View source for User talk:Doug Weller

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atn}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 23
|algo = old(6d)
|archive = User talk:Dougweller/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{tmbox|text=This user talk page might be <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles={{urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} watched]</span> by friendly '''[[Wikipedia:Talk page stalker|talk page stalkers]]''' which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is '''appreciated.'''|image=[[File:Obscured jaguar.jpg|{{{1|200}}}px]]}}
{{vacation3}}
<!--{{vacation3}}-->
{{User:Dougweller/Menu}}
{{administrator}}
{{User:Dougweller/talkheader}}

{{archive banner}}

<br />
You can email me from[[Special:Emailuser/Dougweller| this link]] but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise.
'''Comments which I find to be [[WP:Civility|uncivil]], full of [[vulgar]]ities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response.'''  If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back.  I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

{{-}}
<!-- Comments go below here! -->

== reversion of edits ==

=== Non-Peer Reviewed fundamentalist source=== 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Judi "Its source 'Archaeology and Biblical Research' sounds good, but actually it is a journal (now called "Bible and Spade") that "written from a scholarly and conservative viewpoint, supporting the inerrancy of the Biblical record. .... Archaeological evidence, properly interpreted, upholds the history of the Bible". There is no editorial board or review process listed." Not a valid source; if you don't want something from the Turkish media (the country in question) then it should at least not include a non-peer reviewed source that has no changed its name to the "Bible and Spade" and does not have any review process.[[User:Historylover4|Historylover4]] ([[User talk:Historylover4|talk]])  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 23:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It isn't being used as a source in the article, so I don't see your point. You should post to the bottom of talk pages, not the top, by the way. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 06:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on posting on talk pages, the user said this source no longer goes by "Archaeology and Biblical Research" but rather "Bible and Spade" and that it has no review process if that is the case new, reliable info should be put in the article.[[User:Historylover4|Historylover4]] ([[User talk:Historylover4|talk]]) 07:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

:That post was in November 2009, and the source "Archaeology and Biblical Research" was removed the same day and is no longer in the article under any name, so I don't see the problem. I should point out that there are situations where it could be used to show the Creationist perspective. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 07:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

=== Creationism ===
I quote your post on my talk page: "I've reverted some of your edits - Creationism isn't confined to Protestant Christians, eg [[List of Catholic creationist organisations]]. If I've reverted anything else you think needs restoring, feel free, but the Protestant bit was simply wrong. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 06:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And I quote my answer:

:Well, Doug, I imagine your motives. Anyway, as the list of "Catholic" organizations mentioned is a fistful of fringe groups with doubtful affiliations to the Catholic Church, I find your quotation of this article a pathetic effort to drag the Catholicism into the propaganda efforts of Creationist believers. After perusing your (note: this) talk page, I decided I have better things to do than to enter an edit war with a person like you. Thanks for the "useful" reverting that undoubtedly reflects the thought and official position of the Catholic Church... not. It is a shame how Wikipedia articles like the one on Creationism are tainted by desperate efforts to include other groups into the beliefs of some American Christian fundamentalists and the statistics about people supporting Creationism in other parts of the world and in other religions show evident intention for creating in the people that reads the article the impression that it is a generalized cult when you are (I imagine) perfectly aware of the position of the Catholic Church on this issue. They have denied one thousand times (and not now, but through history) the main tenets of Creationism. You are also perfectly aware that to drag the Catholic Church into Creationism based on a list of five groups that are at best tenuously connected with Catholicism is an act of desperation, but suit yourself. Frankly, it is very hard to block the sun with a finger, except for the person holding the finger up.--[[User:Ciroa|Ciroa]] ([[User talk:Ciroa|talk]]) 12:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

::Some Roman Catholics and many Orthodox Catholics (Greek, Russian, Serbian at least) believe in Creationism. That's a fact. Belief in Creationism isn't limited to Protestant Christians. That's a fact. Your failure to afford me good faith also seems to be a fact. It's also a fact that if I'd known it would be necessary I could have explained all this, but it just seemed obvious that Creationism isn't limited to Protestant Christians. And I would think that you must know this. And that nowhere does it say that the Roman Catholic Church believes in Creationism, that's a complete red herring - in fact it makes it clear that the official stance is quite the opposite and goes into that in some detail. If anyone tries to claim that the Roman Catholic Church believes in Creationism I'll revert them, just as I've reverted claims that the early church preached a flat earth. Small minorities do however believe in Creationism.  [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

::: Allright, clear and understood, I apologize for assuming your motives. So, as the Catholic Pope has expressed many times that the Roman Catholic Church is against Creationism (i.e. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ ) and the Orthodox Church has never opposed evolution (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/nicozisin_creationism.htm), can I say "Protestant and Orthodox Christians and some renegade Catholic groups"? I fail to comprehend how can you be called Roman Catholic if you go against the Pope. Once I get your "license" I will go ahead and state that fact, because I see as unscientific to claim that Roman Catholic church can be included among the Christians that support creationism. BTW, I am no Christian. This also goes in you talk page, btw.--[[User:Ciroa|Ciroa]] ([[User talk:Ciroa|talk]]) 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

:::: Thanks for your kind note in which you claimed in my talk page that I was thinking about Papal Infallibility. That's not true. I'm thinking about what you need to be called a Catholic and about the Nicene Creed as understood by the Catholic Church (unless you claim that exists a different Roman Catholic Church that has no Pope in Rome, which, of course, you don't!). I quote, from Boston Diocese: http://www.bostoncatholic.org/Being-Catholic/Content.aspx?id=11316 "We acknowledge the primacy of the Pope and respect the office of the papacy as the true teaching authority of the Church.  We seek guidance for moral decisions from the pope and the bishops in communion with him". So, you cannot be called a Catholic if you disregard the Pope as the true teaching authority, no matter if you believe he is infallible or if you believe he can make mistakes and correct himself. Another example: check the page on the [[Nicene Creed]] and the [[Four Marks of the Church]] here in Wikipedia and the point of view of Catholics about them. I quote from the later page: 'Roman Catholics believe the title "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" only to be applicable to the Catholic Church, as they believe it was directly founded by Christ in the first century. Further, ''they maintain that the Catholic Church, under the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, is "the one, true Church of Christ" that does not include those groups that have emerged from the Protestant Reformation'' (emphasis mine). They are considered by Roman Catholics to be "false" claimants.' Reference: Brien, Richard P. "The marks of the church (Nicene Creed)." National Catholic Reporter, August 8, 2008.

:::: Hence, I still see the inclusion of the word "Christian" in the article on Creationism as a weasel word. The rest of the article oozes the same problem: it's an editing one, not one of faith, as both, you and me, have made already clear. You, through implying that any corrections I make will become an editing war, are allowing the people that contributes to the article into giving the false illusion that Creationism enjoys a larger support outside the United States than the one it has. As the article is ''always'' going to be tainted by the efforts of Creationists that (from my point of view) desperately try to influence their local legislations (and have done so for almost one century) into believing that science can be influenced by the religious beliefs of a majority and that science is subject of majority and minority views from religious persons, I believe (with a smile, not angry, of course) that you're doing a disservice to Wikipedia. I have provided you with some sources that (to my satisfaction, not yours, duh) prove that Roman Catholics cannot claim to believe in Creationism and call themselves Roman Catholics (or at least, would be called 'Catholics in Error' by the rest of this Church) To drag the largest Christian denominations (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) into this North American political brawl is, frankly, naive, specially for a Wikipedia editor like yourself. However, I have no doubts that you will (as always) suit yourself. Enjoy my respect (but no my admiration) my (if I'm allowed to put it in this way) naive editor. Frankly, I would have no devoted this amount of time to a very small edition if it weren't evident to me that Wikipedia is becoming, progressively, the "battlefield" of some persons with clear political intentions, among them US military and US religious right. I hope some day also Wikipedia editors realize it (or you can convince me, if you have the time and experience, that I'm paranoid, which, of course, is another possibility). I think it's a shame, given the time and effort that all (well, not all, if you insist, but ''only'' 99.9999% of them) Roman Catholics have spent in separating the Roman Catholic Church teachings from the Creationists efforts towards distorting education in US (and, through US enormous leverage in this world, the rest of humankind). I strongly believe (this time, with no smiles) that Wikipedia is not (or should not be) a propaganda tool. --[[User:Ciroa|Ciroa]] ([[User talk:Ciroa|talk]]) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Would that it were confined to North America, but it's a problem everywhere. Anyway, if you want to argue that Roman Catholics can't be creationists you'll have to find reliable sources - see [[WP:RS]] saying that, and even then you'd almost certainly have to attibute it rather than state it as fact, unless the Pope has made such a statement. See [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:NOR]]. These policies are ways that we stop Wikipedia or try to stop it anyway from being a propaganda tool. You can ask for other opinions at perhaps [[WP:NORN]] if you think I'm wrong. And don't get me wrong, I'm really pleased that the Roman Catholic Church takes this position. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

== [[iranic]] ==

my dear friend we need a little help here :
[[kurdish people]] ,this guy(iranic) made the page semi-protected ,so kurds are not able to show their own sources that shows they are not [[indo-iranian]]
for example : our genetis tests ,many other References, that shows we are different from persians.  can you help??
http://selenasol.com/selena/struggle/kurds.html

== Debate on the administrator's refusal to publish a critic of zootherapy ==

{{user|Charles danten}} registers an account at 12:53, 3 April 2010[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Charles_danten] but doesn't begin editing until more than a year later, on 19 December 2011,[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal-assisted_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=466680212] focusing solely on one article, [[animal-assisted therapy]].  This [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal-assisted_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=466691708 bizarre conspiracy theory] might give you some insight that I lack.  Is this a sleeper account of a blocked user? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 09:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:{{user|Ronz}} seems to know him. Looking into it. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 09:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
::Don't waste too much time on this.  I was just curious if the wording used in the diff above rang any bells with you.  I thought it might be ScienceApologist, but it sounded too far out for even him. Sure, there is some collusion between the animal care industry and the pet food manufacturers, but accusing anyone who reports positive results studying animal-assisted therapy as being part of the conspiracy goes a bit too far, IMO. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 09:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I believe Charles danten is Charles Danten [http://charles-danten.blog4ever.com/blog/index-511128.html], though I only recently noticed that he cited his own blog in his proposed changes to the article. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont know where you two charaters come from or to what ideology you belong to, probably religeous from what I understand from your omments, but you are obvioulsy biased. You are acting like policemen directing trafic where you think it should go according to your own personal whims. You don't seem to have a clue about how science works. This is not about a conspiracy theory but bad science and opportunism. Beyond a short-lived placebo effect, zootherapy has no scientific validity. I did not invent this. The only '''decent''' scientific articles that have been published all point in the same direction: this fad is bogus. You can be 100 million to believe it works, it doesn't mean you are right. Perceptions are not always real nor objective. This is why science was invented, to see through appearances. Now this being said, I would like to know who oversees you and how can I get in touch with this person ? You obviously do not belong here.--[[User:Charles danten|Charles danten]] ([[User talk:Charles danten|talk]]) 21:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

:I'm hardly religious, but I am all in favor of using the scientific method. No one oversees me, that's not how we work. But I am an experienced editor and [[WP:Administrator]], an editor "trusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools"). [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 08:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now that we have settled this, what's holding you back?--[[User:Charles danten|Charles danten]] ([[User talk:Charles danten|talk]]) 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

From what? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 18:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What's stopping you from publishing a critic of zootherapy? What's the problem, I play by the rules. I'm no science apologist either. I was a long time veterinarian in Montreal. I'm just trying to set the record straight as far as zootherapy is concerned. If I have waited this long to start editing, its simply because I had no time. I also don't understand why you give so much credibility to the Nathason studies on dolphins. This guy was thoroughly debunked by the world's most important experts on dolphins. Most of the studies in the field of zootherapy are of this nature as a matter of fact. Zootherapy does have a short-lived placebo effect like music or movies but no long lasting therapeutic effect, meaning cure.  Yet, most people active in this field claim that animals possess special esoteric powers of undetermined nature that allows them to magically cure people. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this has been debunked? I have given you references. I am not talking through my hat. So lets move on. Whats holding you back? Maybe I can help you.--[[User:Charles danten|Charles danten]] ([[User talk:Charles danten|talk]]) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Science Apologist was an editor. I'm not interested in the article. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 20:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that you will not publish a critic of zootherapy? And if so, can you state why in clear terms? Thanks--[[User:Charles danten|Charles danten]] ([[User talk:Charles danten|talk]]) 10:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC) And please can you send your answer to my email, as you are supposed to do, so that I don't have to keep checking if you have posted something.

::I have no idea why you think I should do anything at all about zootherapy - I've got things that interest me more. And I certainly am not required to email you and will not email you. As a courtesy I'll put a talkback on your talk page, but will not engage in email with you. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== [[Colonies in antiquity]] ==

So colonies in antiquity is the same thing with the [[:fr:Colonisation grecque|ancient Greek colonization]], right? [[User:Angel ivanov angelov|Angel ivanov angelov]] ([[User talk:Angel ivanov angelov|talk]]) 19:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
:This is why we have edit summaries. Do something like that without an explanation and you should expect to be reverted. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 06:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

== Union Institute and University ==

I wrote sections of the Union Institute article about a year ago. I saw that it had been flagged as being too much like an advertisement. On its talk page (date to 2007) a user indicates that he or she is the Web master at the institution and admits that he or she may be biased. I am a scholar (with no affiliation to the institutions). I did some reading and made some comments. Last week the person who originally announced himself or herself as the Web master undid my contributions. You locked me out on the grounds that I was in an edit war. Now the article is locked to the changes that the person who announced himself as the Web master made. I would contend that the article is biased and unsourced. For example, it claims that the Union ran on the Oxford/Cambridge tutorial model. That point is unexplained and a matter of opinion. That is the sort of thing you now locked in.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nero Radi|Nero Radi]] ([[User talk:Nero Radi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nero Radi|contribs]]) 00:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I locked everyone out. And I did say look at [[WP:Wrong Version]]. You can do several things. First, discuss it at the talk page. If the main issue is bias, you can ask at [[WP:NPOVN]]. Or ask at [[WP:NOR]]. But you also need to read [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 05:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I did take a look but will have to look at it more carefully. I will also reconsider devoting time to researching and writing about an institution now that I know that its representatives can wipe out one's work and replace it with promotional material best suited to their own websites.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nero Radi|Nero Radi]] ([[User talk:Nero Radi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nero Radi|contribs]]) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== NAZCA LINES - NEW UPDATE regarding NEW Images discovered w satellite photos ==

I have never submitted anuthing nor do i know what i am doing so i leave this update to you RE Nazca Lines

There is a New Japanese University Study taking place of the Nazca Lines ( 15 year study)
They have currently submitted a New Find south of the Nazca Plain.Very Exciting!!

As per the new Japanese study group I submit this Link.

http://www.viewzone.com/nazcatheories.html  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/184.10.243.232|184.10.243.232]] ([[User talk:184.10.243.232|talk]]) 11:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Thanks, very exciting. Viewzone is a fringe site advocating non-scientific ideas and not suitable to use here, but that's not a big problem as this is real and well sourced. [http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20110120a6.html] is better. If you look at [[Nazca lines#Discovery and construction]] you will see I added this discovery and more about a new research center. I don't know why you posted to me but it's much appreciated and great to be able to add this new information. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 13:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 09 April 2012 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-09}}
</div><!--Volume 8, Issue 15-->
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
* '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]'''
* [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]]
* [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 00:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0255 -->

== Kenimer Site ==

I just expanded [[Kenimer Site]], giving way more focus to its actual archaeological value rather than its internet meme status, aka "Mayan ruins in Georgia". Saw you had did a little work to it back when it was a "news" story, was wondering if you thought it would be appropriate to add it to the pseudohistory and or pseudoarchaeology categories? [[User:Heironymous Rowe|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkBlue">He</span>''']][[User talk:Heironymous Rowe|'''<span style="color:darkBlue">iro'''</span>]] 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
:No, take a look at for instance [[Stonehenge]]. If it's a genuine site it's rare (at least) to give it those categories. Good work on the article. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
::Right on. In a related note, this guy has returned {{User|Talamachusee}} to rectify the article in question [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kenimer_Site&diff=486911132&oldid=486539803]. I suspect, from his past contributions, that he may be intimately involved with this IRL[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Garden_Creek_site&diff=prev&oldid=396605525 see this diff]. [[User:Heironymous Rowe|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkBlue">He</span>''']][[User talk:Heironymous Rowe|'''<span style="color:darkBlue">iro'''</span>]] 00:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heironymous_Rowe&curid=15077827&diff=486974633&oldid=486685258] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cuchullain&curid=1584223&diff=486974384&oldid=486965492], I remember him popping up last summer and fall, and I ended up reverting most of his edits then, but didn't delve too far back into his contribs history at the time. Back around Xmas when the story broke(a friend emailed me a link to the Boing Boing debunking, it used one of my illustrations and credited me, lol) I strongly suspected this user was behind it IRL. But I figured I'd let sleeping dogs lie since they hadn't been around in awhile. If they are returning now, I think they need to have a very close eye kept on them. Thanks for helping out with it and for alerting Cuchullain. [[User:Heironymous Rowe|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkBlue">He</span>''']][[User talk:Heironymous Rowe|'''<span style="color:darkBlue">iro'''</span>]] 09:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Appeal by Nathanielfirst ==

* {{userlinks|Nathanielfirst}}

Hey, this user is appealing their block.  I have suggested that I may be inclined to unblock if they promise to stop adding "see also" links to articles until he has a chance to discuss these edits with the community.  Before unblocking I wanted to get your thoughts on the matter.  --[[User:Crazycomputers|Chris]] [[User talk:Crazycomputers|(talk)]] 03:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

:How has he appealed? I see nothing on his talk page. I wish he'd responded to the decline of his unblock request. I think we need to see something public from him stating that he will make such a promise. If we get that, no problem. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 04:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

::He appealed via UTRS, and has agreed to cease inserting "see also" links.  --[[User:Crazycomputers|Chris]] [[User talk:Crazycomputers|(talk)]] 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Good news, thanks. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 14:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

== Ica Stones ==

The objection concerns my use of Don Patton, who has been flagged up a as inappropriate source - since it is alleged that he has a "fake PhD".

Is it not my intention to vandalise or compromise the objective integrity of Wikipedia. The article on the Ica stones is already biased inasmuch as it witholds evidence of the antiquity of the stones.

Please could you supply details of why you think Don Patton has a fake PhD? Patton obtained a Ph.D. in Education in 1993 from the Pacific School of Graduate Studies. A letter from the Australian Board of Information confirms that the Pacific School held the right to grant doctorates in education at that time: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/Pacific-College-of-Graduate-Studies-Melbourne-Australia-David-Chambers-Jan-Williamson-Clifford-Wilson.jpg  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.238.107.151|92.238.107.151]] ([[User talk:92.238.107.151|talk]]) 09:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:No, he is simply not a reliable source by our criteria at [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:SPS]]. You can challenge this at [[WP:RSN]]. The fact that letter can't be used as evidence on Wikipedia is irrelevant. I also have no reason to think that you have read the sources that you have added, they seem to come directly from Patton's self-published webpage. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 13:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

::There is a Wikipedia page about [[Pacific International University]], another name for Pacific School of Graduate Studies. The Pacific College of Graduate Studies (Pacific School of Graduate Studies / Pacific International University) is also discussed in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials] by Glen J. Kuban  (1989) and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html Some Questionable Creationist Credentials] by Brett Vickers (1988) on the [http://www.talkorigins.org/ Talk.Origins Archive] Web Site.[[User:Paul H.|Paul H.]] ([[User talk:Paul H.|talk]]) 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Well it's not much of an article on the Wikipedia page. It devotes most of the text to stating that the university had no accreditation, whereas the letter from the Australian Board of Education clearly states that Pacific School of Graduate Studies in Melbourne had accreditation at the time when Patton was awarded his PhD. Talk Origins? There's a nice unbiased website to appeal to (I don't think). The only thing Talk Origins has to offer on the matter is hearsay from Glen Kuban regarding Patton's credentials - Kuban being a staunch opponent of Patton's views [[Special:Contributions/92.238.107.151|92.238.107.151]] ([[User talk:92.238.107.151|talk]]) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now the objection has changed from the original assertion about Don Patton's PhD. I haven't added *any* sources from Patton's self-published web page. However, I've removed references to Patton's personal discoveries of Ica stones, even though he provides photographs from the relevant expeditions he was involved in. [[Special:Contributions/92.238.107.151|92.238.107.151]] ([[User talk:92.238.107.151|talk]]) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

{{ec}}::The basis thing about the PhD is that it's irrelevant. It's in education. How does Patton meet our criteria at [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:RS]]. And the sources you added come from Patton's webpage at [http://www.dinosaursandman.com/research/Fortean_Times_Rebuttal.pdf]. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 15:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

:Well you can hardly introduce an objection about a researcher's PhD, then defend your objection and not expect people to respond. I haven't taken any sources from Patton's web page. Your link above refers to www.dinosaursandman.com. When I looked just now, a statement on the website read: "This web site is the result of over twenty years of research in various parts of the world by Dr. Dennis Swift and others." I don't see any reference to Patton. The sources which appear on the pdf that you link to, exist independently of that article anyway. [[Special:Contributions/92.238.107.151|92.238.107.151]] ([[User talk:92.238.107.151|talk]]) 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

::Many apologies, it is indeed Dennis Swift - I've confused the two Creationists. It still isn't a reliable source for the reasons I've given, and has been removed before as a source for those reasons. Patton's PhD still, even if legit, is worth no more than the work taken to get it and the teaching experience he had to get it. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Apologies accepted. I've never put in a link to Dennis Swift's website. I added a link to Patton's video on Youtube, which gave accounts and photos of his expeditions to the area where he found some Ica stones. I thought this a fair inclusion, because whatever one thinks of his creationist views, he made the effort to go there and collect evidence that he could then present. He has years of experience in geological and archaeological fieldwork. However, the video is self-published, so I supposed it does violate Wiki's rules on a technical point. I see that you're still casting doubt over Patton's PhD, although you said it was an irrelevant point. I have a doctorate and they are hard to get. You have no right to imply that Patton got his on the cheap if you cannot prove it. [[Special:Contributions/92.238.107.151|92.238.107.151]] ([[User talk:92.238.107.151|talk]]) 15:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Ok, I'll drop it. But as I said, it appears that you got your sources from Swift and that's not on. Cabrera has been discussed on the article talk page, and Charroux - did you read his book? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::What evidence would you like to see that I have read the sources? For example, I own a copy of Ica y el Peru Precolombino (first edition) - what do you want to see? 
The current article contains heavily biased statements which would only lead the reader into a unobjective consideration of the facts. An example occurs where the articles states that modern day forgers create copies of the original forgeries. This would lead people into thinking that all the Ica stones are forgeries. The fact that Ica stones were being uncovered in archaeological digs led by archaeologist Alejandro Pezzia Asseretor;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| strongly refutes this.  <span style="font-size: smalleunsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.238.107.151|92.238.107.151]] ([[User talk:92.238.107.151|talk]]) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::The problem is that the only use of the phrase "Ica stones" is to refer to these forged stones. Unless of course Assereto refers to them as "Ica stones". This is not the same as "engraved stones from the Ica area". I'm not sure if you are arguing that there are no forged stones, that the stones showing dinosaurs are genuine, etc (given particularly that you removed their description and seem to be taking Creationist views seriously) or that these are forgeries but there are genuine engraved stones with non-controversial engravings. If there is a way of making it clear (and if its the case) that there are academically accepted non-forged stones, and that these don't lend credence to the forgeries, then we can consider it. I found [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://marcianitosverdes.haaan.com/2006/10/las-piedras-de-ica/&ei=TaKGT8-8Coek0QXs79jABw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGMQ7gEwCA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAlejandro%2BPezzia%2BAsserto%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dgww%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1540%26bih%3D696%26prmd%3Dimvnso] which you can perhaps read in the original, but it doesn't seem to be a RS either and gives no detail about what Asserto says. This all really should be on the article talk page, should I copy it over so it is clear? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 09:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Firstly, you don't know that the stones are forgeries. The idea that they are forged is a truth claim made in the Wikipedia article, on the basis of one man recanting his original statement that he found the Ica stones. However, his "confession" is unreliable since the media attention meant he risked prosecution for selling antiquities. And even he apparently stated that he did not make all the stones. So your premise that the stones are forged is unproven. Moreover, if the purported forger did not make all of the 11,000 stones, you cannot rightly say that:  "the only use of the phrase 'Ica stones' is to refer to these forged stones". Because even if some of the 11,000 stones are forged, most may not be. There is no indication given that sceptics have subjected any Ica stones to microscopic analysis, which is the acid test to know if they were made in recent times. So by insisting that any academically accepted non-forged stones "must not lend credence to the forgeries", you are insisting that any empirical evidence cannot conflict with your own unproven assertions. This clearly sacrifices intellectual integrity and objectivity to satisfy your own biases.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.238.107.151|92.238.107.151]] ([[User talk:92.238.107.151|talk]]) 10:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{od}}I know that any stones showing dinosaurs are modern. Man and dinosaurs did not coexist. By any scientific standards that's an objective statement. I'm copying all this to the Ica talk page. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 10:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== My edits ==

You wrote that you were sorry you un-blocked me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Yogesh_Khandke&offset=&limit=100&target=Yogesh+Khandke My editing subjects] were a bookstore chain [[A H Wheeler & Co]], a theology scholar [[Bettina Baumer]], a museum  [[Gandhi Memorial Museum, Madurai]] a town  [[Madurai]], a contemporary play [[Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy]], a writer [[Kishor Shantabai Kale]],   religious persons/ scholars [[Alexis Sanderson]],  [[Rajendra Prasad Das]],  [[Abhishiktananda]], [[Alice Boner]],  [[Bhima Bhoi]] and religious practices [[Vigyan Bhairav Tantra]], [[Kashmir Shaivism]]. I am sorry that my actions made you regret your unblocking me. My ban encompasses Indian history and colonialism. However it is for others to judge me and not me to judge myself. I think I need help. [[User:Yogesh Khandke|Yogesh Khandke]] ([[User talk:Yogesh Khandke|talk]]) 13:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

== Professor Woods' criticism of Dr. Scott Peck ==

Hi,

First of all, many thanks for your message. You wrote on my talk page, regarding Professor Woods: "Critics or supporters are never neutral and we don't require neutrality, what we require is a neutral point of view". I agree with you, and now I see my mistake in the reason I used for my edits, but there are two problems:

1. Woods does not seem to have a neutral point of view on matters regarding demonic possession and exorcisms. Here are some examples:

http://bustedhalo.com/features/the-devil-and-the-details

In this article, we find:

- During the time of Christ, exorcisms were common on people who had mysterious illnesses. Today, many of these illnesses would be identified as epilepsy and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder or mental disabilities. “We understand more about these illnesses and to treat them as ‘demons’ seems to say that religious therapy for them has not advanced at all in the last 200 years” says Woods.

[my observation] Woods apparently belongs to the branch of "modern" theologians who do not believe that Jesus expelled demons, and that in fact demons do not exist. 

- Woods believes that the misdiagnosis of mental illness as demonic possession has lead people to perform exorcisms that often offers no help and sometimes does damage to the person it is being performed on. “In that sense I’m sort of the anti-exorcist,” says Woods.

[my observation] Calling himself sort of an anti-exorcist is obviously quite damning in terms of neutrality, plus the former chief exorcist of Rome, Father Amorth (there's an article about him on Wikipedia), writes in his book "An Exorcist Tells His Story" that he and all of his fellow exorcists that he has consulted believe that exorcisms cause no harm to people who didn't require one.

- In terms of the probability of a person being possessed, exorcism expert, Richard Woods O.P. cited Pere de Tonquedec, a Catholic priest who was the official exorcist for the Archdiocese of Paris for over twenty years. "Call the devil and you will see him; or rather not him, but a portrait made of the sick person’s idea of him. It is for this reason that certain priests, due to their inconsiderate and imprudent practice of exorcising, create, confirm and encourage the very disorders that they wanted to suppress,” said Tonquedec 

[my observation] This strengthens the impression that he's a "modern" theologian since he cites an alleged exorcist that doesn't believe in demonic possession, instead of citing any of the vast majority of renowned exorcists who believe that at least a small percentage of cases that they receive do merit an exorcism.
  
- He [Fr. Woods] has seen more than his share of people who believe themselves or others to be possessed. In each case he has dealt with, however, the person has turned out to be suffering from mental illness or psychological trauma.

[my observation] I think that what I have exposed (and there is more out there on the Internet - he has been criticized, for example, for his views on this topic, including what he said regarding the movie "The Exorcist") is enough to assert that Professor Woods does NOT have a neutral point of view on the subject of demonic possession and exorcism.

2. Woods is not a psychiatrist.

Here is his own biographical page:

http://richardwoodsop.net/site/Bio.php

So with what authority does Woods question the competence of Scott Peck as a psychiatrist? I deleted the part that says "misdiagnoses based upon a lack of knowledge regarding dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder)". The only Wikipedia source of this claim is Professor Woods, as you know, and as I said, he is not a psychiatrist, so where's the credibility? Based on my initial reason for deleting this portion, you put it back up there, but I hope that this expanded explanation will suffice for you to see that it should be deleted again, unless reliable sources can be found to sustain this claim. 

Thanks again for your message, and whenever you have a moment, please write again on my talk page. 

Regards...

[[User:Dontreader|Dontreader]] ([[User talk:Dontreader|talk]]) 22:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing how to use the nice indentation for a follow-up, but I just wanted to thank you for your time and help. I will follow your advice regarding Peck and Woods, putting Woods in the article. Perhaps I'll "see" you again, since at one point I thought that three articles had the same attack on Peck (somewhat like a carbon copy). Thanks for the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN page, which I will use if I run into trouble after my upcoming edit. I do appreciate your kind help, and have a nice day...

[[User:Dontreader|Dontreader]] ([[User talk:Dontreader|talk]]) 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to use the indentations another time (many thanks for the tip), but when you say that I must use a wikilink when mentioning a different Wikipedia article in the Edit Summary while copying content, I suppose you mean, for example [[Name of Article]]. In other words, the double brackets, right? Again, thanks for your generous help! P.S. I'm editing the "Demon" page, inserting Woods, and I should be done in half an hour if there are no complications. I'm trying to be neutral, of course, but I'm looking forward to any feedback...

[[User:Dontreader|Dontreader]] ([[User talk:Dontreader|talk]]) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Dravidians]]
Hello Doug..
For me ..fact is very important..

The Dravidians arrived from Iraq...many thousand years ago..caucasian..

And the Original tribes of India..Negrito and proto mongoloid..are still there in India..Some have mixed in...

The Dravidians are found all over India..Including Sindh..in the North ..Afghanistan..further North..

The Aryans came from Turkey...(Europe)..they were nomadic and some historians say..barbaric at That Time....they brought with them a very basic form of sanskrit..which the highly civilized Dravidians (Mesopotamians ) developed....The Aryans are mostly in the North But the Dravidians are very all over India..

Perhaps even in SOuth America.. and ancient Egypt....

Pythagoras,many other Europeans and Chinese studied in India..Our Western number system...etc etc..is from India..

There is however, a need among Westerners and Indians to downplay the Dravidian history..

The Dravidians established ancient cultures..in India 

If there is a Euro centrism in Wiki..Please let me know so i can ..just write a book about it or something..  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ancientmaths|Ancientmaths]] ([[User talk:Ancientmaths|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ancientmaths|contribs]]) 05:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Also Doug my concern is..Indian History will be totally destroyed and all its achievements attributed to other countries ..

Is this right ?
 Dravidians are most definitely caucasian...but they were preceded in India by proto Mongolian and Negrito groups..who are not caucasian..

Wikipedia has a good standing..but what will the worl;d gain by putting odwn succh an ancient influential culture..

Even the ancient buildings in India and the Middle East have influenced Western architecture..  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ancientmaths|Ancientmaths]] ([[User talk:Ancientmaths|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ancientmaths|contribs]]) 06:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I doubt very much Indian history will be destroyed, but you need to understand that our articles are developed from what 'reliable sources' have to say about a subject. You need to read [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:RS]] - anything that may be challenged can be removed if you don't add (as an inline citation, see [[WP:CITE]] a reliable source. And for these subjects you will mainly need academic sources, rarely will websites met our criteria. See also [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Thanks. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller#top|talk]]) 12:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

== Your HighBeam account is ready! ==

Good news!  You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.  Here's what you need to know:
* Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address. 
**Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in [[Special:Preferences]]).
**If you did not receive a code but were on the [[WP:HighBeam/Approved|approved list]], add your name to [[Wikipedia:HighBeam/Approved#Approved_but_code_not_received|this section]] and we'll try again.
* The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
* To activate your account: 1) Go to [http://www.highbeam.com/prof1 http://www.highbeam.com/prof1]; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
* If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line.  Or go to [[WP:HighBeam/Support]], or ask [[User:Ocaasi]].  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
* A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
* HighBeam would love to hear feedback at [[WP:HighBeam/Experiences]]
* Show off your HighBeam access by placing <nowiki>{{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}}</nowiki> on your userpage
* When the 1-year period is up, check [[WP:HighBeam/Applications|applications page]] to see if renewal is possible.  We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better.  Enjoy your research!  Cheers, [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]<sup> [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]] 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0256 -->