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.

Moroni shenanigans

Hi! I'm MagicatthemovieS. I wasn't trying to start an edit war. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I did not know the meaning of the term "wikilinks". Thanks for the heads-up.

July 2014 ==== theory Creationism and Evolution

If the theory of Evolution is in the article to have neutral point of view the theory Creationism should be in the article too as the theory Evolution is not a fact either. I'm sorry about the copyrighted material I will see if I can get permission. Also did you remove my sourced for Mokele-mbembe?

Thanks just trying to make wikipedia a better place— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwahl90 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Explained what a scientific theory is and Wikipedia's position on evolution on OP's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned you at ANI in regards to Hwahl90's continued copyright violations and soapboxing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James O'Higgins Norman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• was awarded a [[Institute of Education|Doctorate at the Institute of Education, London (2006)]].{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Afd close

Hi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandi Hawbaker (4th nomination) appears as status "UNDETERMINED" at the AfD stats tool. I'm guessing that it's looking for a result of "delete" instead of "Close"? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, AlanM1. What was I thinking? Fixed it yesterday but forgot to tell you. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw it – thanks. Is there a reason we don't have templates for closing and voting? I just got picked on in my RfA for using a vote word that the report didn't understand. I had to mention that others do this routinely (including this case as an example, though not specifically) because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute doesn't actually list the acceptable words :-| —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

AlanM1, I'm not sure what you mean by a template. We do use a template - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. I made a mistake, I was thinking about CLOSEing in and typed close instead of delete. Don't worry if you don't make it this time, just continue to work and take the advice of others into account. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Full armor of god broadcast

I know I am probably gonna get spanked for this, but unfortunately due to the Tim Lambesis trying to hire a hitman to murder his wife case, The Full Armor of God Broadcast quote has gotten some notariaty. I thought that might help at least establish it as a known program? I hope I did not do anything too wrong. I thought I would bring it to you, please help if you can. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well that was quick.. Actually this was not simply a re-post, it had entirely new sources. But, no contestation from me. Thank you for your time, I will keep working on it and hopefully this program that is relevant genre will one day be notable enough. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Armorbearer777, I sincerely want to thank you for your being upfront about this. I hope you realise that I didn't delete this myself, although I did ask another Admin their opinion, I decided that although I thought it wasn't different enough I simply tagged it to let someone else decide. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Thank you. Hopefully sometime the program will get more press to source. Armorbearer777 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:You might want to take a look at this

Thanks a lot for the link! actually at the beginning I was not 100% sure that his edit was not OK, but after taking a look at Republic of Macedonia and seeing that he replicated it at several places with misleading edit summaries, I reverted him. Actually, as Italian - Swiss I am totally uninvolved in the Macedonia matter (as for Armenia, Azerbaijan, and so on) but I try to bring some order in the mess that pours each day into these articles, although it is really a mine field, and doing some mistake sooner or later is unavoidable... Keep the good job, Alex2006 (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hotel Hell

I understand your comment and reasoning, but I am wondering why the hidden note is there. All of the Hotel Hell Season 1 summaries from 2012 are original (I wrote a couple of them), and all of the current season "Hell's Kitchen" summaries are original. Why is Hotel Hell Season 2 being treated specially? Thanks.

Qadiani

Hi There I edited the Wiki Page with Title: QADIANI, I did this while consulting thousands of south Asian Muslims ( I'm a community activist)-but you changed it back. The word is used by ALL south Asians Muslims NOT as a slur but just like the word PUNJABI ( a person from the Punjab). So accurately and factually you are wrong irrespective of what the Ahmadi community say-who also are 100% are less than 400,000 worldwide. You see in their literature they claim to be 200 million- as more Muslims are now complaining about this blatant fraud they have come to the figure of a couple million in Wikipedia-NOT TRUE ALSO-they do not have ANY evidence. Please see Youtube. I am now producing a 100,000 petition to complain about your editing to my local MP- as it is misleading and maligning the 400 million South Asian Muslims.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.188.182 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, Doug, for your ongoing efforts to control POV-pushing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

YGM

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

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A typo to fix

Hi Doug,

I suspect you used my username by mistake, rather than Boss Reality's, here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boss_Reality&diff=prev&oldid=617820148#You_are_getting_tiresome

He has then quoted you, preserving that error:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boss_Reality&diff=next&oldid=617822919#You_are_getting_tiresome

Would you please fix both instances? Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit of "Abraham"

The purpose of the edit, which you quickly reverted, was merely to explain who the quoted Paula McNutt is, because, on the basis of two short quotes, the paragraph goes on to dismiss the entire contents of Genesis as a work of fiction. Readers of the article need to be aware of her illustrious pedigree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ivorjosephson (talk • contribs)

That simply confirms my guess that you were trying to discredit here by making it look as though she was just an administrator and ignoring her academic achievements. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Acts 29 Network

Having a WP:WAR issue with unknown IP 110.149.195.208 on what I belive is a valid ref. Are you and admin? I believe a block on this IP is justifiable. Any thoughts or ideas who would be best to contact?? Armorbearer777 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, you locked Acts 29 Network with the contentious edit left in rather than out. In this case I believe that the IP user has it right and User:Armorbearer777's edit cannot be justified by the source reference. -Sigeng (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigeng, I beg to differ on my edit (as you could have probably guessed). Though my contribution is very comparmentalized, it truly encapulates the essence of the authors point. The source clearly draws a correlation between Mars Hill Church and Acts 29 Network. Perhaps from a legal stand point the leadership and headquarters can be transfered in such a way as to maintain legal seperation from Mars Hill Church, but it is pretty obvious that the implication from the source is that the Acts 29 Network remains an extension of Mars Hill Church, therefore it continues to be a conduit of the churches "Freaky Ways" similar to a "Cult", thus the Acts 29 Network shares in the authors question through association; "Cult or Church"? This implication may just be based on conjecture, however it still is a notable source that demonstrates valid "reaction" as per the heading. The accuracy of the author's position is almost a mute point. Agree or not, it is a ligitimate "reaction" from a notable source, is it not? Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think you made the right call. I did the best that I could in this matter, however I clearly see the many opportunities for improvement with how I could have. I welcome your help as a mentor. Just sayin... - Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Sigeng, didn't you know we always protect the WP:Wrong Version? :-) Seriously, I protected what I saw - there was clear edit-warring, my choices were to block both editors or protect. That's standard procedure unless there is an obvious WP:BLP issue or of course vandalism. Then I expect editors to come to a decision on the talk page. I haven't read the article and know nothing about either the church or the network. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

email

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

John Carter (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fatwa against Deobandi Scholars

You deleted my page Fatwa against Deobandi Scholars on the Copyright issue. The text I copied is free to use as you can see that the same text can be seen from millions of website.All these website authors copied it. click here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudahmed97 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I can find no evidence it is not copyright and until you can prove this you can't use it. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Help request

I am new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate any feedback, instructions or help. I recently created a page with my name, "Robert Clifton Robinson," which was fully verified with links to my published books. I believed that this was sufficient to verify my new page, according to Wikipedia's policy, but apparently I made a mistake. I do not know who to talk to or how to properly correct this issue. The page has been deleted and there were no instructions on how to correct the problem. I apologize for the removal of the speedy edit, on that page it said something to the effect that I could remove this tag if I corrected the problem, I must have misunderstood, I am sorry.

Would someone please help me so I can get this important page back up. I would be very grateful.

Robert Clifton Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblesavant (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

TrueChinaHistory

I am not that interested in the topic. I was just cruising for vandalism with Huggle that night. BollyJeff | talk 17:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

210.92.171.47

I thought that the IP whom I templated for the personal attack was a sock. I didn't know that Mikemikev was in Seoul. In that case, he is probably an Asian racist rather a European racist. (In Washington, DC, Asian racists are even worse than European racists. In an African-American majority city, European racists know that being a racist is considered shameful.) If the IP is a sock and engaged in anti-Semitic attacks, will he be blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon I block anyone using edit summaries such as those as WP:NOT HERE. The Seoul IPs of Mikemikev concentrate on a small number of articles, often attacking Maunus, and are obvious, so I block them on sight. If you ever see any ping me or notify ANI or AIV. I blocked the IP (2 actually), but left the edit summaries visible as so people have a better idea as to what was going on. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do if I see any similar IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas - Palestinian right of resistance

Dred05m (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Recently, I have removed (07-2014) Hamas from the list of terrorist organization on the article War on Terror. The reason for this removal is because Hamas is an Islamic foundation founded by the late Ahmed Yassin and dr. Rantissi (both were assassinated by Israel). The election victory of Hamas in the Gaza-strip allowed the party to rule the power on to the Palestinian people since 2006. Also the Hamas party is doing charity works for the poor, disabled and children. I can not believe that this party still has not been removed of the list of terrorist organization by the United States, European Union and Japan. This party deserve a chance to rule together with Fatah to maintain a Palestinian unity. 

Dougweller, do you believe the killing and bloodshed of 15 innocent lives (women and children) on an United Nations school on 24-07-2014 by Israel is not an act of terrorism ? Beit Hanoun in Gaza. 

User:Dred05m, your beliefs and mine don't matter here. We go by what reliable sources say about the organisation. If it's on their lists, it's on their lists. And no one is guiltless in that conflict. But it certainly violates NPOV to just call Hamas a charitable organisation. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Democratic Party Comment

I have not made any comments on the Democratic Party page, my user contribution page will affirm this. I can't begin to imagine what you were referring to. I have made one edit to the page itself today, and it was merely cosmetic. Please can you clarify. Hayek79 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Hayek79, your contributions history includes [1] with an edit summary "Re-included internal factions and Conservative trend in the Democratic Party whitewashed by blondeguynative)". That's a personal attack. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Dougweller, I will make a point of asking him if he objected to it, and apologise in the event that he was offended. Otherwise, I feel you ought to revise your understanding of the meaning of "personal attack", "personal attack" would involve the denigration of his character, something I did not come close to doing. Hayek79 (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hayek79 - sounds reasonable, let me know if I need to revise my post on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS is a terrorist army

I am providing three of many reliable sources: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/ http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/25/How-US-Allowed-ISIS-Form-Terrorist-Army http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1100423/DISTURBING-CONTENT-ISIS-terrorists-execute-soldiers-Syria.html Worldedixor (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

• Wikimedia in education: Education program gaining momentum in Israel

• Traffic report: The World Cup hangs on, though tragedies seek to replace it

• News and notes: Institutional media uploads to Commons get a bit easier

• Forum: Did you know?—good idea, needs reform

• Featured content: Why, they're plum identical!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Armenia

Doug, given that I know next to nothing about the content issues, your comment here in response to Aleko's statements would be helpful. I know this is a conduct issue, but still ... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Wondering if you might see any behavior problems worth addressing here.John Carter (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

John Carter, not yet. It would be nice though to try to get people to put up specific proposals. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this external source citation in the "Wichita Massacre" article pass muster?

Hi. I took the cite which you had removed and moved it to "External Sources"

Is that permissible?

There is a plethora of media coverage on the reversals, some of it confused and some dead wrong. I thought posting the case syllabus on Jonathan's appellate decision might help clarify that.

I've noticed that there's a good deal of reader and viewer feedback attendant to the coverage, some even asking about whether it's possible to remove the deceased trial judge from the bench.

Please feel free to remove or substitute something more helpful that is within Wikipedia guidelines if my restoration/move is not appropriate, or to add more. I expect there may be a law journal discussion about the case in the near future.

Thanks for your diligence with regard to maintaining this article. Activist (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Activist I raised this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Primary sources as ELs. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi there. I'd like to ask about this part. What to do now? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Cathy O'brien

Hi - i'm messaging you to query your deleting of my editing of the Cathy O'brien page. The reasons you gave for deleting my editing were

A) The quote wasn't contained within the supplied link.

B) The linked website was not an "official source".

C) The quote was about monarch, where as the Wiki article is about O'brien, therefore the quote was off-topic.

Let me address these objections in order.

A)I read the link. The quote was indeed supplied within the link.

B)The link was accepted by wikipedia. Also, the Greenbaum speech AKA “Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse,” by Prof. D. Corydon Hammond is cited 7 times on google scholar.

In fact “Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse,” now usually known as the “Greenbaum Speech,” was delivered at the Fourth Annual Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality, Thursday June 25, 1992, at the Radisson Plaza Hotel, Mark Center, Alexandria, Virginia. It was Sponsored by the Center for Abuse Recovery & Empowerment. The existence of the lecture is not in doubt. In fact it is quoted in dozens of different web pages.

It is also referenced in this scholarly book McNally, RJ (2003). Remembering Trauma. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-01802-8. (pg 235-237)

C) I note that there is another quote/edit which is about Monarch, and not O'brien included within the Wiki article (Reference number 5). Why have you not also deleted that?

Could you please reconsider this edit? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogernome (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption

It is kicking off again at India Against Corruption, an article that you semi'd until 1 July. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, decided to ignore by TP until after lunch. But I did see the problem and protected earlier. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No probs. I hope nothing spoils your digestion. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mahmud of Ghazni and Shivaji

Page Numbers and sources given. See Talk Pages or the Revision Pages.Ghatus (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake Prediction

At that article, it is one difficult editor versus, apparently, sockpuppets. J. Johnston is the owner of Earthquake prediction. He argues at length for using dramatic non-encyclopedic language (such as "intense optimism" and a "drumbeat" of earthquakes) and shouts down efforts to change the language. He avoided being topic-banned at WP:ANI only because the thread was archived before it was closed. He also then made the typical move of saying that he was resigned to accepting bad reverts and bad edits, and then went back to slow-motion reverting. Isn't the statement that one is resigned to bad edits or something like that a way to say "Please don't topic-ban me" (so that one can then not be resigned to bad edits)?

On the other hand, it appears that Joe Bodacious is a sock-puppet of a banned user. Yuck.

It's not as bad as Russia, where it appears that there are two sockpuppet farms, one in Russia and one in Italy, who are feuding. (You may recall from Romeo and Juliet that feuding is a very old Italian problem.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I agree. I hate that article because of the ownership Johnston shows. If you start working on it though let me know. I won't touch Russia. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Olmecs

You Reverted my edit to the Olmec article. You said I was using fringe self published references. I disagree entirely. I used 3 references but could of applied dozens. The last paragraph prior to my addition appears quite biased to me and used outdated references in the subtopic of Alternate theories on Olmec origins. Please explain your thinking so that I, a brand new editor to Wikipedia may improve my contributions, which, btw, will likely be all over the subjects of global ancient history and relative modern day science. I will also be creating profiles of authors in this same genre but other genres too. In fact, that is why I am becoming involved with editing Wikipedia in the first place. I have come to Wikipedia looking for dozens of profiles that are not here, but in my thinking certainly should be. Thank you. Peggy Morin-Vilhauer (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Peg Morin-Vilhauer.

ref: Aztec Calendar Stone, sub: physical description & Olmec, sub: Alternative Origin Theories

User:Peggy Morin-Vilhauer please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Also WP:NOTABILITY and associated pages before you start creating articles. And WP:FRINGE. I've brought this up at WP:FTN. Wikipedia is basically a mainstream encyclopedia that does of course include fringe topics that meet our notability requirements. But if you want to use fringe sources you might find we aren't the place for you. This isn't to say that there isn't room for improvement of the article of course. But self-published sources, blog, Graham Hancock, etc. are rarely acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS terrorist designation

Can we all have your input on this vexed question again, please? I made an edit that has caused much discussion on the Talk page. It seems I mistakenly assumed that the US State Department was an ideal source to support calling ISIS a terrorist organization in the Lead. I overlooked making it an in-text attribution, but even so, it seems too much for some, and I can in fact understand the arguments against it. I am familiar with the WP guidance on this, but I do think we now need to have the word "terrorist" somewhere in the Lead, however loaded it is, because the group is so commonly spoken of in this way now, and increasingly so with the latest atrocities. The word can always be heavily qualified, and DeCausa's suggested wording seems the best to me. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 will do. We need to watch the 1RR restriction. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerns regarding policy

I have rarely if ever been involved in writing policy and guidelines, so seeking input from you.

The two primary concerns relate to wikipedia being a "scientific" work and specifically WP:PSCI. Having reviewed various reference works on the topic of encyclopedias, they are generally described rather as philosophical, although admittedly many sciences of today didn't exist when early ones were written and even the early ones basically tended to adhere to the philosophy of science where it could be applied.

The other primary concern relates to the easily assumable bias in a large proportion of wikipedia editors and in the modern scientific community.

This quote from the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, 2nd ed., 2003, p.782, article "Science Wars" relates to the latter - “The science wars debate has obvious interest in the context of the science-religion relationship because it exposes the institutions of science and shows them reacting to a form of critical pressure with obvious parallels to the situation facing religion during the first century of modernity.” Please note how it compares the popular perception of science today to the embattled position of the church in the early modern era. This is made worse for us here by the high proportion of editors who could, uncharitably admittedly, be described as science geekboys, who would be among the least likely to be able to rationally and emotionally separate the positions of science based on its principles and the positions taken by the scientific community in its PR/propaganda wars. And, yes, as someone who studied astronomy, that includes me. The proximate cause for concern is the word pseudoscience and its use here. See the prominence it has in Intelligent design and discussion there and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. The term seems to be only of comparatively recent vintage, and to be used as problematically and perjoratively as the early modern church used the word heresy and its equivalents. A group engaged in "circling the wagons," which both the church then and science today seem to have done, will of course find derogatory labels to affix to opponents, like the words pseudoscience and heresy.

Also, honestly, how to differentiate between the "religions" of crystals and other New Age beliefs, the "religion" of science as sometimes presented today, and ordinary religion seems assumed in policy, and never SFAIK ever specifically stated or indicated.

I think perhaps changing wikipedias status from a purportedly "scientific" encyclopedia to a "philosophic" or "academic" one would reduce the amount of problems we would have associated with apologetics for science, make us more consistent with the pillar that says wikipedia is an encyclopedia by making us more consistent with other high-quality reference or encyclopedic sources, which could also make development easier, and reduce the possible occasional joke that we might be the only "scientific" encyclopedia that gives so much coverage to Tom Cruise, J.Lo, boy bands, and other ephemera as we do.

Unfortunately, I know buggerall about writing policies and guidelines around here, and don't even necessarily have a clue what specifically to do. Any ideas where to start and what to start with? John Carter (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats

I do not see how any normal person would consider that I made any threat to take legal action. I hope this closes this matter.Mansjelly (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In so far as the article is concerned, there is some doubt (which I am presently researching into) if (a) the India Against Corruption movement "is" or "was", and (b) If the Kejriwal-led IAC movement is/was different from the Roy-led IAC movement. I don't see how informing that I intended ((as a registered Indian voter) to get these important political controversies on Wikipedia directly clarified from the respective players can be construed as a legal threat, UNLESS Sitush is aware that his reinserted edits are false and which could result in legal action. I specifically clarify that I have not AND shall not suggest for legal action. Mansjelly (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What you propose to investigate has already been investigated. Indeed, a whole bunch of people from "Roy's IAC" were attempting to influence the article only a few months ago. They were blocked after numerous policy breaches, including threats phrased in a similar manner to yours above. Indeed, it is blatantly obvious to me that you are a returning user or are being advised by a previously blocked user - both of which should mean that you are already blocked. How you have avoided that fate thus far is beyond my understanding but if needs be then I'll find some links to past discussions in order to demonstrate, as a minimum, that you are a meatpuppet.

You've also been told before that Wikipedia doesn't really care what Kejriwal or any other involved person might say - we prefer reliable secondary sources here, not the biasses etc inherent in those about whom we write. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See, for example, this ANI report, this one, this and this. Note the socks, meats and role accounts; note the similarly-worded legal threats; note the appeals to primary sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have located over a dozen secondary sources accessed from Google News which say that Roy is Convenor of IAC. I have not found any source which has either Kejriwal or Hazare saying that he is not. Please respond to this instead of threatening me. Please conduct a CheckUser or file for a SPI. Mansjelly (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)