User talk:Doug Weller

User:Doug Weller	User talk:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Workshop	Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Userboxes	Special:Contributions/Doug Weller	Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.

---

Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic. If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place. If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, you can report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. If you need a page to be protected from editing, try Requests for page protection. If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is, well, that way... :) If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, you can: Make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards. Ask another administrator for help. Here is a complete List of Wikipedia Administrators. If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.

Did I delete your page, block you, or do something else that I should not have done?

First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, let me know, but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. Also, if you sign your post (by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - at the end of your message), I will respond faster, and I will tend to be in a better mood, because unsigned comments are one of my pet peeves. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked.) I watch the talk pages of everyone I block, so I will almost definitely see you make your request. If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Doug Weller) and I do not answer your request soon, or you cannot edit your talk page for some reason, you can try sending me an email. Please note, however, that I rarely check my email more than a few times a day, so it may be a couple of hours before I respond. Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future.

You can email me from 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 uncivil, full of vulgarities, 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.

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.Historylover4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

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. Dougweller (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.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. Dougweller (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. 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.--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. Dougweller (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.--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. --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. Dougweller (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

Charles danten (talk · contribs) registers an account at 12:53, 3 April 2010[1] but doesn't begin editing until more than a year later, on 19 December 2011,[2] focusing solely on one article, animal-assisted therapy. This bizarre conspiracy theory might give you some insight that I lack. Is this a sleeper account of a blocked user? Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ronz (talk · contribs) seems to know him. Looking into it. Dougweller (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. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Charles danten is Charles Danten [3], though I only recently noticed that he cited his own blog in his proposed changes to the article. --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.--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"). Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

From what? Dougweller (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.--Charles danten (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Science Apologist was an editor. I'm not interested in the article. Dougweller (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--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. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Colonies in antiquity

So colonies in antiquity is the same thing with the ancient Greek colonization, right? 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. Dougweller (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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. Dougweller (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.10.243.232 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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. [4] 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. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

• Wikidata: The next big thing? An interview with Wikidata

• Interview: Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling

• News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee

• WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut

• Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week

• Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases

• Technology report: Next Wikimedia deployment already in the pipeline and details of recent performance improvements

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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? Heiro 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. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Right on. In a related note, this guy has returned Talamachusee (talk · contribs) to rectify the article in question [5]. I suspect, from his past contributions, that he may be intimately involved with this IRLsee this diff. Heiro 00:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per this [6] and [7], 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. Heiro 09:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Appeal by Nathanielfirst

• Nathanielfirst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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. --Chris (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. Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Good news, thanks. Dougweller (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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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. Dougweller (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 A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials by Glen J. Kuban (1989) and Some Questionable Creationist Credentials by Brett Vickers (1988) on the Talk.Origins Archive Web Site.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 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. 92.238.107.151 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::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 [8]. Dougweller (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. 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. Dougweller (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. 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? Dougweller (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 strongly refutes this. <span style="font-size: smalleunsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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 [9] 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? Dougweller (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My edits

You wrote that you were sorry you un-blocked me. 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. 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...

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...

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...

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.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientmaths (talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientmaths (talk • contribs) 06:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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. Dougweller (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 approved list, add your name to 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; 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 {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}

Thanks Doug..I understand where you are coming from.. My concern is Wikipedia..is happy to promote Indian influenced cultures (without acknowledging the Indian influence)...eg martial arts ,feng shui..very Indian but have become Chinese..Western number system..and many fundamental maths formulae etc ..that came from India are made non Indian...Angkor Wat is another example..

Why,I am not sure..

I totally agree my edits must have references....I apologize for this.. But the way Wikipedia has nuanced India..one would never think that India is the most influential culture in Asia..and one of the most influential cultures in the world... Wikipedia ..has a very deep inbuilt bias..for example in your ancient maths page..even though the Indians (and Babylonians) influenced..the middle east,China and Greece.. the opposite can be perceived...when reading Wikis take on ancient maths

The way the whole article has been structured..like many other..the intention is to insult..for example..that Amitabh Bachan was born in British India..When you dont mention that Angkor Wat is Indian (dravidian ) built...i think it is so sad...

Are the Indians themselves doing this..?There was a BBC documentary "empire"..where the presenter totally failed to state that when the British or Europeans first came to India,India was more literate and wealthy than the Europeans..fine he sis not say that so what..BUt!he said that the British thought the Indians were savages..a country which houses the two oldest universities in the world where Ancient Greeks and Chinese went to study..i complained to the channel..

If Indians themselves are doing this ....Huge fact..Aryans came from Turkey at a time when Turkey was very backward... but the Dravidians came from Mesopotamia and parts of Iran..Now these two races and indeed the indigenous of India have mixed in... (Imagine if an anthropologist came to Australia and tested the indigenous people of Australia..)

(i think soon the contributions of the Dravidians will be destroyed..)..Tamil is the most refined ancient language in the world...I am learning French..have already noticed some Dravidian influence there..

What most Indians and westerners dont realize is that the Dravidians and Aryans are spread through India..and Wikipedia and some historians have grouped the original people of India with the Dravidians..so Indian history even in wikipedia is very confused..one section of wikipedia will disagree with another section...I have tried to rectify this a little..and i accept i have not done it well technically speaking but factually speaking i have tried to reconcile ....some of Wikis misunderstanding..

When the anthropologist goes to south India or indeed the North..if they do test on our indigenous people ..of course..they will not be caucasian..

My concern is that there is a huge bias in the Media and Wikipedia when it comes to Indian History and to its disproportionate contributions in ancient times...As i have said..maths..many Dravidian words ,Feng shui Martial arts...architecture ..many components of ancient India..are willingly discarded..

Doug..I dont know where to start..can you assign me to a team that specializes in ancient Indian history ? I would appreciate that..otherwise indeed Indian history will be destroyed..Dravidian already has..even though they were so amazing in Ancient times..they have been grouped with the indigenous of India..and poof ! their contributions have been annihilated ..................

Ancientmaths (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

‎WarriorsPride6565

This one is back up to his old tricks. Heiro 05:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)