topic. Your input would be appreciated. thx. Mrdthree (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

you are an impartial administrator so please dont forget to address the topic when you post at the reliable source board.Mrdthree (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Do I have a stalker? If you want to heap criticism on me, at least do it in a way that involves discussion of the posted topic. Mrdthree (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You're still relatively new, we don't use the word stalker. Please see WP:HOUNDING. If you think someone is hounding you, bring it up officially, don't just make vague attacks. I thought you knew about WP:AGF. You also should post at the bottom of people's talk pages, by the way. And if you really do not believe in consensus, that's extremely relevant to your posts at boards such as RSN. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)



Can you help me download some pictures to finish my article and then post it??

awwsurf Awwsurf (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:RoyalPains11

Following on from the ANI discussion "Unresponsive editor with 50 warnings on his talk page", which is now archived, I've just noticed IP edits on four pages where RoyalPains11 added images without appropriate FURs.[2][3][4][5] I had added {{deletable image-caption}} to each of the pages and the edits made by the IP deleted these templates from each page without fixing the image problems. Since the IP is from the same pool used by RoyalPains11, I assume he's avoiding his block by using another IP so I've reverted the edits. This has resulted in restoration of prod notices on two of the pages but I believe this is appropriate in the circumstances as he shouldn't be editing while blocked. That he didn't remove the AfD notice from one of the pages and removal of the prod was a separate act to deletion of {{deletable image-caption}} on another page indicates that these were deliberate acts and not simply random deletions of {{deletable image-caption}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI time I think, can you do it? If you can't I'll do it later. How do you know it's the same IP pool? Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Done, but still curious about the IP pool question. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but I got distracted and didn't have your talk page on watchlist for some reason. RoyalPains11 has edited on pages using both his IP and user account. WHOIS identified the IP I originally reported at SPI (118.209.95.192) as being from Internode's pool. The latest IP is 118.209.68.17, which is from the same pool. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. See [[6]]. I hadn't realised that was the CU policy or I would have acted myself. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Kalt wie stahl

I tried to use the template for a length-of-time block, but couldn't get the template to function properly. I initially was inclined to give him a 31-hour; but his pattern of edits and the apparent sock-puppeting leave me less lenient. I've now gone to an indef block. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think few editors will disagree with that, Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jabal al-Lawz editors

Hi Doug, I see our Sinai editor is back with a new name: User:Eye2EyeIIIV. Should I log an SPI case or can I just ask you to block him? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Being cautious, I'd say a new SPI case. Thanks.
I should have remembered the similar name, anyway, that's well done. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Late comment about one recent edit war

Hi Doug, it's probably a bit late now, but I thought you might be interested in this [7] comment I left on a matter you recently handled. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really know enough about that issue, but I did think protection was a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Flat Earth: Isaiah 40:22

I recently removed as vandalism the phrase "Niko is very hot and elle smells." from the end of the Isaiah 40:22 section of the Flat Earth article. However, this phrase has now appears to have been restored. Please take another look at this. Thanks. UnpopularTruth (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. Not only did you not remove it, it's not there now either. What you did do was make a whole bunch of changes, including changing citation styles (which is a no no), throughout the article, and call it reverting vandalism. Not a good idea. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC) (talk page lurker)
An IP added and removed that vandalism on May 30th [8]. Perhaps you can explain the big discrepancy between what you claim to have done and what you actually did. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Layerbit deletion 7-6-2010

Hello Dougweller,

On July 6th, you deleted an article I had written on a marketing firm called Layerbit. I am a marketing student at North Harris College in the Houston area. I would like to write an article about this firm because I met the manager when he came to speak at our school. I would also like to write about other firms that I know about here in Houston. There is a good deal of talent in this city that no one knows about and I am researching some of them for a paper.

Is the best way to go about this to write the article in a sub directory folder and then have you review it before I submit it? (Any details would be appreciated. still a bit confused about protocol) Also, where did the article go? Is it in some wiki purgatory?

Thank you for any help you can offer.

Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinclubman (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There are, as I'm sure you know, millions of firms in the world. As an encyclopedia, we don't try to cover everything. We have our own criteria of what we call 'notability', a word that sometimes confuses people as they don't understand (and sometimes don't bother to find out) what me mean by that word. In particular, we have guidelines for the notability of organisations. You need to read WP:Notability (organizations and companies) to see if any of the firms you want to write about meet those criteria. You'll need to read WP:RS also to see more about our criteria for sources. Deleted articles still exist but ordinary editors can't see them. Let me know what you want to do and I'll try to help and show you how to write something in your 'userspace'. But read our guidelines first. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Need some assistance

Hi Doug. I've noticed that you appear on a lot of the articles I've got on my watchlist, taking care of dubious material and editors. I need some help with an article/editor. I don't know exactly how to describe the situation. The article talkpage is a mess, because the editor keeps putting up walls of words that have little to do with questions about the validity of certain sources, and what those sources specifically say. The editor consistently adds information into the article that is not covered in the sources, but I've only been able to double-check a few of these sources. But it goes even further than that. I'm certain that this editor is editing in bad faith, and mainly concerned with advancing his off-wiki aims. I posted a thread concerning some of the issue on on WP:RS/N: [9]; and alluded to it on WP:Village pump (policy): [10]. Please see the last discussion thread on my talkpage, to see how things tie together. What can I do? The article is like a slow edit war now. The editor just reverts me. The heraldry/clan stuff is total misinformation. I don't know how to describe the whole thing, it's a mess.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Doug and Brianann, Just weighing in also. Doug, if you look at the thread where Brianann and I are discussing this, I think it's pretty self-evident what's going on here. This appears to be part of an elaborate, on-going ruse by an individual that appears to be, at least in part, a profit-making enterprise. (I assume the other part is sheer grandiosity.) In any case, I would suggest that you look into this situation. Brianann has laid it out pretty well, I think. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Layerbit deletion 7-6-2010

Hey Doug,

Thank you for the resources. I did read over the criteria and believe that you are correct. Many of the firms I was planning on writing about may not be eligible. I do still believe that there are some small boutique firms that do. I did more research on these guys and found a number of awards for design. Community for Entertainment Artists, Flash Forward, Flash Focus are a few. These may not be Emmys but they're pretty big in the design community.

What I was hoping to do was take the original article and just take out everything that sounds promotional or commercial.

Sorry to keep bothering you but thanks for your help Kevin Kevinclubman (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's at User:Kevinclubman/Layerbit. I messed up the formatting slightly. Read MOS:LAYOUT and Wikipedia:Your first article. You've got loads of links now to our guidelines, etc on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Thank you very much for responding to my request for help on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and adding the needed weight at Talk:Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada#Quotation_marks_around_.22British_monarchy.22.3F. On my own, I really wasn't having much success getting them to respect the core content policies. Already the same editors are planning other ways to question or remove the content that doesn't fit their point of view, but I guess that'll be a bridge to cross when we get to it ... 65.92.158.145 (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doug

Thanks for your assistance.AussieGreen&Gold (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Rak-Tai

You did, in fact, miss the point. List of red-light districts includes historical areas, so removing entries on that basis is not valid. With the wikilink (this one) he could have fixed the link rather than removing material and a ref. I later fixed the wikilink. There are more questionable edits by this user, those were just examples. This editor has been and continues to be a problem; I'm doing my best to believe you're not targeting me and ignoring him because of some personal bias, but reporting him for his 3RR violations and continuing behavior is a necessary step in confirming that. I won't do that, because I prefer to try and work with other editors rather than going straight to admin action, but since you do then not doing the same for him is a double-standard. Thanks. TJ Black (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The list does not say it contains areas whioh are no longer red-light districts (and in my opinion should not contain such districts), so removing entries that are no longer red-light districts is clearly valid. You don't want to report him but you want me to, that's not going to happen. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I quick glance a the list would have confirmed that it does in fact contain historical areas, clearly marked as such, including the ones he removed. Though I agree it could state that clearly in the lede; I'll work on it.
As I said I prefer to work with other editors and only request action as a last resort. I'm merely pointing out the double standard in reporting me and not him - you came to the page, saw a series of reverts by two editors, one of which was trying to engage the other in discussion and one that wasn't - and you chose to report one of them only, the one who was being constructive. If someone wasn't assuming good faith on your part, the conclusion would be that your actions were based on some personal bias related to the edits being made. Since I'm sure you are a fair and impartial editor, this must have just been an oversight on your part. I expect to see your report on Rak-Tai on the 3RR notice board shortly. As I said, I have no desire to do so personally, I just trying to help you avoid appearing to be biased. Best of luck, looking forward to seeing that report. TJ Black (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You were repeatedly trying to add what others besides me consider a BLP violation, which is why I made the report, I know neither of you. In any case, there's no chance I am submitting a report for edits the last of which occurred over 24 hours ago, it's stale and no action would be taken. That's the way it works. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've realised that you may not be clear about our blocking policy. You appear to want me to use it to punish another editor. The purpose of blocking someone is to stop them from repeating an undesirable behaviour. You stopped, so you weren't blocked although you'd violated 3RR. That particular dispute is, hopefully, over now that there is a consensus (which you disagree with) that the image is a BLP violation. So again, no one would block Rak Tai, those edits are stale, the issue is resolved, and certainly as you weren't blocked he wouldn't be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Just pointing out the double standard on your part. I acknowledged my mistake, you ought to acknowledge yours. Obviously I disagree with the view that one of Wikipedia's core polices is arbitrarily not applicable in certain cases, but that's irrelevant to your actions. TJ Black (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make a mistake, it would however be a mistake if I did what you wished and what you could do yourself if you felt so strongly about it. My concern was in preventing a BLP violation, if that hadn't been the issue for me I would not have reported you. I don't know what core policy you are referring to. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
And I just checked, Rak-Tai did not violate 3RR. Even if he'd been warned, you only report for exceeding 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Antigrandiose

Related to your post on my talk page - see User talk:Antigrandiose#Inappropriate content and associated MFD. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Theodore Kavalliotis

could you please unprotect the article? i want to readd content that was removed. in NO WAY were my edits vandalism...i insulted user sulmues because of his inability to understand a simple matter so he reported me for 'personal attacks' and users with no idea regarding the article kept removing good content because i was a 'vandal'...if you feel unwilling to unprotect (fair) could you ask admin future perfect at sunrise to take a look at it since he knows both my edit history AND the article well? i dont have an account so i cant ask him myself...thanks87.202.23.90 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

my bad...i just saw future perfects comment towards you in this case sorry i missed it earlier so you can scratch most of my above comment...just to add one more thing so i can make my case i WASNT block-evading i just have a dynamic IP so if i disconnect it changes...at the time it changed i WASNT aware of sulmues report and i kept editing normally. so ill have to only request of you: can you unblock the article so i can edit it?87.202.23.90 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to second the IP editor here. He is actually a valuable contributor and his edits were in no way vandalism. Sulmues has a real nasty habit of labeling any edits he doesn't like as "vandalism", for which he has been repeatedly warned and sanctioned in the past. For the record, I am having the same kind of problem with Sulmues on Talk:Greater Albania. He simply cannot or will not understand anything I say, resulting in immense frustration on my part. Athenean (talk)

yeah that doesnt bother me too much ill just try to avoid the user as much as possible since badfaith and complete lack of understanding characterize him...my only real concern is the article i just have a couple of sentences to add87.202.23.90 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks against Sulmues don't resolve your content dispute.
And I don't see any indication that the problems which led to my protecting the article have been resolved yet. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Doug Weller

This is a legitimate conspiracy theory I have been investigating recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.110.251 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, now all you have to do is get it published in a reputable journal. See WP:RS and WP:OR. But if you post it again before that, I'll block you. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1950 Northolt BEA Viking accident

I've re-written (from scratch) this article here so that it hopefully isn't a copyvio anymore - can you have a look and confirm that it is OK?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam

Dear Doug, On the article Adam there's an editor who quite seriously wants to have a section reconciling the idea of a 6,000 year old creation of man (Adam) with modern science. He has a dozen sources to back the idea that this is a serious idea. all from unknown rabbis and the like. It's the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. What to do? Is there any point going to the admin forums? Any suggestions? PiCo (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it, don't get into 3RR trouble. That doesn't belong in the article. Patience usually works I find, no point getting even warned. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not something I care about enough to start a fight over. Thanks. PiCo (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nontheists

I'll check out that discussion. The maintainers of the list ought to have been notified of the discussion prior to the move. There are some people on the list who would identify themselves as nontheists. I'm not sure there is a BLP issue with identifying the others as nontheists, given the verifiable and uncontroversial definition of the word, and the other sources that confirm that they have views consistent with that definition. The problem with atheist as an identifier is that it has a dysphemistic sense that nontheist does not have--hence the nonbelievers in God who object to being called atheists. Also, the matter of whether or not one must assert the nonexistence of deities to truly be an atheist comes down to one's point of view as to how the word should be applied (dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy identify divergent usages, without settling which is the "correct" one). This also accounts for those nonbelievers who assert that they are not atheists (Carl Sagan being a notable example).

If consensus shifts such that one must specifically identify by a term (whether nontheist or atheist) to be so identified here, then a significant purge of the list will be in order, because many of those listed currently have not gone on record as to the label they prefer. Nick Graves (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's become clear to me that I'm far too invested in Wikipedia right now than is healthy, so I'm taking a break. Sorry to bail on the discussion so soon after making such an issue of the move. I apologize for the indignant tone of my original response to that move, by the way. Take care. Nick Graves (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, your post is appreciated. I think we simply go by what people say about themselves. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Searches for Noah's Ark

IP vandal is back again after the block. TeapotgeorgeTalk 17:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. As he either has a dynamic IP or is hopping, it's not that easy to put a stop on this. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Block of 159.182.1.4

Hi Dougweller,

I noticed that you blocked User:159.182.1.4 for repeatedly removing prod tags without giving a reason for the removal. While I can understand that this IP's actions are annoying, I personally think that they are allowed by policy. Though the proposed deletion process says that users are encouraged to provide a reason for the removal of prod tags, it does not actually require that a reason be given. If this user's actions are sufficiently annoying that you think they shouldn't be allowed, then I think the appropriate action is to start a discussion to amend the prod rules to require a reason be given when removing a prod. However, until a change to the prod rules of that sort is agreed upon, I don't think it is appropriate to block someone for removing prods without giving a reason. Calathan (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a long series of warnings on the IP's talk page, with absolutely no responses. These are not just for prod removals. It's pretty obvious that it is at least generally the same person editing. The prod template does say ". You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." I blocked for disruptive editing. Continuing to remove prods without giving a reason, continued failure to respond to warnings, isn't that disruptive? And we expect editors to communicate, even IPs. I think it all adds up to a justification for my block. What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the block is alright as long as you make it clear to the user that it is for refusing to communicate anywhere, and not solely for removing prods without a reason. I think that refusing to communicate with other users is a valid reason for blocking someone, but removing prods without giving a reason is not a valid reason for blocking someone. Calathan (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The IP refusal to interact is in contradiction with the concept of Collaborative work. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll clarify it. Thanks for pointing this out. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Tb240904's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thank you for the warning. For the time being, I will refrain from making further edits to pseudohistory. I would appreciate, however, not being labeled an SPA. I have edited hundreds of articles, including reverting obvious vandalism on scores of articles. It's absolutely true that I have an interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, but my recent edits (pseudohistory excepted) have had more to do with restoring content that is being systematically deleted from Wikipedia - basically I am up against 2 editors who are moving from article to article removing any and all mentions of the Authorship question from the site. Is this to be condoned? Smatprt (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've struck my comment about your being an SPA. The issue you're referring to is a dispute that should be settled without Admin action at least at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for striking that, and thanks to you and Dab for weighing in on the pseudohistory talk page. Will you be following through on the removal or should I? Regarding the issue of all these deletions (that continued today on 3 new articles), talk has proved fruitless - what should be my next step? Smatprt (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Checking in to see if you had a response. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I'm wimping out here. I don't feel strongly enough to remove it. You can remove it, go to the content notice board if you think that will help. It's a content dispute, dispute, you could start an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 20
39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pdfs

Please check Obama (footnotes number 76, 212, 220) and Hillary Clinton (213) --sourced on Pdf files. The Pdf link I used on Matriacrhy fully discusses Python and Tiamat. 187.21.128.77 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention pdfs, I said Word documents, because I clicked on the wrong reference. I can't find anything about Python in [11] however. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph discussess Tiamat and Python --and sources do mention one or another or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.128.77 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Besides the problem of putting one source against another claim, you aren't citing sources properly, you need author, title, where published, when, etc. See WP:CITE And your last pdf even when downloaded has none of that. Read WP:RS - how does it meet our criteria there? Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Iam sorry I don´t cite in the best way; this new pdf also mentions Tiamat and the mythology surrounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.128.77 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that takes time to learn, but who wrote it and where was it published? If you don't know, then we can't use it because we can't determine if it meets our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That photo

Just in case you didn't spot it, another editor has re-added that controversial photo to Sex tourism, claiming that there was no consensus to remove it. I've reverted it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect request for the New World Order conspiracy theory article

Hello Doug. Can you please impose a second 6-month semi-protection on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article? As expected, anoymous vandalism is become regular problem again... --Loremaster (talk)

Thanks. --Loremaster (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bessex

I felt that the information about mitt romney was inaccurate as far he really didn't endorsed her as much as sarah palin and did not deserved to be on the profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessex (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You deleted cited text. You didn't say why. And it's true. I have no idea how you can be a more or less endorsed, sounds like being more or less pregnant. :-) Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well he did not gave as much money as sarah palin nor helped Nikki in deflection allegations at her. That why i felt mitt didn't need to be metioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessex (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

West.andrew.g

Dougweller - Thanks for letting me know about the block on this user. I'm a bit baffled by it, though. I met this guy at Wikimania in Poland - he came all the way from the US to be there - and his big thing is this anti-vandalism tool he worked on, Wikipedia:STiki. I looked at his contributions, and nearly all he seems to do is vandalism patrol using STiki - he doesn't seem to be annoying anyone, rigging RfA votes or anything like that. We were thinking of using his anti-vandalism tool to help us spot vandalism in preparing offline releases. What did he use sockpuppets for? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom is involved in this, you might want to join the discussion at User talk:SirFozzie#STiki. SirFozzie, an Arb, says " a specific problem the user created that required significant cleanup, as well as people contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. He is currently in discussion with members of the ArbCom and the WMF now, to discuss this". Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)A
Many thanks, that's very helpful! Sorry to be a nuisance. Walkerma (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No nuisance at all, glad to be of help. I told you in the first place because I could see that some of his work was constructive. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just Curious

Of what benefit was it to remove the external links on the Cheryl Dunn page? I'm not associated with the article, though I did add a maintenance tag once. Just curious. Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 12:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i find the external links relevant, as they all link to art or press directly related to the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunhea (talk •contribs) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:EL - " it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. " "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum".
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
For any subject there are potentially large numbers of links. The fact that they relate to the subject is not a reason to add them or keep them. Dougweller (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Satellite campus

Hi. You started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite campus a few days ago. The article Satellite campus is now greatly expanded. I wonder if the changes would cause you to reconsider your nomination. --Orlady (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, but see my recommendation for a name change. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have strong feelings about the name change (but I recognize the situation). It looks to me like "branch campus" is the main usage in the U.S., but "satellite campus" may be more prevalent in some other parts of the world. --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Could be, I don't know, just that branch campus is the main usage so WP:TITLE says we should use it. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As an American, "branch campus" is certainly the more common term in my personal experience (and I note that I created Branch campus as a redirect to the then-existing Satellite campus article back in 2007), but I don't think it makes much difference which name appears in the article title. If you want to pursue a name change, be my guest! --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

King Solomon's Mines Edit/Revert

Hello Dougweller,

Did you undo my edit replacing sun with moon? Why? Malco5114 Malco5114 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. A new editor doing a change like that with no explanation is in fact usually a vandal. I did a quick but obviously inadequate search which turned up the word sun, I should have used the book title and sun|moon with Google as that works. This is why edit summaries are so important, so we've both learned I hope. Dougweller (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I'll elucidate any future edits as you suggest. Glad to contribute. Thanks. Malco5114 (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
And glad to have you here. A good catch at the article, my bad. :-) Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Quick copyvio question

Hi. A quick question I can't find the answer to: If I removed cut-and-paste content from an article, and tagged it as copyvio, then the creator puts the content back stating on talk: I' am the webmaster and administrator of http://outjoss.webs.com that includes http://outjoss.webs.com/aboutus.html", do we still need proof? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to protect them and to protect us. They may not realise that their text might end up in a book being sold on Amazon, and we need clearcut evidence. They can either email OTRS or put a licence on the website, I'll go look for it. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That was fast and helpful. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Use page discussion

Please use the discussion page and don´t revert before discussion. If you pages need to be cited please help me with taht but don´t delete nor revert before using the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.128.77 (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to keep removing 'outstanding' until you show me quotes from the scholars plural who use the word. I said that in my edit summary the first time I removed it. If you don't have the page numbers it suggests you haven't read what you are citing. I tried to help you by giving you links showing how to reference, what more can I do? I will try to help, but I'm not the only person who reverted you and you have never used the articles' talk pages to discuss your edits. I'm going to buy Cynthia Eller's book - have you read it? Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thoraeton

Why just three months? He seems to have been warned independently for just about every policy we have. J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but his original account had a clean block record. I don't know what happened, but if he comes back after three months and continues, he'll be indefinitely blocked, I was about to add that but wanted to reply. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I take that back, I was muddling him with someone else. I don't know enough to have any real opinion on this issue. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Whew! Lol. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wang Jinghong

The article Wang Jinghong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not meet the notability guideline for biographies.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bigvernie (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

By the time I saw this, another editor had removed the Prod with the edit summary "a fairly obvious de-PROD". Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't comment on my page

Prove your point or don't comment if you have any evidence against my claim present it otherwise leave it off my talk page. Tomgazer (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a warning, not just a comment. You must not remove the title of the article from the lead. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please send Paul home

Consensus was reached for Paul the octopus. It was just moved]. Thanks Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Favonian (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd just noticed it and was about to do it! Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A talk page you deleted

I noticed you deleted the talk page of the American Old West WikiProject. Why did you do this? The Raptor Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 19:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What I deleted had no main page. When I went to unndelete, the page I would have undeleted had been deleted twice this month already. So, I started a new one. Don't ask me what was going on, I have no idea. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Would you mind reminding Smatprt about his disruptive editing? Nothing I say has any effect. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dog meat

Hi there. An editor has moved the article to Dog (food) without consensus. It is a very contentious article, and a large debate over several issues, some related to the name of the article, were/are in progress at the time.

Right after the editor moved the page, s/he made a RfC to help determine whether the main image should be of dog meat, or a prepared dog dish. (strike not really relevant info)

This doesn't seem quite right. Is it possible to change the name back to what it was until consensus is reached? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm one of the people in the debate, so I don't know if I am allowed to tell anybody about this. Sorry if I am breaking the rules. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. We will continue to struggle toward consensus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Potentially violating the three revert rule on Matriarchy.187.21.128.77 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I mis-counted. Apologies. But then going on to 4RR is not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope you Ok with including, as based on patriarchy, a subtitle etymology on matriarchy? 187.21.128.77 (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not ok with your editing more today, as I can't revert anything. You are now at 5RR at least. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Indigo Children

Hi, I'm swiftstar and I've been editing your indigo children page. I recently read "What color is your aura?" and thought, oh cool, Indigo is closest to the way I think and interact with the world I want to find out more about it. I disagree with a lot of the psychic whatever that is out there, but I also dislike being told my personality type is a pseudoscience that doesn't exist. So I pulled out a few of the true things from the book and tried to kill some of the mysterious physic aura that was obviously mis interpreted and edited the article here before. I don't know how cite "what color is your aura" but I re-wrote most of it so I didn't infringe on copyright. Anyway I'll go research it and do it right this time if that was what was bugging you.

Thanks! Swiftstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftstar1142 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You really need to stop before you get blocked. Read the links on your talk page about original research. Discuss it at the article's talk page. But you have several editors reverting you, so also read WP:CONSENSUS. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The July 30 massacre

Hi Doug. I've unblocked the two accounts, but please have a look at the version history of July 30. It looked exactly like 122.57.81.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had created Dude with old man glasses (talk · contribs) and Eddiehendo64 (talk · contribs) (within a minute of each other) to have fun. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, now I hadn't thought of that. So, we watch and see, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. I was in fact acting with too much haste. Now I'll lean back and watch what happens. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The plot thickens: African tiger (talk · contribs) and Xylophone clown (talk · contribs) both created yesterday and evidently a tag team exhibiting the same interest for today's date. One of them extended this welcome to himself in my name. Nice touch. They both managed to rake up sufficient warnings for me to block them with a light conscience. Favonian (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, I've been distracted actually writing at Nabta Playa, a neglected article that was using only outdated fringy stuff. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to block the first two. Quack quack. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
What? Adding contents to Wikipedia, what luxury. I would be very understanding if you throttled the ducks. Favonian (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ye gads! Not a knot it's not (talk · contribs) Would you recommend WP:RBI for future socks, or should I start an SPI? Favonian (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
My guess is the response to an SPI would just be quack quack, so RBI I think. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Hi, I posted a comment on your query on Setalvad on WP:RSN. --Soman (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Release of Al Megrahi

I was going to completely redo this article because, as you said, there are multiple problems with it but was going to draft it in a subpage first so that visitors can still see the information that's already there without much disruption. I know if you draft new articles you can move the edit history into the main namespace but would I still be able to do this here? Would it matter if the article didn't have the edit history for the changes I'd made to my draft? Also, do you know why this page doesn't have the full name? (it's just Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi) --tb240904 Talk Contribs 21:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the name thing, but I'm not sure what to do about it. So long as it is just your edits you are moving, that would be ok. I'm still not convinced that a 2nd article is needed, have you read WP:CFORK?

Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also going to go through the main article later and remove a lot of the information on Megrahi's release. There is a lot more there than needed, especially in the medical condition section. It's also got problems but it's edited quite often so I don't want to do a major edit on it. Re. the name thing, would it be possible to move the article to "Release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi"? I'm not sure exactly how the move feature works. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 21:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, about WP:CFORKS, there is a lot of information available regarding the release of Megrahi. Obviously, not all of it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia but there is certainly more than should be included in the main Megrahi article. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The move is easy. The thing is, once both are trimmed (and I've trimmed the release one by removing the bulk of the letter), are they too long for one article? Dougweller (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I see your point but I think when we have an article specifically on the court that prosecuted Megrahi, as well as articles on the bombing, the trial, the investigation and even alternative theories into the bombings, we should also have an article on the release of the man convicted of the crimes. However, that would be a total of seven articles relating to the same event and person. Perhaps some could be merged. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, missed this. That is a lot of articles! Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I’ve not paid too much attention to the contents of these articles but the more I look at them now and compare them with the Scottish online press coverage of these issues (Newsnet Scotland, Caledonian Mercury, etc) the more I’m seeing what looks like clumsy repetitive error and, worse, perhaps even systematic bias. Interestingly, I can’t help but notice that the misinterpretations and “mistakes” consistently put the Scottish government in a bad light.
I don’t know whether the articles need to be merged but I do strongly think both articles need to be put under the microscope and I don’t think much of the content would survive ruthless scrutiny. A number of people did the same to the Boycott Scotland article last year and pretty much exposed it as cheap political puffery. I think it’s time to find out how much of these is factually correct, and how much is one-sided opinion. Zagubov (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. There's a lot of pov editing going on here. Whatever we think of the guy, whatever horrible crimes he did, the article needs to be as accurate and dispassionate as possible and not be used for partisan purposes. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

His Majesty's back!

Yongle the Great's back again. See User:Tie Mole. This time, he's using the name of a novel character. (Tie Mole is a character in Datang Youxia Zhuan, an article created by me! LOL). It appears that he has proposed for deletion several articles created by him. What shall we do this time? 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at them and see if he's right, some look bad. Revert where you think the article is worth keeping. I'll block him. How about Bamboo2? Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
He's getting more aggressive. Take a look at User:義勇軍進行曲's contributions. This username refers to the March of the Volunteers, China's national anthem. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 10:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I believe User:Bamboo.2002 is another sock. It appears that he has expanded his scope from the Ming Dynasty to the Tang Dynasty now. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 10:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
He has created at least 4 or more sockpuppets yesterday, all of which have been reported, or did I miss out any? He's getting out of hand. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 05:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get a range block. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Dieu et mon droit (talk · contribs) ? Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Matriarchy

Ana the IP just reverted at Matriarchy without talk page discussion. Just a heads up. If you need me, let me know. I'm around. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Thanks. That was a silly move on her part. I've reverted again and warned her. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Possibly Amazonetta brasiliensis. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
ROFL! really really funny, thanks. She'll be back probably, that's at least 5 sockpuppets so far. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Settlers" vs. "natives"

In your recent edit at Moses, you imply that the early settlers to America, i.e. puritans and pilgrims, are the same as native Americans, i.e. indians. Is that what you are claiming? Some might consider the two terms as direct opposites, far from the same meaning. But since your edit was based on your equating them, can you explain? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually my edit was based on WP:LEAD. The first people to settle in North America were the Native Americans, that's why they are called 'native'. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Zoltan Simon

Maybe I missed which interaction you wanted me to look at, but the only interaction I appeared to have had with this person was back in November 2002 when I suspected some text he added was a copyright violation. (This was back in the early mists of Wikipedia when I was just one raw newbie who didn't realize everyone else was just as lost as me; No wonder I didn't recognize the name!) I don't think his return or his edits have will involve me -- the only way I would get involved in any of the articles you mentioned is if I stumbled on a book or article worth including there -- but I hope he realizes how much Wikipedia has changed since that time, & the need to cite sources & other authorities isn't too hard for him to understand. Thanks for the head's up in any case. -- llywrch (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

user:Cumanche

Could you please warn Cumanche about his behavior? Please mention that you're an admin if you do. Lechonero (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dock Jumping

Going back I realized that I changed his edits on Golden Retriever by mistake.. But on Dock jumping he made 12 edits..changing picture placement,size,links....now doesn't that need discussion?...{if you really want to know why certain changes were made, discuss them calmly without reverting them first.}isn't this a two way street? gd8man (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they actually didn't need discussion. The only time such edits would need discussion would be if there had been a discussion on the talk page, and there was either no consensus or the changes were against consensus. His edits were routine and well explained in edit summaries. If you disagreed, you should have raised the specific issues you had on the talk page first, not just reverted them. It's not as though this was a major content dispute. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
So when he deleted the current world record, or moved images around, changed other wording, making 42 edits and no discussion it is ok .....And because he complained I am the bad guy. I have been editing for over 2 years, not that it means anything. But hey come on, he comes and makes wholesale changes deletes records,changes images (even he admitted the lead image was not good)and doesn't have to discuss it. Well it kind of smells like a brotherhood.gd8man (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Granas

Regarding Granas article up for speedy deletion... What exactly are you looking for in terms of notability in an article about a video game character? What can I do to provide such a notability claim??Jove (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Find some reliable third party sources where he's discussed, see WP:RS. Actually it should probably be a redirect to the game, with anything about the character in the game's article. Note that I could have deleted it myself but wanted a 2nd opinion. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Would the site http://naszling.wordpress.com/grandia-ii/ qualify in so far as notability is concerned, together with the two links that already exists in the Granas article, or do we need more? Jove (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Did you read WP:RS? Blogs usually can't be used at all. Look at WP:NOTE and the links from there, there must be something about video games somewhere, hopefully. Don't worry if it gets deleted, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Gd8man

Do me a favour and have another word with Gd8man (talk · contribs) who has ignored everything he/she was told and has restored images back to 300 pixels without explaining why, and has repeatedly deleted my well-sourced addition to the article. I really don't want to get into an edit war or fall foul of 3RR, but this user is still exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour. --Simple Bob (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconds before I saw this I commented on the talk page about iDC and his comments on fairness. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm getting really hacked off with his/her behaviour. Should I reopen something at WP:ANI, or can you give the user a level 3 or warning for edit warring? --Simple Bob (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've done a lot more to the article this evening, making a number of well-sourced additions explaining the history of the different organisations and explaining where relevant the difference between each one - especially w.r.t. distance measurement. Let's see if my changes survive! Also, if you are US-based you might want to watch the Letterman show tonight (Thursday 5th) as my googling tells me there is a big feature on the subject. Thanks for your help so far. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gd8man did another mass-revert overnight, then reverted someone else who undid his/her work. I'm sick of this and despite your admirable efforts to tone down his/her behaviour it still continues. As such I've opened another ANI thread seeking assistance and guidance on a way forward (RFC perhaps?) See this ANI request. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gd8man is awake and reverting again. Please intervene. --Simple Bob (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Yes, I think you're right that ANI is the place for this. This is a user who refuses to play by the rules, and regards everyone else as a hindrance to his getting his way. Take care and get some rest. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also wanted to let you know that from what Czar Brodie says on the Talk Page, there are now apparently copyright violations involved here. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of cited text from Dock jumping

If you would of seen on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dock_jumping that there is a disussion on the subject. I am sorry that I put a burr under your saddle....gd8man (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not an explanation, that's a statement you are going to remove it. There was no excuse for removing it, if you wanted to point out hat one organisation is part of another, you add that to the article, not remove something. And I also saw your comment about 'dock diving' being trademarked, which as another Administrator points out, doesn't stop us from using it in the article - you keep coming up with arcane reasons for removing material. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Doctor" Victor Olaiya

I am not comfortable with completely dropping "Dr." from this musician's name. Quite a lot of Nigerian musicians use titles in their names, such as Sir Shina Peters, General Prince Adekunle and King Sunny Adé. Maybe "Dr." could be put in quotes before his name in the lead section, e.g. "Dr." Victor Abimbola Olaiya is a Nigerian trumpeter... Dr. seems to part of his name to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. We still use his last name in the article, 'Dr' where that's actually what it says on his albums, and 'Victor Abimbola Olaiya', also known as 'Dr Victor Abimbolya Olaiya' would work better I think. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I sort of did that, a bit clumsy but o.k. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wild onions and stuff

I warned him. If you have a moment can you read the article on Emic and etic and consider whether further comment is needed on the talk page? Or, if you feel the article deserves fleshing out perhaps you have constructive (significant view/reliable source - based) ideas?Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thansk for warning him. As for Lett, he participated in the debate that led to the publication of EMICS AND ETICS: The Insider/Outsider Debate', see [12]. Given that, I'd say his views are worthy of some mention in the article. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Intervention on behalf of Colon-el-Nuevo

I'm former editor Jel, details still accessible probably. If my details aren't accessible, please contact me on my anonymous LiveJournal blog Rahere. My chef d'oeuvre was annotating the Albigensian Crusade page, until a crass monitor decided to insult me personally. I'm working with Laura Smoller of Arkansas Uni, who's probably the world's leading expert on the history of late mediaeval cosmology, and in particular of Pierre d'Ailly's version of it. d'Ailly inspired Columbus directly, and indirectly through Nicholas of Cues ("Cusanus") Kepler and Copernicus, all of whom realised that it was inevitable not only that the spherical geocentric model was inaccurate (Cusanus, for example, realised that orbits are eliptical, so tightly-nested spheres couldn't be possible, collapse of the music of the spheres) but that precession of other planets meant the Earth is spherical, and probably not at the centre of the Universe. I've been following up the relationship between Cusanus' later boss, Pope Eugenius IV, and Prince Henry the Navigator whilst on holiday in Portugal and have found the Portuguese are taking the subject places not done before, using their internal documentation - it's not just Colon. Colon's argument about the nobility is halfway credible, he's just not used to your rules about original work. Like me, he'll probably stop editing because that rule disqualifies the competent: you end up with an encyclopaedia built by noncompoops catering to the lowest common denominator. The Britannica built theirs using experts. Therefore, I'm dropping Colon a similar note to discover what he's published. His arguments make sense but may have overshot: I'll talk it through with him. In the mean time, I'd suggest going easy because he's doing more than simply regurgitating books.

I strongly disagree that insisting on what reliable sources (meaning basically academical ones in this context) ends up with a lowest common denominator encyclopedia. Admins aren't going to listen to pleas to ignore policy, that should be obvious and is a good thing. I don't think we are going to abandon an insistence on using reliable and verifiable sources or start to accept original research. This may at times be to the detriment of a few articles but overall works very well for what we are. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogen Economy

Doug, hey there.

I am not sure what to do to keep the Hydrogen Economy page current with this new technology and I certainly don't want to get into the ***t list.


So in your opinion what do I need to list the MagneGas technology as a production process in the Hydrogen economy, I have tried to keep the same text and related references at the Dry Plasma Arc process but still you know it down. I would appreciate your help

Globalreach1 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is really difficult. I saw your posts on skepticforum by the way, while searching for something to help you. Virtually everything I could find searching Google news was obviously based on press releases. You might be able the mention the UN presentation here [13]. This [14] at first looked good but it seems to be a document submitted to the Victorian government, so the same as a press release. I thought [15] would work until I translated it and found out Magnegas is a football team also. This [[16] is more promising. You've got to find independent sources discussing MagneGas, and I've found that pretty difficult. Use article talk pages if you are being reverted. Don't think I don't sympathise, but the fact that there is so little and the difficulties in finding anything are a major problem. I think I told you to read [[WP:NOTE}} and its associated pages. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Globalreach1 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doug, you have been really helpful and I can't tell you how much I appreciated it as I am new to this. Nothing like working all day on something and then an editor (not you) signs on and in 5 seconds reverts to a prior version. I'll take your advice and start anew, thanks once again. Your "Green" and eager student!

Ok. Always Assume Good Faith (see WP:AGF - the reasons you are being reverted are basically based on policies and guidelines. You have time on your side, if this is going to be successful it will be obvious, and there seem to be some projects coming to fruition shortly. The fact that it is so hard to find third party sources should change, and is your main problem right now. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

You appear to have been the last admin to have had to deal with this mess. Can you salt the page? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I already have, salted it when I deleted it. Obvious socks, but I'm off to bed now. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
He's back, with Moutray of Scotland - can it be salted, or does it require recreation to nip it in the bud? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Salted, but I wonder - if left unsalted, if he comes back he'll recreate it. If salted, then he starts a new name, harder to notice.

Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd considered that, but look at it this way: he's very unoriginal. He wants that name "Moutray" to be in there. Should be noticeable on newpage patrol; and anyhow, given the quality of the articles he's created thus far, I suspect they'll be speedied for other reasons, if nothing else. If we keep whittling down the titles available, eventually he'll give up because he can't create anything else.
Thanks for the salt - I'll keep an eye out for anything else. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
He's back: English Moutray Heritage. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
And someone beat me to it. Thanks though, keep letting me know. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
just wanted to let you know , that whoever is giving you the run around , its not me .

i was the original user moutray2010 . whoever this is , is a copycat . i have better things to do with my time. after i was blocked , i have not been involved since the 18 th of may . i admit i did rant on initially , but i was unfamiliar and a new user . after getting blocked a few times , i gave up . i'd suggest considering removing all reference to moutray2010 , as it only appears to encourage disgruntled users , to become a nuisance and waste your time. just for your information . i dont even have a wikipedia account , and am very happy for you to block all the variants . why would i sign a name? why would i use obvious variants ? why would i advertise the fact ? why would i keep repeating behaviour ? just for your information , it is not me . I have too little time to get involved in petty nonsense . i learny my lesson after the first few weeks . bbye

Freezing of Genizaros Page

Dear Dougweller, I am responding to your suggestion to elucidate or cross out the comments about Lechoneros intentions. I wrote that comment in good faith as I am dumbfounded as to why Lechonero would want to take the word "indian" out of an article that is about American Indians. If you look at the long list of references, some of which I have contributed, they all address the topic of Genizaro Indians. I beleive Wikipedia is a great site and I have tried to do my part to contribute to the accuracy of the Genizaro page for the benefit of readers. In the past when suggestions have been made I have enjoyed them. My only contention with Lechonero is that he has changed the entry in such a way as to alter the accuracy of the page. Lechonero has himself admitted that he knows nothing about the topic. In response to my suggestion that he develop at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject he wrote the following in the discussion section:

Cumanche: Before, I simply found you annoying. Now, I'm actually angry at you. Let's get a few things straight. 1) I don't have to read so much as a single sentence on this subject to contribute to this article as long as my edits are in good faith. The only knowledge I need is a basic familiarty of Wikipedia policy.

I have a legitimate question as to Lechoneros intentions. I would absolutely love to assume that he/she is acting in good faith. However, the fact that he/she altered the meaning of the entry, and then requested that you freeze it after his/her misquided edit (please realize that I use misguided cautiously, but with confidence). You can attest to this yourself if you look at the comment about genizaraos being comprised of groups from New Mexico. This is clearly not the case and Lechonero him/herself has attested to the point that he/she knows nothing about the topic. I was under the assumption that Wikipedia was a shared website in which editors contribute to the accuracy and validity of the topic.

I ask you as an administrator to please consider editing the first paragraph of the article to read as follows:

Genízaros were Indian Slaves who served as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s.[3] Please take a look at the references below. Sir, Genizaros were American Inidan Slaves. This is an important aspect of this article. Removing "American Indian" from the first paragraph alters the meaning of the peice and as I mentioned earlier....I question why someone would want to alter the meaning of such an important topic.

In good Faith 207.114.147.200 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bailey, L.R. Indian Slave Trade in the Southwest. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1996.

Ebright, Malcolm and Rick Hendricks. The Witches of Abiquiú: The Governor, the Priest, the Genízaro Indians and the Devil. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2006.

Gallegos, Bernardo, "'Dancing the Comanches', The Santo Niño, La Virgen (of Guadalupe) and the Genizaro Indians of New Mexico," In Indigenous Symbols and Practices in the Catholic Church: Visual Culture, Missionization and Appropriation. Kathleen J. Martin, Editor. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishers, 2010.

Rael Galvan, Estévan, "Identifying and Capturing Identity: Narratives of American Indian Servitude, Colorado and New Mexico, 1750-1930." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2002.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Request

What information do you need? I probably can't, and almost certainly shouldn't, just cut and paste the whole article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess mainly I was trying to find out if it mentions the Hanau Epe, although as I've got the monograph being reviewed I was interested in any major challenges to any bits of the monograph. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I may not get to this for a while. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Advice on a proposal

D, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, what a simple task. I think you need to start by examples. Some of this is simply about sourcing. I'm not sure that if one book by an author is discussed in reliable sources as being pov, and a 2nd book on the same subject isn't discussed, that we can't assume it has the same pov unless it is explicitly rejected. Anyway, examples of the problem this is meant to fix? Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking about debates on the Jesus talk page - whether someone who received a PhD in Bible from Union Theological Seminary and teaches at Notre Dame (A Catholic university) and writes a book on biblical history is (on the basis fo facts before you) forwarding a Christian POV. I am also thinking of the arguments we have had at the race & IQ page, where some books or articles by a scholar have been criticized as racist; does this mean we can infer that anything that author writes is espousing a racist 9as opposed to say a "psychologist's") POV? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Creationism

Hi Doug, cf. your recent edit to Creationism, I've posted a question here. Can you help? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, I suggested an alternative wording for this section, and have been bold and implemented this in the main article. If you've a moment to look to ensure I'm not misfiring, I'd be grateful. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Missed it earlier today, thanks for pointing me to it. I guess that's ok, although isn't Dawkins also saying that the scientific method applies to both disproving religion and to fields which obviously fall within science, such as creationism? Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't read Dawkins quite that way, but that probably says more about me. I read his argument as something like: "where religion makes claims on observable facts, cf. creationism, it is (usually) demonstrably incorrect; NOMA creates a separation between science/religion in which statements by religion do not intrude on observable facts; therefore religion makes no contribution to the uncovering of truth (or at least none that's discernible from mere opinion)". I certainly don't get that science "disproves" religion from Dawkins, more that, in this NOMA sense, it is a logical irrelevance (but still a political hindrance). Anyway, obviously edit my mangling into something that makes sense! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I need to read Dawkins again. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient egyptian - pharoh Rachaf

Hello!

Rachaf is Chefrens (or sometimes spelled Khafras) correct name reading it specifically from ancient egyptian, like Cheops name is really Chufu.

I learned this from a professor in egyptology, the reference lies in learning how to read egyptian hieroglyphs.

That's not the way Wikipedia works, we need to find sources from Egyptologists, and neither Google Scholar nor Google Books turned anything up, and if it was in normal use it would be easy to find. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the resault of recent european findings in egyptian research. The hieroglyphs have been read in the wrong order for centuries. Up till now. All well educated egyptologists up to date knows this, but I haven't found a printed source to this precise effect. This information is so new it doesn´t appear in regular encyclipeadias yet, it´s only available through studies in egyptology and deciphering hieroglyphs. Help on finding these refrences is much appreciated. Stringence (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking around, I've got good contacts, but it shouldn't be in the article without references, and even less so in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Miravalle

It´s OK to redirect. For the time being.

I started this page hoping that those who know more, and have access to pictures, would continue building it.

This mansion is truly magnificent, and I think it deserves a place of it´s own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringence (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Try to build it up within the vineyards article using reliable third party sources. Then later maybe it can be spinned off. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

An IP has left a long, rambling comment about you at WP:WQA. SnottyWong gossip 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A proposal for improved watchlists

Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? --bodnotbod (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential AfD?

Article Genesis 1:1 covers ground already covered in Creation according to Genesis or whatever it's name is today) and Creation ex nihilo. It adds nothing to what's said in those two. On the other hand, it evidently affords hours of harmless entertainment to a dedicated band of home-based biblical scholars with too little in the way of a social life. Is this a candidate for deletion? If so, how's it done? PiCo (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the criteria, decide if any apply, then use Twinkle if you have it. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I added a tag from the AfD page, but apparently not correctly - could you have a look? PiCo (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010

Dougweller, I noticed an edit request for the fully protected page Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010, which led me to examine the article history. To refresh your memory, you had protected the page due to vandalism. In reviewing the history, it seems the vandalism was from anonymous editors, and there was a history of productive page edits from named users before the protection was implemented. I think it would be suitable to semiprotect the page instead, if you determine there is continuing need for the protection. [I'll monitor your talk page for your reply here.] --Bsherr (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much! --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Add promotional material to Wikipedia

i dont add promotional material to Wikipedia ararat anomaly page. i add link which was there one year. it is nice article for mount ararat (mountain ararat anomaly on it) nohas ark (which people belive what ararat anomaly is) and etc. if this is promotional material cnn link is more promotional material then that link. Please read before you delete something from wikipedia. if something wrong with external link rule please write to i learn it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.175.10.171 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Editing

Regarding your message on my talk page. I generally avoid making POV edits. In both cases you cited, I was simply undoing the edits by the user, Thesaakaja, who is clearly a spammer if you look at the various edits he has made. I was reverting it to the previous versions because Thesaakaja did not justify the changes he made, where as the previous users had. I hope that clears things up. Foreverknowledge (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Foreverknowledge

Ok, but if you had added clear edit summaries that would avoid such problems. Thanks for the prompt response. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

thank you for your feedback on my revisions of various articles. I obviously have much more to learn about the policies and mechanics. just for the record, all the additional material represented verifiable scholarly information and my revisions were done in good faith. DomenicoStefano (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no doubt about that. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Radio

Hi Doug. As far as radio stations, I do not agree with the claim that they are all notable. They are not. WP:BCAST is very clear that some radio stations are not notable. It says the 3 criteria to meet notability, of which only one has to be met. Either a long history, big audience, or special format. A radio station in a small town with a small audience and not much history or special format is, by definition, not notable. However, a big radio station with a lot of history is notable. The BBC and WBBM would easily qualify. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I took one to AfD. Clearly not notable, but I was told anything with an FCC licence is notable and it was kept. Dougweller (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem being, I think, that the link is just an essay, and !Voters were claiming that precedent trumped. pointing to a link that lists how votes have gone in the past.

User:Lonelyking

Hi. I'm Zhang Zishan (张子山). I live and work in South Vietnam. I specialize in the history of the Ming dynasty, as well as in pre-modern Chinese legal and medical history--Lonelyking (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrono1084 and Al Megrahi

Next time, have a quick glance around to see if suggestions are being followed. 1084 is indeed discussing that edit and I can't say for sure we're not going to reach a compromise. He's edit warring and pushing POV, and I suppose the block was appropriate, but I don't think I'm dealing with a genuinely bad faith actor. For that matter, I probably pushed too hard trying to get a discussion going. Şłџğģő 15:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Petrie source in Historical Context

I wrote to you in Talk:Mitanni regarding what you quoted/suggested from User:Paul_Barlow:

("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both." (and also had the same problem I'm having). So do that, explain his views, put them into historical context..

Do you mean something like this:

It has been suggested by Prof. Petrie and Henry Hall, that Mitanni was of Armenian origin<-Petrie ref here->. And in which part of the page of Mitanni can we add this? Aryamahasattva (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we caught all the socks

Right before he was blocked, Forsts/AA was suggesting that some of my edits were vindictive retribution for his revert war on Mitanni, like this: [17]. What I find interesting is that Aryamahasattva had made a similar accusation, [18] although forsts himself hadn't actually made that accusation with his account yet. Not only is Aryamahasattva qualified to explain what Forsts was thinking, they've never directly engaged each other's statements, but seem to tag team off each other to pursue an identical agenda. Beyond this, Aryamahasattva only showed up after Forsts was told any more edit warring would lead to a ban.

Forsts, AA, and Aryamahasattva all speak in broken English (I assume their first language is Armenian), and have worse punctuation, so it's hard to get a feel for their style, since you never know what's a personal trait and what's a consequence of English as a second language. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect Aryamahasattva is a Forsts/AA sock, or at least a meatpuppet. AA is not the kind of person to let a ban get in his way. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Thanatosimii, I'm not the banned user AA, and I'm not a meatpuppet. This is my first and only account I created in Wikipedia on January 2010. You can verify it and check the IP etc. Is this how Thanatosimii wins arguments in a discussion page like Talk:Mitanni. Right above here, I wrote to Dougweller regarding his and Paul_Barlows, (oh and not to mention Til_Eusispegiel's) comments regarding the historical context of the Petrie and Henry Hall sources. I myself am working on our history related pages also. If you look at my earliest edits, I tried to include my artwork in the Tigran the Great page. Aryamahasattva (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

New Page Creation

Hi there, I'm trying to create a page for the band Macklemore using non-trivial references to assert their notability, but since you have deleted a similarly-named article, etiquette dictates I ask you about it. May I ask what the problems with the previous article were, and might it be possible to see a copy of the deleted page? --Hojimachongtalk 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you kind sir. --Hojimachongtalk 21:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page a couple of days ago (even though the edited text was in a wikibreak template that is currently hidden and I just noticed the removed vandalism). Regardless, it had to be removed sometime by someone. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, others do the same for me, nice to be able to return the favor to someone. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Levin Zhang

I believe Levin Zhang is another one of Yongle the Great's sockpuppets. I've reported him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levin Zhang. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would it be possible to contact you via email? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an email link in the link menu on the left side of this page. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Email sent. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

cyrus edits and youtube

I already posted cyrusace a comment as well. However the youtube link is afaik not a copyright violation itself, but a link to a potential copyright violation which is not quite the same though WP forbids the latter as well of course. Just mentioning that because the template you've posted to cyrusace userpage deals with "real" copyright violations and hence might confuse them.

There is a potential issue with the revert as well, as long as the content addition itself and the citation seem ok, there is no need to revert the whole edit, instead it is sufficient to remove the youtube link only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the distinction but as you say, the template doesn't make it. It's 'real' in our terms, I think. I've commented on the rest at the article talk page. His love for gardens doesn't belong under a 'politics and management' section, and I'm dubious that it belongs anywhere in the article without a better source saying his love for gardens has been famous throughout the ages and somehow distinct with what I have seen mentioned, a general Persian love for gardens. I'm not at all sure that the garden belongs there either, why that specific construction and no others? Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the content itself though sourced doesn't look that convincing, so keeping it out as long as nobody complains might be a good choice.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, I am not quite sure what you are trying to say at the above paragraph..! However, I got your message on my talkpage and will revise the text so it will not be a CR issue. Moreover, if you think that the text belongs to another section of the article other than "Politics and Management", then suggest one, as to be constructive, instead of reverting the whole thing. Other than that, the "Paradisia" gardens are historically an undeniable part of Cyrus' life and not having it in his article would be a major lack of information. Thanks. Cyrusace (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page, not here. I've explained my reasons there, so other editors can see them as well. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive bot

Hi! I simply copied it from the user's talk page. Did I forget to change something? Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I see, I forgot to change the archive parameter to User talk:Surtsicna/Archive1. That's why it did not actively archive anything. Is that the only thing I have to change to make the bot work? Surtsicna (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I'd have to look it up and can't right now, no time. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mitanni seal

Dougweller this is Ararat_arev here. One of the first things that I did in Wikipedia when I joined in Dec. 3 2006 was upload the Mitanni seal [19]. Please, dont let them remove this. First of all I didnt even put the copyright template, the Copyright admin/handler User:Jkelly, who has won a lot of prizes for his work also, even a image of a king's crown for his work in Wikipedia, he is the one that put the correct Copyright template. At that time Thanatosimii was there, and he didnt attempt to put a disputed tag on it. The only reason he is putting this now is the edit wars I had with him recently, which is not a reason to remove the Image. Also, the explanation that he is giving in the discussion page of the Image doesnt even give any source of what he is saying, how do you even know he is not making it up? [20] Even if he is giving the right reasons, the copyright template that User:Jkelly put says, "In most cases..", before 1923. So this is the key part of the copyright template, it is not an issue, he is making this an issue because of other info about Eupolemus, and the Petrie source issues. He never attempted to remove this before, and now he decides because of what I explained just now. So please, verify the copyright more carefully, and if what he is saying is actually correct, or if he is making up reasons without sources to back it up. Please dont remove the Image. 76.250.10.97 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding edit without verifying the cited reference in injil

Please read the claim carefully,and then check the verse 34:31 you will what the writer is trying to tell.The word quran has been translated by Translator and not the word Book. Kitab, Quran, Tawrat, Injil are different words and have different meanings.in 34:31 The word Quran is written in Arabic Text of quran but one translator has translated it as scripture that is why people are taking his translation as reference where as the rest two translators have used the same word Quran in their tranlation. which should be the verifiable source ? the Abdullah yousuf ali or Pickthal and shakir? That is why it is very necessary to check and compare the translation with arabic text of quran , because Quran is in arabic and not written by translator. YUSUFALI: The Unbelievers say: "We shall neither believe in this scripture nor in (any) that (came) before it." Couldst thou but see when the wrong-doers will be made to stand before their Lord, throwing back the word (of blame) on one another! Those who had been despised will say to the arrogant ones: "Had it not been for you, we should certainly have been believers!" PICKTHAL: And those who disbelieve say: We believe not in this Qur'an nor in that which was before it; but oh, if thou couldst see, when the wrong-doers are brought up before their Lord, how they cast the blame one to another; how those who were despised (in the earth) say unto those who were proud: But for you, we should have been believers. SHAKIR: And those who disbelieve say: By no means will we believe in this Quran, nor in that which is before it; and could you see when the unjust shall be made to stand before their Lord, bandying words one with another! Those who were reckoned weak shall say to those who were proud: Had it not been for you we would certainly have been believers.[34:31].: Waqala allatheena kafaroo lannu/mina bihatha alqur-ani wala biallatheebayna yadayhi walaw tara ithi alththalimoonamawqoofoona AAinda rabbihim yarjiAAu baAAduhum ilabaAAdin alqawla yaqoolu allatheena istudAAifoolillatheena istakbaroo lawla antum lakunnamu/mineena

وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَن نُّؤْمِنَ بِهَذَ الْقُرْآنِا وَلَا بِالَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَلَوْ تَرَى إِذِ الظَّالِمُونَ مَوْقُوفُونَ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يَرْجِعُ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ الْقَوْلَ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا لِلَّذِينَ اسْتَكْبَرُوا لَوْلَا أَنتُمْ لَكُنَّا مُؤْمِنِينَ Yousuf Ali

The Unbelievers say: "We shall neither believe in this scripture nor in (any) that (came) before it." Couldst thou but see when the wrong-doers will be made to stand before their Lord, throwing back the word (of blame) on one another! Those who had been despised will say to the arrogant ones: "Had it not been for you, we should certainly have been believers!"


--Farrukh38 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Blombos Cave article

Dear Dougweller,

Can you please explain to me, in more detail, why the Blombos Cave article by Umfiki (1. aug) was reverted? You mention copyright violation as the main reason, but where exactly does this occur? Who is violated?

The current, older version is too simplistic and at many places wrong. I can agree with you that the newer version might be somewhat dense, but at least its up to date and is correct. With some revising I this should be the article to keep..

IamGM (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And copied more or less verbatim from work by CS Henshilwood.(eg [[21] and this page [22].. There was really no choice but to remove the copyvio. I f you want to use Henshilwood as a source to add to the article, that would be great, but of course in your own words, not a copy or close paraphrase of the originalDougweller (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


--- OK, you see I did not write the new article, Henshilwood did. So in a way he copied his own work. I am a student of his, and he was somewhat annoyed that his article was deleted, and asked me if I could check what had happened. Does this change anything in this case?

IamGM (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if that was the case, and left a message on his talk page but had no replied. The problem is that the material is copyright, whether or not it is his, and he probably doesn't own the copyright to most of it. If he did, he would in effect have to release it -- anything from Wikipedia can be copied elsewhere, so when someone releases material to be used on Wikipedia they are effectively giving up the copyright. I doubt that that was his intention. The other problem was of course that it wasn't properly sourced as we expect our articles to be. Another minor point is that it did include some of the original Harvard style citation from the originals but that didn't match the citation style in the article. Note that our policy on copyright violation is probably stricter than that of others, and also please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing as sometimes people think they can move words around and still comply with our policy. If you look at Red River Trails you will see an example of what we would hope for in the way of citing statements in an article (although that uses a different citation style to Blombos Cave, my point is about what statements are cited). Henshilwood's material has to be recast by someone and correctly cited. Maybe you'd like to do it? Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

--- Yes, I see your points and and thank you for clarifying this. I will foreward your answer to Henshilwood and we will publish a new and correct one when time permits.

IamGM (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I very much hope you do. It's a fascinating site. Any chance of a quick list of what's wrong? I might be able to do more work on it myself just to fix any errors. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi. Just adding a bit more information: for that material for which Mr. Henshilwood does own copyright, please direct him to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If he is legally in position to release the content under allowable license, then we can happily accept the content, so long as it meets other policies and guidelines. This content would then be freed for modification and reuse elsewhere, including commercially, so long as proper attribution is given and derivatives are not placed under new copyright. For any material he does not own, we would need a release from the copyright owners. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to his own exact words: "I own the copyright to all the Blombos material.", but I am not sure whether this would include papers published in Journals? Anyway, I will forward the last info to him as well and we will try to sort it out. As for the current article; first and foremost I think the first 3 paragraphs stand out as awful. Its badly written (a few sentence does not make sense) and there are several errors or simplifications:

1. "Limestone Cliff" - should be dune limestone cliff, aka calcarenite cliff. 2. "...two pieces ochre engraved with abstract designs" - there have been found additionally 13 pieces with engravings. 3. "The engraved pieces of ochre dated 70,000 BC" - A mean date of 77,000 years was obtained for the layers containing the two pieces of engraved ochres that were originally discoverd. With the new pieces its between 72-100KA. 4. "The date of engraved orche is not firmly confirmed" The chronology of Blombos Cave has been verified by 2 independent labs in two different continents (Europe & Australia) and is not generally challenged by any serious scientist.


The rest of the article is, as far as I can see, good enough, but lacks details about the latest finds.

IamGM (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ivo John Lederer

Hi. :) Since you're very familiar with this article I thought I'd try to save some time: does this look like a usable rewrite to you? It's up for review at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Take a gander at the section just above this one, by the way, do you want to add anything to it? Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go make a note on this matter and then come back to look at the other. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Good catch, I completely missed them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just em... trying to remember how... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

May I ask how much you actually know about the American theatre? Knowledge is the key here, not vandalism. InternetHero (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, I've a niece who was an actress? And a dictionary with the definition of ambivalence? Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, what does it mean then? InternetHero (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd edited the article, something went wrong, it means "having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone" and can't be used in the context you are using it in. You can't come 'under the ambivalence' Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess we have a problem then. Lets see who knows more. InternetHero (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You know absolutely NOTHING. InternetHero (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
So, no real discussion, just an insult? Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
NOPE. Niether. I've contributed with over 1,250 edits... You can't ban me so easily. :) P.S. I apologize. InternetHero (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Double checking

Hey Dougweller I'm just double confirming my intentions to remove the Latin style naming from the introduction of the Sulla and Marius articles. It will be moved to the infobox. What would be the best way to create a "full name" section in the info box above the date of birth? Once again sorry for hastily removing the references I did not intend this much time to lapse. --Tataryn77 (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've raised a question about ligatures at Wikipedia:Help desk#Ligatures as I don't know what our guidelines are on this. As for the infobox question, maybe you want to ask there also as I don't know much about infoboxes except that I don't like them (see my user page!). Thanks for the response. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Quit following me aound

Or else I'll get my friend to ge a new IP. InternetHero (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

[23] InternetHero (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Johnny Cash is good when he isn't preaching, but threatening to sock is a very bad idea, and rarely works. Administrators frequently look at the other edits of editors that appear to be problematic in any way, it's what we do. Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I thought you were gonna try to ban me so I woulda made new account :) InternetHero (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Not that hard to find a new account if you try to sock. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Look around you. People like me improve this world---not you. Don't ever forget that. InternetHero (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Lol. Being disruptive on Wikipedia is improving the world? Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyvren socks

Hey. I jut saw that you blocked that other sock of Wyvren. A few days ago I opened an SPI case for it, so maybe that case should be closed out? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll deal with it. If you run into anymore, please tell me. Good work at Commons. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Question.

Regarding your "M" thing: Yesterday I un-checked that in "My Preferences", but I'm so used to it that I clicked it, anyway. Anyway, I've been trying to fix that on Huggle, but I can't figure out how. If I un-check "reverts" in "Mark as minor" in the "Editing" tab in Huggle's "Options" section, it doesn't mark warnings as minor, but reverts stay marked a minor. The other issue is that when I close Huggle it doesn't save the changes. How can I fix this? - Donald Duck (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I can see it would be easy to do that. As for Huggle, I tried it out for a while and felt it didn't give me enough control, or rather made it too easy to give it control. I'm not surprised it marks reverts as minor. As for your close issue, try asking at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd reverted those last changes at the Akins piece, and given the gist of them, figured it was Wyvren up to his old tricks. Glad you've blocked. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

There's a lot of work needed on some articles and I very much appreciate the care and attention you're giving to some of the more challenging ones. I've started a new item on the talk page of one we discussed recently and I'm warming to one of your earlier suggestions about mergers Zagubov (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your warning

No problem with the warning. But, please, note that my only revert is here[24]. Here I've deleted tried a new version[25], based on the conclusions in the talk page. D. reverted me. I tried something different[26], (see also [27]. D. reverted me. I did my 1st real revert, and D. rv me back. So 1 rv for me and 3 for D. And D. do not want to present sources. That my version. I repeat: no problem with you. All "warnings" are welcome. My only suggestion (if I can do suggestion) is: invite D. to present sources for his "POVs". See you around!--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but all your edit summaries say revert or delete. Have you read WP:3RR carefully? Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Not really. I', trying to learn using my good sense. it is not so easy. Anyway, if I do a supported edit, and my antagonist revert me back, than I talk, but I'm reverted again what shall I do?
Anyway, look at here[28]. I had a misunderstanding with a sysop (it is resolved). But now, Brutadel. bother me! I wrote my reason in talk page, I've added some cn tags, but he reverted me! I've warned him, and I've resotred my edit. If he revert me again, I feel me free to restore my edits... Or no??
Well.... let me know.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Barryispuzzled

Here is the link to the archive on Barry [[29]]. It's obvious from his edits and his pointed attacks at me in particular that Barry is back. Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's my main objection to those who follow the Oxfordian theory, the way evidence is over-interpreted, especially the assumption of autobiographical content in the plays. A related point, which I think PaulB brought up: Are you insisting that that when comparing the Shakespeare work with that of another candidate, common authorship can be attributed on the basis of verbal parallels alone? Is this good scholarly practice? RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about the Oxfordian theory or Shakespeare (although if asked I'd say Shakespeare probably wrote the plays attributed to him). Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I had an hour to kill (and lose forever) - here is the beginning of the SPI report: [[30]]. Smatprt (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls

As the topic is covered in news as "alleged", a name change of the article would be sensible. I did add three two book sources to the article in question. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hallo. There is a big discussion (at least 4 years old) about Marco Polo birhplace. There are 2 claims:

  • a) Marco Polo is born in Venice
  • b) Marco Polo is born in a small island, in present day Croatia.
  • a) is reported by all (I wrote all) works on Marco Polo, includuing all (I wrote all) the scholars. Marco Polo clearry wrote to be "Venetian". He refer to Venice as his hometownHi. His father and granfather were Venetians, etc. etc...
  • b) is a fringe thheory. In about 4 years, not a single valid scientific source, was presented (see talk page).

User Brutal wants to impose a POV. This POV is to present the theory B as trust-able, on the same level of A, but he does not present sources. In the article is written that "the exact birthplace (of Marco) is unknown". That is no true: all the scholars says "born in Venice". Where does this claim come from? I was just asking a source. That why I've inserted CN tags, which are refused as a "POV" by my antagonist. With no discussion! Now, I', going (sadly) to start an edit war. This is the story (check here[31])

1) I start a new discussion on talk page [32]
2) Then, I insert CN tags [33]
4) I am reverted by B. (POV edits)[34]
5) I inform you
6) I warn the editor in his own talk page, asking to discuss in talk page.
7) I restore my edit

Now my antagonist was supposed to discuss in the article talk page, but he refuse. According to me he broke the rules So that: 8) Brutal revert me without discussion 9) I inform you (with this message) 10) I restore my edit.

Let me know if I did and if I do something wrong. Sorry for the disturb, but I have no aim to break rules. Thank you again.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of our 'rules' are guidelines, but WP:3RR is indeed more of a rule. I've asked Brutaldeluxe to post to the article talk page. Right now no one can edit the article. If you can't get other editors to agree with you, then you really just have to concede that you don't have WP:CONSENSUS. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder, If 2 users claim the Earth is flat, the result is... that the Earth is flat! Is this Wikipedia system??? I've on my side something more important than "consensus", i.e. the evidences. All the sources say I am right. Science does not work with consensus, you can be alone, but if you present evidences, you are right (do not forget Galileo!). Do I miss anything?--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
PS thank you for your support. Watch this [35]. He called me vandal! He has deleted even the picture I inserted! (BTW such us Brutal...)--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Old aquaintance?

This and this look like anyone we know? Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

I've left User:Meeso a message here [36] about the reversions to his preferred version, with the irrelevant info sourced to a letter to the editor. I'd rather not take him to Ani or 3rr if it can be avoided, but I'm not sure what else to do. I've probably hit 3rr myself, or will very soon if he re-inserts it. I'd appreciate any help you can give in dealing with this situation. Thanks and sorry to be a bother, lol. Heiro 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you hit 3RR, stop now. I'm giving him a 3RR warning after his last edit summary. And starting a section on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Right on. Will be at work IRL(i.e. not at laptop) for most of rest of day. Thanks. Heiro 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did you put it?

According to your edit summary, you reverted my good faith edit and said that you were going to move the comment to another page using Twinkle. But you didn't say where. Could you give me a link?--*Kat* (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm working on that, we've set up a new page but I'm not sure where to put it. RL is in the way right now, but it will get done today. I meant to get back to you, and I apologise for not doing that. I need to get this right so I'm consulting with others. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If you didn't know where to put it, why didn't you just leave it? I'm looking at the talk page now, and what I had to say fits right in with what others are talking about. Which makes me think that it didn't need to be removed in the first place.--*Kat* (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kat, please AGF. I've had to take over at short notice and I'm still getting up to speed. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the new clerk in this case.--*Kat* (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. No problem. Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Question Deferred

I asked this of Amory only to realize she was on vacation and unable to respond in a timely fashion, so my query falls to you:
Now that it's posted, if I have a comment on the merits of the proposed decisions in the climate change arbitration, is it acceptable for me to post on the talk page there or is the discussion limited only to involved parties at this point? (I learned of the case too late to submit prima facia evidence, but do have some relevant input)
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can make a statement (see the statements section for that) or join in the discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Kohen Gadol

Outrageous. Please do your research before you start throwing baseless accusations of plagarism. The article that I formatted clearly states that it comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. See the bottom: "This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain." There is even a Wikipedia template for this: {{JewishEncyclopedia}} Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Putting this on my talk page without acknowledging that I posted to you saying I had discovered it was from the JE is even more outrageous, I'd say. Yes, I wouldn't have gone to all the work I'd done if I had noticed the template. Maybe I shouldn't have put my opinion so strongly. But I still think that making articles by copying obsolete encyclopedias doesn't help Wikipedia. And at the least you should have rewritten some of the prose to make it more readable. Dougweller (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop digging. Your "clarification" noting that it was from the JE followed up by accusing me of "uncited plaigarism". There is a template for JE articles and that template clearly appeared on the article. What you have is essentially a problem with prose. I happen to like the prose. Fix it yourself if you think it's necessary. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Lest you continue to accuse me of hiding the text of your messages, User_talk:Briangotts#Copyvio_.28no.2C_copy_and_paste.29

Your response on my page:

Which is why I made the 2nd post. Clearly to my mind would be a template at the top of the page where people would be more likely to see it, preferably suggesting that editors might want to make the prose readable, find more modern sources, etc. Yes, you've technically followed our guidelines, but it would be a better article if it was not just copy and paste. As it stands it could never be a Featured Article without being completely rewritten. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My response on my page:

That's fine. I never said it should be a Featured Article. Any article ported over from JE is necessarily a placeholder. If you want to improve it and get it to FA status, more power to you. But I will react very harshly and strongly to accusations of malfeasance, especially plagiarism. Your second post, which you continue to cite to vindicate yourself, accused me of exactly that. A simple apology (which you have yet to supply), rather than harping on issues nobody is arguing about, would suffice. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Grundle

This could be Grundle. Unless I'm mistaken, this is a new user tagging new users' talks with sockpuppet. Also posted this at Iridescent. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the link (as I am slow-witted). It was User talk:Jonas Grumby, who is now blocked. Sorry to bother you. I freaked because I didn't know if the new accounts were grundle-created or not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, I do that at times. :-) Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits

You're an Administrator, right? Can you please tell User:Tryde to stop vandalizing my work just because he thinks subsisiary titles can only appear on the titles' articles and not on the holders' articles? It's arbitrary, it's destructive and it's not very smart either. He demanded a block above all!... Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerking help needed

Mongo added a new section

here

It didn't go well (and I added a sharp comment wondering if people actually read Carcharoth's plea)

lateer, TS appeared to agree it was badly off-topic and archived it here

So far, so good.

But then I saw my post again, and attached to one of the statements. It appears MONGO resurrected his narrative from the archive and posted it as a statement. As far as I'm concerned, that's OK by me - I don't see the value, but that's not my call. However, it appears he resurrected it with all the attached comments. Now some might think that is not just polite, but required - however, it is quite clear that the statements are not supposed to contain threads or commentary " No discussion here (threaded or otherwise). Limit of 500 words (as at requests for arbitration)." A new visitor will think that several people are quite rudely ignoring that direction.

Can you take some action? I'm equally happen with re-archiving it, and inviting MONGO to make a statement, or excising all the comments, but I don't think it is my call to take that action.--SPhilbrickT 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, Shell took care of it.--SPhilbrickT 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Cryptozoology

It's not really a subject I can imagine I'd be much help with, but I'd be willing to stick around. I can see there are some good editors who have an interest in the article- I'm sure if a few people were willing to throw a bit of time at it, it could improve drastically. What I can say is that if I remain fairly detached from it, I could be the one to offer a second GA review once some work has been done. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring of Climate change proposed decision talk page

I restructured a load of miscellaneous discussions under the existing case structure which had been proposed earlier in the case. As I've been asked to leave that kind of thing to clerks I'll do so from now on.

I suggest that it might be a good idea to try to keep the existing structure in place, and to aggressively archive discussions that don't have any contributions in the past 48 hours. The page is still a quite obscene 450kb in size and 400kb of that is in the discussion section. --TS 14:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Self promotion and original research

There are several edits made to Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll that to me seem like blatant original research and self promotion. I have tried to raise the problem of original research with the author but he persists. The "references" given for the statements are websites and blogs written by the author. I have looked to see if I can find any references to the claims made in the existing literature and cannot corroborate the claims made. An additional problem is that the edits are so badly written that the article becomes rather worse for wear (in my opinion). I do not feel like getting in an editing battle over something like this. Besides the fact that it's not appropriate, I feel that's a total waste of my time. Can you or another admin look at this? --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all I can do is what I've just done, see [37]. Been there, done that, tired of it. Sorry, but I have been here before, and it's also a field I don't feel comfortable about editing. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. I didn't quite know where to go with this. I was hoping that barring doing something yourself, you could point me in the right direction. I appreciate the help. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't feel I can do anything myself, but do keep an eye on the Wikiproject page and see if anyone comments. Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

I agree that most zoologists do not accept Cryptozoology as a legitimate branch of Zoology, however, if we are going to have the statement "Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of the science of Zoology" in the article, we need to have a source to back up that statement, otherwise it must be removed per WP:References.--Gniniv (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe we had problems with your citation requests in the past. If you don't think the statement is wrong, then you shouldn't be asking for a CN given your pov. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:Verifiability, all statements should have backing that are challenged or likely to be challenged.....--Gniniv (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say that, it says statements challenged or likely to be challenged should have backing. Are you challenging the apparent fact that this is not a legitimate branch of Zoology? The article has pov problems and you seem to be adding to them. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
My point is not whether it is a recognized branch of Zoology, my point is that a statement in the article says it isn't and I have challenged it, therefore it needs a reference per WP:V..--Gniniv (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I might also remind you of WP:Good faith...--Gniniv (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You must recall [38]. And another editor has reverted you on this, so you might want to explain on the talk page why you are challenging it. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I am fine if the statement stays (I actually agree with it) and I will just try to add a reference to it to make it look better. Thanks for keeping cool in our little tiff-for tat (SEE Below)--Gniniv (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Civility Award
Thanks for keeping cool in our debate despite POV realities! Gniniv (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another Squeezdot sock

A few days ago you extended the block for the puppeteer of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Squeezdot/Archive because they persisted in the error of their ways. Today, A-me-kaltner (talk · contribs) appeared and quacked so convincingly that I blocked them indef. Do you think there is a basis for indef'ing Squeezdot at well? Favonian (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely now, I was tempted to do that before. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. I was watching a dvd or I'd have caught the new sock! Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Slacker! Favonian (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk needed

Your help responding to this issue would be beneficial. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Monckton page protection

Thanks. This is, I think, the third time Minor4th has forced a full protection of the article.

FYI, I will be making a few editprotected requests over the next few days to make some (hopefully uncontentious) changes. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I won't be working on the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
That's actually false, ChrisO... the problematic editor here is you, not Minor4th, who is merely trying to undo your BLP violations. Further, this protection seems to have been imposed not because of any specific edits but rather because the old one ran out early. ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TS clerking

Doug, you warned me, but I'm not "doing", I'm "undoing". Tony Sidaway has been collapsing sections for several days now based on his reading of relevance, and he's an involved editor in this case. He needs to stop clerking this case and leave it to the arbs and clerks themselves. ATren (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We asked involved editors to do thinks like mark stuff OT. We hoped that the contributors themselves could manage the page. I also suggested hatting. The appropriate thing to do if you objected to any specific response to my request would be to either note it on the talk page or on my talk page, not revert it. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Really, where was this request made? I was not aware of it. In any case, don't you think it's a bad idea to have involved editors determining what is relevant? ATren (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller: Please stop TS from clerking. Multiple people have complained. You may want to investigate prior history. TS was a clerk himself quite some time ago. No longer. If you cannot or will not stop TS from clerking, please do not complain when others undo his inappropriate actions. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of the problem. ChrisO started a section complaining about MN, but anyone who commented was hatted, including Minor4th's response to direct accusations from ChrisO, and my own note (not "bickering") that MN had spotted and acted upon the BLP vio that WMC had tried to add to Monckton. If editors like ChrisO can add sections making accusations, then responses which address those accusations (or the editors accused) should not be hidden. This selective hiding from someone who is clearly a party to this debate is inappropriate. ATren (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I presume neither of you have looked at his talk page. He's been given more or less the same advice I gave to ATren. And it was an arbitrator who originally made the suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I looked at his talk page. I left him a request to stop clerking. Are you going to take action? I didn't see a request from you, or anyone else, of the form "please stop clerking" but Tony removes stuff vigorously. Please ask him to stop and then enforce it. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
An arbitrator wrote "Given some of the tensions arising, rather than collapsing off-topic discussion, could you simply mark anything you consider as such for the attention of a clerk or arbitrator? That might help reduce the tension." before your post to his talk page. What more do you want? ? Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Here you go: "Please stop clerking." Full stop. What that arb wrote was so equivocal it didn't actually read like a warning to me. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Then complain to him. I see no evidence of a current problem. If there is, note it on the talk page. Don't start reverting. It will be dealt with if it's deemed a problem. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
A simple request to stop clerking is what's required. If you don't see why Tony's manipulation of sections is problematic then I don't know what to tell you. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar doesn't seem to have read my recent statement addressed to Carcharoth on my talk page. --TS 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it. It just didn't seem to address the direct requests you've received not to clerk. So I didn't treat it as particularly relevant. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Then we will just have to disagree. TS seems clear about this, I was told by an Arb that what I said was sufficient, it had all stopped before you raised it, and there is nothing to enforce. I don't think TS is stupid enough to continue to do this (and he was doing it in good faith I believe), but if he does then he'll be stopped. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

!Vote at PD

Please let me know if the change I made is acceptable. I don't want to be out of line. Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually I think you should just remove it as otherwise it might look as though you changed your mind and oppose, are neutral, etc. Just your bare comments please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
K GregJackP Boomer! 15:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

I have absolutely no interest in the climate change fiasco, but coming from a BLP stance, this article clearly is biased - containing OR, selective quotations etc. I'm not quite understanding why you've reverted to a problematic article and protected. I realise there's an ongoing arbcom case (I've no dog in that fight), but we normally remove problematic BLP material pending consensus, we don't protect it until inhouse processed are complete. A quick glance at the case, and it seems to me this is precisely the type of BLP that's been a victim of agenda-pushing.--Scott Mac 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I revert to the version that had been protected by SirFozzie? Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll look again.--Scott Mac 15:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you did. I guess I'm concerned that that version isn't great. I mean boxes with choice quotes in them, designed to make the subject look like a nutter (which maybe he is, ymmv, but still) and OR concerning what claims are still on a website "as of", were just the sort of bad stuff I saw at a quick glance. Hm, what to do. Remove the protection and we have an edit war. Don't and we have a bad BLP. What I'd like to do is ban anyone who editing it before yesterday from working on it, and get a few BLP folk who've no interest in CC to do a re-write. Maybe what we need is an emergency BLP team who are authorised to put up temporary articles while arbcom ponders the wider issues - alternatively the article should be stubbed pending agreement.--Scott Mac 15:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Scott - thanks for commenting on this. I think either idea of yours is good. This was actually the point of my notice on the BLP notice board was to get some BLP editors who arent involved in CC and look at the article from a neutral perspective. If you can get a group of folks together, great, I'd say edit through the protection to remove BLP violations or stub it under protection -- anything is better than having all the BLP vios protected in the article. Minor4th 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting idea, but as a clerk for the case it isn't appropriate for me to actually get involved with the article. Email Arbcom? (and I mean email) about the specific problem? Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems a rather clumsy way of doing what I routinely do, removing unfair stuff from BLPs. I really don't want to get involved in the CC fiasco...sigh.--Scott Mac 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps an uninvolved admin such as your self, Scott, could note that they are going to edit through the protection on talk, then stub out anything remotely problematic. Better that the article be gutted temporarily than that BLP violations remain. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Many of the BLPs in this topic area suffer from severe problems after years of unchecked agenda-driven editing. In this particular case, there was an ongoing dispute about a specific issue and SF locked it on the "least bad" (per BLP) version regarding that particular dispute. But "least bad" does not make it good, because there were other areas that were also problematic, though at least the self-published critical presentation was protected out. I agree with Lar that perhaps aggressive stubbing under protection is advisable, at least until the close of the arb case (when, hopefully, the problems that led to the state of these BLPs will be resolved). ATren (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a particularly difficult BLP and I think it might benefit from a stubbing. On one hand he presents himself as an "honorary" member of the House of Lords. On the other hand officials in charge of the Parliamentary seal have asked him to stop using a coat of arms resembling it and those in charge of the House of Lords have stated unequivocally that there is no such thing as an honorary member, and he's not a member and has never been a member of the House of Lords. On the science, there is a similar, even more humiliating story. Getting consensus on the details within the context of our BLP needs patience, but it could perhaps be done if the article was started from scratch. --TS 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've stubbed the CC section.--Scott Mac 23:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi, you commented here. I'm going offline now so I don't have a moment to take care of this. Feel free to just remove with my permission. I have nothing there that is that important. Thanks for letting me know. I just iVoted because there was one there and I wanted to make sure my opinion as an outsider was known. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want you to know that I didn't have to leave due to rain so I removed my comment as you requested. Sorry, I didn't know I shouldn't be doing this. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to fix what I did wrong. Now I know not to do this. I know you are very busy so I'm thrilled that I got to tend to this and didn't have to make you take your time to fix my error. Have a good day, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I really appreciate it. I was lucky myself, the rain stopped here and I could walk my dogs. Don't worry, there's no reason you should have known it was inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, much appreciated. I have a cat, no walking, just a box, so no worries at least about that when it rains. :) If I comment anymore and make an error, feel free to make adjustments that maybe needed. I don't get offended about things like that, life's too short. ;) You take care and stay dry, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Voting on CC PD discussion

I went back and looked at the section where you told me to remove my vote. I note that there are several editors there who have "voted" on varioua proposals, but it seems you only advised me and Greg and Cla68 to remove our votes. Am I mistaken? If not, why would you only make that instruction to a handful of editors and not everyone who voted? Minor4th 18:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Who have I missed? If you'd read the comment at the bottom of my talk page (just above yours), you'd see another editors I asked. I may well have missed someone inadvertently. I advised 8 people. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL nevermind -- I see you did advise others, they just ignored you. I do think you missed Stephan Schulz and there may have been more voting since you left the messages. In fact, there's quite a bit of voting taking place. Minor4th 18:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I just got a note from Dougweller on the voting situation. I was just doing what everyone else was doing, but I think he's right; "voting" is not appropriate. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wis

Thanks for noticing Wis's recent personal attack against me at Talk: The Political Cesspool and warning him about it. I looked through his edit history and found that he has a long history of posting inflammatory statements about Jews and Arabs on article talk pages; I posted links to some of them here. The fact that he would accuse me of being a "raving splc zionist" comes as no surprise given his previous behavior. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Pls comment here: Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Very_disappointed after my 21:36 post. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli

Hey there, Globalreach1 back for more abuse. I have spent much time looking at the history and Santilli on Wikipedia and I think I know why he is such a lightning-rod for posts lacking neutrality from pundits (fuscilla) and editors (rubin) alike. There seems to have been a pattern from both parties of totally one sided comments. I am working through them now and have made some progress with your support, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalreach1 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

Hey Doug, i just got your message. I'll try and address your concerns because i do not think the article i created in question should be deleted considering its huge archeological importance to Ecuador. Im new to Wikipedia and ive tried to follow all the rules ive read so far, so im sorry if ive inadvertantly broken any.

I started writing the Punay article about five weeks ago or so and kept the draft on my userspace page until i thought it was of high enough quality to post, i wasn't aware there was a way to get someone to proof read it. To write the draft i not only spent considerable time looking at the format of similar archeological sites and trying to replicate them, reading the article development turotials, but also trawling through obscure and popular Ecuadorian websites in Spanish and translating it into English.

The photo i took myself and released under the creative commons, i hope to upload more of my photos of the pyramid soon including ones of the desecration of the pyramid, its really sad that because the Ecuadorian Government does not have the money to promote tourism to the temple and protect it we have people (mainly poor farmers in the surrounding villages) going to the temple and digging holes in it in hope that they can find gold and artifacts they can sell on the international black market.

So much has already been robbed from the pyramid and we really have no idea how to save whats left other than trying to increase an awareness of its existence on sites like wikipedia and sacredsites.com in the hope that the increase in international awareness will make the Ecuadorian government realise its importance and invest the money to excavate and protect the temple. Had any similar desecration happened in Egypt or Macchu Picchu there would be an international outcry but unfortunately this place is not as well known yet (as i wrote in the article it was only discovered in 2002)

with regards to the conflict of interest, you are right there, i am an australian living in ecuador working for the non-profit volunteer agency www.ecuadorecovolunteer.org which has close ties with the ecotourism agency www.ecuadorecoadventure.com, one of only two companies that take people to the pyramid and protect it from grave robbers because the government has not yet stepped up. i am only one person, Jake Ling, but i can see the wisdom in using my real name instead of the username ecuadorecoadvice because its more professional, i have worked as a journalist in australia and i really enjoyed writing this article and hope to develop it further more information becomes available. I'm assuming by talk pages you mean the one that says 'Discussion'? Do i just put Ecuadorecoadvice (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Jake Ling and nothing else?

in one of my very last edits of the article which i made today i can see the conflict of interest, ill quote it:

"In 2003 Eudoro Flores the former mayor of the nearby city of Chunchi was noted as saying "If you want gold, go to Puñay" but added he was impelled to promote the place for tourism to help its conservation and prevent grave robbers from further desecrating the site.[6] In 2010 Audrey Rose Goldfarb of Portland Oregon in conjunction with the ecotourism company Ecuador Eco Adventure took the first camera crew to Puñay as part of a documentary on "The Hidden Secrets of Ecuador" to promote the pyramid as a site of great archeological importance to help protect it from further desecration. The documentary is currently in post production. [7]"

i added "in conjunction with the ecotourism company ecuador eco adventure" today along with the photo i uploaded (i had written the majority of the the article about three weeks ago) now while i believe that this company that has been trying to protect the pyramid deserves a bit of a pat on the back for their efforts you are right that it creates a conflict of interest. i believe however there is nothing else i wrote in the article that is biased other than that sentence, should we delete everything from: "In 2010 Audrey Rose Goldfarb of Portland...." onwards to preserve the non-partisan nature of the article at least until the documentary has been released and is available for download? neither Audrey or ecuadorecoadventure will mind, they dont even know i wrote this wiki yet.

i hope i have made myself and my intentions clear and that you will reconsider deleting this article and i look forward to contribute to the wikipedia community in the future :)

cheers, jake

Ok, I can see you've tried hard. We have this thing called 'notability' and our criteria are at WP:NOTE. Now at the moment, I can find no evidence that it passes our criteria there. That might change upon the release of the documentary if that gets sufficient publicity, but do I gather that it isn't being broadcast? And the problem with that is that it is being produced by the ecotourism company that will profit from this. Plus, I've seen no evidence from any archaeological publications that there is a pyramid there at all, and that's a big problem. Is there anything published in Spanish about this? Sources don't have to be in English.
As for the deletion, what happens is that there will be a 7 day discussion where editors can comment and !vote (which means 'not vote' although they can say Keep, Delete, or sometimes Merge. These aren't the same as votes because whoever comes along at the end of the day to close the discussion will look at the policy and guideline based arguments to help them decide the outcome. And note what I said - the decision, and the arguments, should be made on the basis of our guidelines and policies. This often doesn't happen, people argue that it's notable because of its uniqueness, for instance, although that's nothing to do with our policies and guidelines, or because it's interesting, or perhaps here important to the local economy, none of which should be reasons for keeping an article. I won't be involved in making the decision or deleting it. You also need to look at what we expect in the way of sources, see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. In the case of something archaeological, we'd expect the sources to be archaeological, preferably journal articles, etc. As the article is clearly promotional right now, be prepared for people to say that and edit it accordingly. And remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Doug,

i believe there wont be a problem with this article reaching notability, it is one of (if not the) biggest archeological finds of the decade, if you already checked out most of the references i put on the article they lead to big Ecuadorian news sites like http://www.explored.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/el-punay-guarda-los-secretos-de-la-edad-de-la-tierra-170286-170286.html

here is the spanish and english translation: "arqueológicos en la cima del cerro Puñay, en Chimborazo, podrían ser los más antiguos del país." - ENGLISH: archeological remains on the peak of the mountain Punay in Chimborazo could be the most ancient in the country.

"Las pirámides truncadas que se descubrieron anteriormente formarían parte de un gran complejo en forma de una guacamaya (animal mítico de la cultura Cañari)" ENGLISH: the truncated pyramids that were discovered were once a part of a great complex in the form of a Macaw (sacred animal to the Cañari)

from another big ecuadorian site: http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/el-cerro-punay-si-fue-un-centro-ceremonial-186113-186113.html

"De acuerdo a la investigación, la pirámide sería una de las más grandes del mundo y con la particularidad de encontrarse en la cima de una montaña, -- ENGLISH: "Its true that in the investigation, the pyramid may be one of the biggest in the entire world with the peculiar attribute that it is found on the peak of a mountain"

"sus dimensiones son gigantes. Tucumera (Señor de Sipán), que se encuentra en el Perú, es considerada la más larga del planeta, y el Puñay lo supera con 120 metros más" -- ENGLISH: "the dimensions are giant. Tucamera (Sir of Sipan) that is found in Peru is considered to be the largest on the planet, this Puñay surpasses it by 120 meters"

--- So i hope the people who do review this are able to read the Spanish references, because in my opinion one of the biggest pyramids ever constructed by human beings on the planet is somewhat notable and worthy of wikipedia :)

---

with regards to the documentary, i know that the film Audrey has just completed (different to the documentary) is being shown in cinemas in Portland Oregan, i have no idea if the documentary will be broadcasted or not. but that doesn't matter as ive already deleted that paragraph to persevere the non-partisan integrity of the article.

---

if i have seven days before its up for review ill endeavor to search the 12 pages of results on google for Puñay to find more info thats from news outlets instead of tourist blogs etc, and ill ask around at the University Politecnica of Chimborazo which did the original excavations and measurements about any hard copy archeological findings that surely must exist somewhere offline.

thanks for the advice, time to get researching ;)

````jake ling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecuadorecoadvice (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Doug is Omniscient

Doug, thank you for your omniscient judgments on Wikipedia... Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Amodio: Lombards

I guess he changed the numbers of the Lombards from those of the primary source (Paulus the Deacon) to those esitmated by modern historians (as Jurgen Jarnut), and the same in the other voices, probably one should explain to Amodio how to edit correctly the voices with appropriate references and explanation of his reasons Cunibertus (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

just checked his other edits, and some of them are really far less evident and justified assertions, as you already noticed Cunibertus (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Puñay Pyramids

On my talk page, you state "the article is promoting a commercial site, which is why I removed the links", but that is not what you said in edit notes at the time of making the edits: you cast doubt on the very existence of the feature in your editnotes. The article has evidence from a government department and a tertiary education institute. Apart from anything else, leaving the links allows people to contribute to the AfD discussion, which seems desirable: isolating the article under discussion can only impoverish the input to the decision. Kevin McE (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not evidence, a claim from a tourism regional director and lecturer in tourism, and I presume by government department you are referring to the article about the Minister of Tourism, but that mentions a temple, not a pyramid. I was planning to restore the links if the article passed AfD, meanwhile we should not be linking to an article which is both promoting a private company and a probably false claim. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

CC spillover

HI, I guess this edit (and most of the history of that particular article) is a spillover from the CC case. I'm not really following that, but I thought I should bring this to the attention of a sysop familiar with that case. --Crusio (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think your reversion is in line with our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

As a former clerk, one of the first draft, I don't envy you. A few days ago I remarked on the then-obscene size, at over 400kb, of the discussion page on the climate page arbitration proposed decision, and made a couple of suggestions to alleviate the problem.

Since then the page has doubled in size. This will continue.

Would it not be feasible to split the discussion into structured subpages? I think it would have been better to do so much earlier, so perhaps in this arbitration case it isn't going to happen. But perhaps bear it in mind for future cases that may turn up (and I hope you don't ever run into a more controversial case than this). Careful consideration of case page structure may pay dividends. --TS 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Endorse edit summary and neologism-phrase "structured subpage":
  • div 23:07, 31 August 2010 Tony Sidaway (47,074 bytes) (→Climate change: Careful consideration of case page structure may pay dividends.)
This analytical perspective attracted my interest. I'm also attracted to the term "dividends" because it implies "investment" in a context of dispute resolution. --Tenmei (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Well, I'm sorry that's turned out the way it has. I really hoped James would follow my advice and it wouldn't escalate further. The thing is, I had this exact conversation regarding sourcing and communication with him back in February, so it's not like this is a new issue.--Cúchullain t/c 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, and I suspect he's not going to reply at WQA. As I said, I'd decided not to do anything until I saw his latest accusations on his talk page. And if you looked at the AfD, he's convinced that our notability guidelines don't apply to anyone except minor singers, etc. I hadn't realised how little he actually understand Wikipedia, which is worrying. He suggests on his talk page he may stop editing. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate he decided to ignore the good faith advice of several different editors, and instead continued on making unfounded accusations. I agree that he's unlikely to respond to the WQA, and if he returns to editing it seems unlikely to me that these same problems won't recur. It's too bad.--Cúchullain t/c 18:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ITSNOTABLE votes

Apart from the one noted at ANI, the obvious one is Steelhaven which is currently at DRV. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemesis (Transformers) fooled an admin until a bit of meatpuppetry was pointed out to them. There's a few more on the go at the moment, which I'm keeping an eye on. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hell-on-Line

Hi, Just wondering why I can't make references to my own work? If I am the person who has complete bibliographies of this on my website, and it would seem useful to users. I've been working on this stuff for 30 years, and the website is based on a book published in the 1990s by Garland. Happy to do this as it should be done. Just let me know. Thanks. Egardiner0 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)egardiner0

I'm presuming you've read or real read WP:COI. At the least, you should note on article talk pages that you are doing that. That should help avoid any suggestions that you fall into the category "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Join in the discussion about using your link as an EL. All that will help prevent anyone reverting you for using your own work. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did check that page out (somewhat after the fact), but I will go back and make some notes about what I'm doing and why, and I'll be more conscious in the future about how I do this. Thanks for calling my attention to it. Egardiner0 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Egardiner0

No problem - it's just that as you can imagine, we do have problems at times. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Can you please take a look at this and if you agree, hat that divergent section off? ATren (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just above where you hatted it, Jehochman stuck a comment in. Please throw that into the hat as well. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with hatting it is that my response to JWB's chunk-blowing has been concealed as well. If JWB's attack upon me is to remain, so should my response. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think everyone knows that it is a load of bollocks at this point though, don't worry. As I noted there, he did the same to me once before at AN/I but apart from a last-minute, invalid interjection from the later-desysopped Trusilver, the filing was closed as lacking merit. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Doug, in response to your note on my talk page, I have no intention of striking any attack on me from that page because, as I said, I want ArbCom to see those attacks. I think the proper response from the clerk and ArbCom members is to tell editors who make personal attacks that they must not continue doing that. Scjessey has every right to respond substantively to my evidence and argument against him, and I'll leave it to the authorities to figure out whether he's doing that and how to treat his statement. As far as I'm concerned, I'm willing to let that statement stand outside the hatted comments, and I think ATren's responses (and even Polargeo's first comment that ATren responded to) should be outside the hat. Alternatively, Scjessey could begin over and make a comment that defends himself while not violating a behavioral policy. I'd very much like to see civil responses to ATren's civil questions and points. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Fact check, my comment was in that position before the hat was added. Carry on, Dougweller, as you like. JWB, could you be a little more collegial. Wikipedia is not a game of Gotcha where you try to get other editors banned. The point is to help people, if at all possible, to avoid them being banned. Jehochman Talk 17:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman, please review your comments at the GSCC RfE page complaints against me and ChrisO while keeping your 17:36 statement (just above) in mind. Evidence and a complaint isn't necessarily "a game of Gotcha" although your comments did look that way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I wasn't simply responding to Atren, this would have happened anyway - it's no secret that we have a Clerk's mailing list and I was responding to a comment/request there. At least one arbitrator has seen this and the others will know about it. I'm not asking anyone to strike anything, just making it clear that while I don't expect anyone to add anything, I won't object to anyone striking anything, eg I wouldn't get upset if anyone struck comments like: "infamous"; "diff warrior"; "The hell you didn't"; "lunacy"; "attempt at revenge"; "superficially-civil POV warrior"; "nonsense"; "don't call them an "asshole" unless you like the taste of crow". Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If you're not going to move Jehochman's comment, I'm going to respond to it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe I tried to help you in the past, when you were known as Noroton. If you would like help now, just ask. Jehochman Talk 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Why Jehochman, I just did ask you for help [39] -- but you blanked my straightforward, sincere request. The help I need is that you reform your behavior. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the hat, but since it should have been clear that I didn't want any more responses, I would have been very annoyed if you'd responded to Jehochman's comment without waiting a couple of hours. Jehochman, Scjessy, thank you for your edits there just now. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've resumed the discussion and assumed there wouldn't be any problem with the way I've done it. If I'm wrong, please explain why. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

user:Bgalleg and user:Cumanche

I saw your message on Bgalleg's talk page regarding my sock puppetry accusation. I've already posted a request at SPI. The editing patterns are identical. My theory is that the puppet master created the user:Cumanche account before the name change was denied and simply stopped using the user:Bgalleg account. Lechonero (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the contribs for both accounts. Bgalleg made his first edit on Jan 20th, 2008 and on the same day requested a name change to Cumanche. Then Cumanche made his first edit on Jan 28th, 2008. I'm convinced this is the same person. Lechonero (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
So am I. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


That was fast, Bgalleg blocked, Cumanche warned. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Flood myth

When you are in a content dispute you should not be reverting labelling something as vandalism. Pico explained why he removed the section, it wasn't vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. User:PiCo deleted a complete section in Flood myth compiled by many editors over the last three years or so, which incorporated some eighteen internal links, plus three footnotes, claiming that "there's not a single reliable source cited". If this not vandalism, what is? --Odysses (₪) 21:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not vandalism. He gave his reason based on policy. I see that done by experienced editors fairly frequently. We have something called WP:BOLD and a cycle calling for discussion we call WP:BRD. I strongly suggest you read those and WP:VANDALISM. Dougweller (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

2500th anniversary

Perhaps you'll say it doesn't follow Wikipedia rules or that I'm to sentimental about the issue, but should we put some header in article Battle of Marathon to mark 2,500th anniversary of that battle (till September 10)? It's kind of unique opportunity in lifetime. ;) --93.142.146.26 (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

Kabbalah and Judaism

haha good point! I think I'll write a separate article about Kab and Judaism. Because, although it has existed within Judaism, it's not a part of it. Judaism is a religion based on kabbalah. Thanks a lot for your help. Workin' on it together :) Lechaim66 (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lechaim is pushing his own POV which is beyond fringe. There is absolutely no scholarly support for any of his claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So I gather. Should it be raised at a Wikiproject? I'm no expert on this, but it was obviously beyong fringe. He's been editing some biographies and I certainly don't know enough to know if those edits are correct. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In some cases he is adding links - this is inoccuous enough. But I have not yet found his content to square with my knowlege o the field and he is not citing the major authorities - on Kabbalah, Martin Buber, Gerschon Scholem, Arthur Green, Daniel Matt, Moshe Idel, Betty Rojtmann ... a GREAT article will require contributors who know the works of these scholars and can cite them and use them in context. An edit that uses one of these people as a source is at least a significant iew. I do not know this literature, I just know these guys are the experts and if we had an article improvemenmt drive it would be by people using these sources. But Lechaim is not only not using these sources, and not providing sources, he is basicaly taking arcane claims made by the most fringe views and presenting them as truth. Feel free to cut and paste anything I wrote at Wikiproject. I think the article as it exists is actually prety good but the road to improvement would be including these shcolars' views, not personal fringe theories. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jmmyjam

I noticed you chimed in over at this talk page a few days ago. I've been trying to work patiently to explain this issue with Jimmyjam as well as a related issue of citing his new additions to the text. He rarely responds, usually only after I've left several messages. I don't think I'm getting through. We've already had one minor edit war, where we both reached 3rr. I took it to the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Pine Bluff, Arkansas to try and get some outside input several days ago, but haven't gotten any responses. I'm trying to avoid WP:ANI and work with this editor, as I realize they are relatively new and inexperienced with our editing procedures and policies. But per this note on my talk page [40] ( I responded here on their talk) I think they may assume I'm just screwing with them. I dont want this to come off as my one man war against this editor and drive them from the project. Any help you could give would be appreciated, I believe they could be a valuable asset to the 'pedia. Heiro 00:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Harassment on my Talk Page

Please take a look at the harassment on my talk page by User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being involved in the SPI in question and know that we were cleared. I would hope that you can warn him off this subject, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on the Admins that make difficult blocks list - the ones that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards,GregJackP Boomer! 05:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Crossposting looks a lot like block shopping. Were I a clerk, I would be tempted to block you.
  2. Where is the harassment? Could you post diffs, instead of spreading innuendo? Jehochman Talk 13:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


Ok, that response was well-worded. Dougweller (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Gone?

Re [41]. I've no doubt you've done the right thing, but it would be nice to know your authority for so doing. Personal email? IRC? I can't see any on-wiki evidence, though I could easily have missed it. I've put a section on the case talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

? I'm an ArbCom clerk, we have a list used by Clerks and Arbs. I was asked to do this by Rlevse, or rather any Clerk was asked to do this.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Confirmed. That's exactly what happened. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no doubt that what you did was done correctly, it is just that the removal of an arbs votes is quite a major thing to happen in a case, and people are going to ask why (or at least wonder, maybe I'm just more nosey) so I think it would be good to forestall speculation by clearly stating what was done and why. Also, there is no way to tell from the current PD that R's votes were once there and have been removed; and yet those votes (while they were there) may well have influenced discussion. So I really think there ought to be a note on the PD page with a link to the diff removing the votes William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This is being addressed (was in process before your comment). Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I see the votes are now back. OK, I'm totally confused - I'll just let this sort itself out instead of commenting further. Sorry for the confusion William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
And now it makes sense again. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Good. I hope I've taken steps (ie noted this in our procedures) so that won't happen again. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Grave dancing

Is so unseemly.[42] Could you please put an end to it? Jehochman Talk 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFK rejects any notion of stopping.[43] Perhaps you will have to employ external controls if people are unwilling to exercise self-restraint. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second. You want to stop honest discussion of ChrisO's sanctions while ArbCom members are voting in favor of these sanctions?[44] Preposterous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
In honesty, I agree completely with AQFK's statement: "I believe that editors who are more interested in advocacy than writing legitimate encyclopedic content should be shown the door." However, while ChrisO contributed a ton of content compared to the time he spent doing other things, AQFK themself is rather borderline in this regard, and other commentators against ChrisO there (thegoodlocust, ATren) contribute practically no content. I've flogged this issue before, but it strikes a nerve that an editor who contributed content (whatever mistakes they may have made) is being run out by some who are useless to Wikipedia. Doesn't seem like a way to write an encyclopedia, does it.
And as a note: I agree with Cla68, who says "I suggest that the arbitrators go ahead and vote on findings for ChrisO but then table any discussion of remedies for ChrisO indefinitely."; this is a sensitive issue that caused an editor to leave, and we should behave accordingly. Awickert (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Awickert, contributing content does not give editors a free pass on BLP. Just because he has 40,000 edits doesn't mean he can get away with edit-warring to include unpublished criticisms into BLPs. That's something I, despite my lack of experience points, have never done. In fact, in fighting back against such BLP abuses, I may be doing more good for the project than heavy content contributors, if my diligence saves the project from embarrassment, or worse (did you know, for example, that the unpublished presentation ChrisO edit-warred to keep has been the subject of threatened litigation between the involved parties?) ATren (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't, which is why I support Cla68's above statement. I did not know that; I have sort of stepped away from climate due to the lawyer:useful stuff ratio gone awry. As for collecting experience points &c., I'll continue that at your talk if you don't mind. Awickert (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
While we're talking about unseemly commentary perhaps you could talk to MastCell about the "pound of flesh" comment which is far over the line in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth Merger Discussion

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from frustrated editor

Dougweller,

Yes, I am frustrated with you and your czar circle of Wikipedia editors. While I have been making some changes now for a few months to articles which needed grammatical improvements, I am new to the Wikipedia process. Learning the citation process is tedious as it does not easily correlate to a simple APA style. Also, I am just learning to navigate these talk boards to provide responses to persons like yourself. Hence, there has been a delay in both responding to questions and providing citations for material over the last three days. Nonetheless, my intention has been to do so because I want the articles strengthened and I want more clarity on the process.

My primary interest is in my hometown, Pine Bluff, Arkansas and the Arkansas Delta. Your last reversion back to the previous czar's format excluded a number of prominent citizens in the history of our city. More than any pruning of descriptions, I am totally perplexed and angered by the omission of persons relevant to our local history. For example, the last edit excludes Isaac Scott Hathaway. He has a building in the city named after him because of his accomplishments. Another exclusion from this previous edit is Jeff Donaldson who is the first African American in his field to achieve a Ph.D and whose works are displayed at major art galleries all over the country. Several others were excluded as well with notable backgrounds.

I am unclear on what Wikipedia's "notable persons" standard is now. How can individuals outside a community determine its relevant or notable leaders without assistance? I worked at great length to add names to the Notables list which had been started before I came along. I made sure the people I incorporated had some sort of relevant accomplishments or distinctions in their fields and also had Wikipedia articles already established.

You folks make well intended individuals like myself want to simply leave Wikipedia and let you have it. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will withhold my comments regardng the "John Horse" article as it is assumed that all of my source information for that article lacks credibility based on the feedback provided in an earlier post.

Anyway, I am rambling and you all have other strike missions to engage.

Thanks,

Jimmy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmyjam (talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


Personal attacks may suggest a lack of a good justification for an edit, they certainly put people off from commenting. I'm sorry if you feel discouraged, but irritating people also doesn't make them want to help. As far as John Horse, you need to provide sources -- read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. As far as notable persons, editors cannot make that decision because Wikipedia has its own criteria for notability (after all, almost everyone is notable to someone else). Local judgement doesn't come into it. See WP:PEOPLE to read our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

APP

You guys need to stop deleting the real history. Not sure why you guys keep thinking you know what you are deleting. Malik Tajuddin was the founder of the APP and I added the history as per his words. You keep editing it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalik786 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Then please cite it properly. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked?

You obviously didn't read carefully beforehand. I posted a reply to someone else who'd complained about being blocked. I agree that that person had posted the remarks in the wrong place, & have no objection to your deletion. Peter jackson (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed you're one of those people who prefer replies in the same place. Peter jackson (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And my apologies, I clicked on the wrong talk button, multi-tasking can be a bad idea. I'm familiar with Sleeping water's complaints. I'll post on his page. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


No, I must be just mixed up, I've re-read my edit summary. Dang. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

CC, again

Can you have a look at the current situation on the CC talk page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision‎.

M4th has taken it upon himself to hat the discussion there [45] - I object to this; and there is no reason for M4th to do so.

Further, M4th has re-inserted the PA in the section header [46] and introduced one against me [47]. I'd like those removed William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was having lunch. I see that's been fixed. I'll tell him not to do that again. I will say I don't think using 'malicious' like that is likely to impress the Arbs. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. However he *has* done it again :-( [48] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and if it wasn't obvious, something less offensive than "Off-topic discussion of author and content" would be nice, if there needs to be a subheader at all William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"Marknultey's actions", perhaps? Seems about as accurate and neutral as you could possibly hope for. I'd make the change myself, but I'm afraid someone would take a dump on me for it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Geez. Why don't you just make a section about mark nutley? You guys are unbelievable in your mania to have that article deleted/hidden/userfied/redirected ....Minor4th 13:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No idea what that article's about, or even what its title is. Just wanting to have some neutral subject headers. Oh, and I see my prophecy about getting pooed on managed to come true without my making any edits to that page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Elena Kagan

Please read the "discussion" User:Kauffner has started here. Despite my response, a posting to the BLP noticeboard, and a warning issued by an editor from the noticeboard, Kauffner persists. Am I within my rights to remove the entire discussion from Kagan's talk page? No one else has. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't, but I did, or rather most of it. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Another editor added a comment to the section, no doubt not knowing about your instruction not to add to the section. I posted a message to the editor's talk page directing him to look at your edit summary and then remove his comment. Because your instruction not to add to the section is in an edit summary, other editors may in good faith make the same mistake. It might be a good idea to prevent that from happening. I'm not sure what the different options are. If you can protect a section, that's one possibility. Another is to change the title of the section to warn people. A third is to archive it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Kauffner posted a comment after you "closed" the thread. I again thought of reverting it myself but am reluctant to do so without you or another admin saying it's okay for me to do so. I apologize for being a pest. Should I post these updates here or are you now watching the page?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Top 5 tips?

Hello,

Thanks for the message on my page. Not sure if it's automated, or you sent personally, but either way thanks lol. I was wondering if you could just give me your top 5 tips (or so) you would give a new Wikipedia contributor. It all seems so overwhelming and that remembering all the polices and their application, etc could be daunting. Thanks for any help you can give!SuperAtheist (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave it to you personally. Tips:
Keep your cool, never go off on a crusade, always be polite and rational like a good atheist should be. :-)
Make sure you source your edits (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Read the noticeboards at WP:RS and WP:OR.
Remember talk pages are to discuss the article, not the subject of the article.
Read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. You might like the fringe noticeboard. In fact I'm pretty sure you will.
Don't edit war -- see WP:3RR. Patience is really important.
Seriously, you'll get a lot further this way. Everyone has a right to their pov (point of view), but editors who carry it ahead of them like a banner often don't do terribly well. Fight the good fight, but I really think that my tips are some keys to success, they come out of experience.
And do note that I'm exercising good faith here -- WP:AGF as I'm a bit puzzled how your first edits are on an editor's talk page (and OTT I think, no matter what my opinion is of their accuracy). You really do need to be civil (unless you are a brilliant editor with many good articles under your belt) to be taken seriously. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Nationalist user

Hi Can you ban this fellow [[49]]. I really think there needs to be power to ban such a user on first sight. There are patriotic users than there are simply illogical nationalist users like this one. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's too early to do this, although I sympathise. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

re: revoked revision

any chance you can tell me which revision has been revoked?````glyncharles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyncharles (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


All of them. If you look at the article histories you can see who did it - 2 editors (not me, although I might have if I'd seen them first). You need to read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:OR to see why. We'd virtually never use something 'forthcoming' as a source, nor the work of a virtually unknown author. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Deor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cryptozoology and Bigfoot

Due to a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV, an editor trying to "balance" the fringe vs. mainstream views has since become entrenched in a slow edit war. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I keep meaning to get around to that. I've been working on another article, David Kyrle Down where I've had to change his sources as he clearly doesn't understand that editors can't make comparisons, etc, we need source making them. I may not have time today, but I'll get to it. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at AnnekeBart's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dispute Controversy

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology.--Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of Cryptozoolgy Articles

A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [50], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Aubrey Circle reverts 12th September.

Hello Dougweller

you have just reverted my edits on the Aubrey Circle, you say because of lack of verifiable references. Would you please do me the courtesy of being more explicit.I have numerous published references in support of my edits but tried to be concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David gregg (talk • contribs)

Please see User_talk:David_gregg#Aubrey Holes. You must provide reliable sources to your additions, otherwise they will be read as original research and removed.Smallman12q (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Edit Summaries

About my edit to the article on baramin ;for the record, I do not make edits,for the fun of it,but rather to maintain objectivity and neutrality, as much as possible.Sochwa (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI regarding User:Gniniv

Well, I tried to avoid it... but it seems this issue was brought to ANI for me. I just wanted to inform you of the ANI report. If you wish to take part, you're more than welcome. All the best, Jesstalk|edits 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cl Ch again

I thought I might revert [51] but then thought I'd take my own advice [52]. Could you take a look? Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably not worth it, take your own advice. Sorry for the delay. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

This Persian? plant

Dear Doug,

Do you know any reliable Persian Admins or contributors who may be able to identify this plant? If there is a wiki article on it, it would be helpful. My google translate search turns up the strange word 'Byba' whatever that means but I can't add cats to it on Commons so it remains unused. If you can't help, that's OK. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it should be used? Can you imagine a copyright holder submitting an image in this form? Looks like a scan from a poster or magazine to me. (In any case this seems to be a palm tree with enormous seeds and no leaves, but I guess you knew that already.) Hans Adler 10:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a date palm - probably a Delget nour from the looks of the fruits. And I agree, it looks like a photo or scan of a poster. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot problem

I think that a significant amount of effort has been expended trying to improve blanket statements of majority consensus on these articles (Bigfoot and Cryptozoology) by myself, and due to the fact this is seen as violating WP:NPOV (though in my book I am merely trying to give coverage to a significant minority view) I am imposing a one month ban on myself for these articles. I hope my absence will inspire others to work towards removing rule of the majority problems and WP:Systematic bias without having me to blame as the scapegoat. I appreciate those editors who are of a similar mindset.--Gniniv (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COIN post

Kudos for an appropriately neutral pointer to theWT:AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Action against Colon-el-Nuevo

I will support you if you wish to take further action againt Colon-el-Nuevo and his other guises. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take it to ANI in around an hour or less, got to grab a bit of dinner first. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatting request

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Scope is a sensible discussion rapidly turning into silliness. Could you had the fluff, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Missler

text moved to Talk:Chuck Missler. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps worth checking

From genetics articles on my watchlist I notice a User:Desertscorpio who has only made edits which revert one other user.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seem this also and am working on it. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lost Pyramid of Puñay

Hey Doug. Sorry have been offline a whiles, so only now have picked up on your request to look into here. I've added what comments / findings I can to the discussions at Talk:Puñay. An interesting one; while there is perhaps a tale here (not the one in the article originally), it's not clear there'd be sufficient notability if the story is recast, as I feel it should be. Have suggested some options at the AfD also. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking an interest. I've been thinking about Aguirre's dissertation, and I can't see how it meets our criteria at WP:RS. It's not on the subject, and I'm not sure what level it's at but it isn't a PhD. Have you seen this [53] on him, or this [54] which says temple, but as all this is coming from officials (including Aguirre) whose job it is to promote tourism.... I use Chrome for stuff I need translated as it does it so easily. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries, & thanks. I had seen the second, but not the first, of those links. It looks like Aguirre's a younger fellow than I had thought; so (at age 22 in 2002) presumably not yet a graduate or teacher at ESPOCH when he makes the first claims re the pyramid.

I see the article's been kept now as 'no consensus'. The orig contributor Jake/Ecuadorecoadvice seems fine with the idea to change article focus to the place itself and qualify/put into proportion the pyramid claims, so hopefully something more solid can be worked out.

ps. Looks like Aguirre's presentation to the Ecuadoran arch. conference is included in the published proceedings (Memorias de los Encuentros Nacionales III de "Arqueología" y IV de "Antropología" "Nela Martínez Espinosa", 2007). I missed it before as was looking at the wrong vol., the proceedings were published in two parts. See this snippet from googlebooks [55]. From what I can see the info, even some of the wording, is along the same lines as the reporting in those Hoy articles. But its appearance in the proceedings doesn't say anything as to how it was received, or whether the claims check out or not, of course. It's still info from the same/only claimant, nothing corroborating as yet. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd expect almost anyone can present a paper at such a conference, it doesn't make him a reliable source. As I've said somewhere else, his thesis was almost certainly an undergraduate paper of some sort. I need to work on the article, any help is welcome! Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yup, agreed. I will do what I can when time permits, not going to be able to do anything extensive for a little while tho'. In the meantime I have made some suggestions of possible sources for further information, or archaeological opinion, at Talk:Puñay. Dunno if you've any other contacts who've some interest/experience in Andean archaeology? Cheers. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yale Debate vs. Yale Political Union

Hi Doug. I wondered if you'd mind weighing in on the Talk page of the Yale Debate Association. An editor is insisting that the Yale Debate team and the Yale Political Union are the same thing. Thanks much. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Desertscorpio

Hello Dougweller. Thanks for your message. I have no idea whom this Desertscorpio might be. Probably some IP vandal I reverted and who came back with a grudge. His only goal seems to revert me, that's quite obvious, since some of the edits he reverted were only just clean up (such as this). Given that his 1st edit was in Spanish language I suspect he is an editor with some POV on that issue, namely the question of the Philippines being a Spanish speaking country. It might be that he is even a sock of Qidrusselle? This is just a though, not an accusation.

By the way, regarding the Cervantes source about the Philippines, long time ago I had several discussions at the Commons (about world maps of the Spanish language) were this question came up. I researched the stuff and my reply can be seen here.

Again, thanks for your concern. I'll try to keep an eye on this. The Ogre (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think there might be a connection to Sillydwarf? The Ogre (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And also to Hipalo? The Ogre (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And maybe Earth owner? The Ogre (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
All blocked. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP - RateMyProfessor Complaint

Thank you for moving my complaint re Barry Wellman to ANI. The unWP para (BLP, Outing, Research) by an IP user has already been deleted by Admin Black Kite, who also deleted the possibly-associated attempt by User:MultimediaGuru]] to delete the entire article under AFD. So, this issue may be moot -- for now. I have no way of knowing (without a chkuser) if these almost simultaneous moves were from the same users Bellagio99 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You should watch this.

It's very clear that for some reason, there are forces working to keep the Bosnian pyramids from being espoused as genuine pyramids. There is sufficient evidence which is very detailed, but I see none of it on the page. I would like to edit it, but I know you would just cite me as uninformed, and undo everything I add. Therefor, I believe it only fair that both sides should be presented. One section labeled as evidence against (which to me is hear-say because no formal expedition of outside archeologists has summoned up the courage to swallow their pride and investigate), and one section labeled as evidence for (which, I was a skeptic until I watched footage of the excavation process, and the structural foundation of the "hill" does not resemble anything I have naturally seen). It is my conclusion that the research published on Wikipedia is biased against the observable, and replicable, facts indicated by his research. And yes, just you know, he has a Ph.D in history, 2 B.A.s, and one Master's degree. Please feel free to e-mail me (joshuatorelli@att.net), as I know from experience that editing an article comes with complications, and I would like to work with you in regards to the subject content of the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.155.105 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. 72.149.155.105 stated “structural foundation of the "hill" does not resemble anything I have naturally seen.” I and many other geologists, with whom I have talked, have seen innumerable examples of naturally jointed bedrock that are identical to what called above the “structural foundation” of the Bosnian (pseudo)pyramids. The joint patterns seen at Visočica and other hills near Visoko, Bosnia and Herzegovina, are such typical examples of jointed bedrock, their natural origin is obvious even in pictures and videos. The hills near Visoko are just an example of many cases, i.e. the Yonaguni “pyramid” in the Ryukyus Islands of Japan; the “Phoenician fortress and furnace” reported from Oklahoma; and a “tiled floor” found in Oklahoma City, where people inexperienced in geology have confused naturally jointed bedrock with manmade stonework. Go look at [pavements et dallages] and [Geology of the Bosnian "pyramids"]
By the way, just because a person has a PhD fails to guarantee that the person is either an expert in everything that e or she writes about or is infallible in their opinions. For example, the Young earth creationist, Dr. Steve Austin has a PhD in geology and Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw a speaker at the [First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism] (Nov. 6, 2010, South Bend, Indiana) has a PhD in astronomy from Case Western Reserve University.(Paul H. (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC))

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Do you have some time?

To help clean up the Yogi Bhajan series? I tried working on the main article a few times, but the SPAs are relentless. I've sought the help of a few others but a couple tried and left, a couple looked and knew better. It was initially just two articles, Harbhajan Singh Yogi and 3HO that resembled a fansite, but now the problem is going across many articles (just see what links to the main ones), with a lot of these fringy thingies getting too much visibility on other articles, and sometimes articles of their own. If you have the time and interest to work on this set, I can give you some background info. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I have to say no. I really don't have any familiarity with the subject, and I'd find it difficult to clean up this set. I'll dabble a bit but I can't actually dedicate much time. If there's anything specific, let me do. I'm doing some editing now, eg the UN claim on 3HO which I've tried to source before. Are there any new articles? Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't any "off-wiki" familiarity/knowledge with/of this set either, (which is why I've been going around asking for help), I came across it when I sent one to AfD as there were some ludicrous claims like knighthood and stuff (that article is now in userspace). Since then I've just been trying to curtail the POV on these puff pieces. Some like Kundalini Yoga are becoming outlets to promote Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan, and there are numerous yoga teachers who've had articles created on them. There are a few SPAs who play in this space, and all except for two (who are very anti Yogi Bhajan) go around linking these two articles everywhere, so much so that "Kundalini Yoga is taught in many places across the world" was referenced to the list of 3HO classes! The main SPA, is also the author of Bhajan's biography and that is referred to in numerous articles (see some of the deleted contribs of Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There also seems to be stuff sourced to his taped lectures that seems like interpretation of what he said, rather than what he said. But this is indeed a mess. Why do we have KYastaughtby, which says 'also known as Kundalini Yoga? The first article says it's synonymous with the 2nd. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The SPAs are generally claiming that Bhajan revealed the secrets of KY to the world, so they think it's synonymous, I haven't touched that one yet (Gatoclass has been trying to clean up the POV in that area). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The spas are using KY? I think I went to one of those in Bangkok...PiCo (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet another one

Hello Dougweller, sorry to disturb you, but there seems to be another one. It's user Rondovenezziano... The Ogre (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Budija

Hello! I don't know where he gets that stuff from, but it is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH if I ever saw one. I tried to read the House of Keglević but got a headache after a couple of paragraphs. I cannot make head or tails of it, as his English is atrocious and the text itself incoherent. I didn't check the citations, but if it is anything like here, it will be full of (deliberate?) misquotations and errors, interspersed with irrelevant passages. Either this is some kid trying to write a fantasy essay on his family, or a deliberate hoax. Given that he is active in the Croatian version too, I suspect the former. I'd definitively support reverting this crap to this version, preferably even deleting the article and then re-creating it from scratch. Constantine ✍ 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

He created the article. I've raised it at the fringe board, we'll see. But I think all his stuff is like that, so more action may be needed. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You are right, it's too much. I'll change it. Budija —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

He's removed most of the blatantly outlandish claims, but problems still remain. Since he uses chiefly old German sources, I tried a search of my own for the family (with the variants "Keglewitsch" and "Keglevich"), and found several short mentions of some of its members. The subject definitively has substance ([56]), but given Budija's track record he's not the one to write it. Constantine ✍ 23:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the comment area that I NEED to contribute to? =

I have been working on RMP 43 and RMP 47 ... TOO BUSY for Wikipedia ... Milogardner (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Crossing of the Red Sea

The 2 or 3 new paragraphs are heavily reliant on just 2 authors, which is a bit biased by its nature. I don't want to discourage people from editing though - I might drop him a note suggesting he cut it back to 1 para, expand his sources, and go for tertiary sources instead of primary ones. The sources he uses are good in themselves, but I think our editor, like so many (the majority?) is trying to discover The Truth instead of just reflecting the range of views.PiCo (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

PiCo deleted the entire section on Wind Setdown with the comment that there is far too much on one theory. Now the article has far too little on any theory. The instructions on Wikipedia say to "Be Bold", which is what I have done. Since I am new to Wikipedia and Dougweller has kindly welcomed me, perhaps you can provide some guidance? CarlDrews (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Unless you have sources discussing the crossing of the Red Sea AND 'wind setdown', we shouldn't have a section with that name. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify

H Doug, I had a quick question. On the admin noticeboard re the Eversman discussion you commented "This bothers me a bit coming so shortly after the notice, but it's hopefully a coincidence." I'm wondering what notice you were referring to. Thanks. Spangle (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The ANI thread itself. Probably a coincidence. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re

In regard to this [57]. I just got the message, I've been extremely busy, then had to deal with some flooding and now I'm traveling. I will get to the request and cut back the statement as soon as I can.

However, the simple reason why my statement is long is because it is a response to Skapperod's own very long statement (about 2000 words by my count), which he has been making even longer recently - and for sake of clarity I quote him in several places. Could you please ask Skapperod to cut back his statement as well so that I know what I'm responding to?radek (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

About license for File:Samuel Kwok, Johan Tjongiran & Suwanto Lim.JPG

Hi Dougweller, I follow the bot instruction and look into the tag page, but i dont understand, anyway please tell me how to add license for existing upload image. Thanks for your help. Kungkang (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller,

It seems that you removed two links that I added. These are simply for more information about Anastasius Sinaita (also called Anastasios of Sinai) and his important work the Hexaemeron. The external sites are intended primarily for students and scholars.

More importantly, the information about the Hexaemeron has disappeared from the Wiki page. That is one of his most important works. If there seems to be some copyright infringement with the Anastasios of Sinai site, don't worry: I'm the author of that.

Please let me know what else I can do - or should do - to add these informative links and to put back the paragraph about the Hexaemeron on the Wiki page.

Thanks for your help,

Clementkuehn (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementkuehn (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and sorry

Dear Dougweller,

I'm sorry about the crossed emails and for taking your time. I will look at the link that you suggested about copyrights. We'll see what we can do to set this right.

Thanks for your patience,

Clementkuehn (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the problem paragraph

Dear Dougweller,

I have changed the problem paragraph on the Hexaemeron and made it original. At the end, I still make a reference to my book, where such topics are discussed, in order to avoid any copyright questions.

Can I put back the two links to my outside websites? They contain more extensive information about the author and his works: but the wording is now different.

Thanks again for your careful eye. I am impressed by your comment: "It's been confusing from an outsider's point of view (ie you've copied stuff from other sources and cited it to your work)." As an author of books and websites, I do respect your vigilance.

Clement Clementkuehn (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be posting more tomorrow. Go ahead with the links (I think you have). We do have a lot of problems with copyright violation - we don't even like close paraphrasing. And even where they are your words, there are usually still copyright problems. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Doug,

I don't want to become a burden. But I guess I could use your advice and guidance here. I read the Conflict of Interest article and I also think I understand your copyright concerns. I am the author of most of the Wikipedia article Anastasius Sinaita, and also the author of the websites to which I link. I am also the editor of the book to which I refer. I work closely with Rev. Dr. Joseph Munitiz and am in frequent communication with the other Anastasian scholars. So you will find similar ideas and vocabulary in the external websites, the books, and the Wiki article.

But I do want to do things right here. I have changed the wording in the Wiki Anastasius Sinaita article a bit, to make it more original. Please let me know if I should still make further adjustments.

And again I am sorry for my obfuscations. I am trying to learn to be an upstanding Wiki citizen.

Clementkuehn (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

User talk:Egardiner0

Hi Mr. Dougweller,

Before you get mad at me please let me assure you that my comments to you here is humor only.

Best regards,

68.197.144.38 (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dʿmt

Best I can remember, I haven't seen the variant "Diʿamat" before. But I'm not surprised: every proper name related to Ethiopia has a lot of variant spellings, if not variant names. One example is "Addis Ababa" vs. "Addis Abeba", but also "Finfinne". BTW, thanks for fighting the good fight against the crazies. -- llywrch (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your questions touch on a lot of issues & requires a TL;DR response, which I was trying to avoid. So I ask your indulgence to tackle those issues now in the depth they require.
First, any Google search on "D'mt" or Di'amat" is going to return a bloody lot of false positives due to how it parses the input. There's something about that apostrophe/glottal stop Google's search engine just can't handle. When I added "Ethiopia" to the string, Google returned a lot more useful hits -- for both forms.
Second, African archeology -- excluding Egypt -- is a very neglected subject; the state for Ethiopian archeology is better than average, but that's not saying much. The reasons for this include such things as racism, lack of funds, & the working environment; not only does a field archeologist need to deal with a lack of infrastructure, disease & wild animals, but also with chronic lawlessness which ranges from thievery to civil war. So there just aren't that many sources, let alone online, for Google to find & return in a search.
So I took my usual course & consulted the items in my personal library for examples of which form is likely to be used. Paul Henze, in his Layers of Time one of the standard general histories of Ethiopia, uses "Damot/Diamat", but he admits in his preface that he makes no attempt to be correct in his transliteration. Richard Pankhurst, who is considered the authority on Ethiopian History -- although his statements can be outdated or just plain wrong -- takes no position: in neither his The Ethiopians nor The Ethiopian Borderlands does he use either term. S.C. Munro-Hay, both in his Excavations at Aksum and his Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity uses the form "D'MT", although in Excavations he mentions "Dia'mat" as a possible reading of "D'MT".
(At some point I should note that the inscriptions which mention D'mt were written without vowels, which was the usual practice for writing Semitic languages at the time. So "D'mt", "Da'mot", "Damot", "Di'amat" & "Dia'mat" are all equally valid forms; the authorities simply have their preferences, & not always for rational reasons.)
So what should be done here? Do what you think is best. I'm not too hung up on specific forms of the names used in Ethiopian articles as long as their use is attested -- & a serious effort is made to avoid diacritical ornamentation. (I personally feel using them risks eye glaze-over & makes it harder for the user to read the article.) And redirects are cheap; I haven't bothered to make them for many articles that should have them because I'd rather spend my time working on the articles. And if you don't want that much responsibility email Yom, who either wrote most of these articles or most of their content. I'm comfortable deferring to his judgment. -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


I've edited a bit and copied this to the talk page. We still need, I think, some redirects. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_17&oldid=1187009772"