User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Slaves from San Seban

Thnx for the help/input on the talk page about pre-colombian african contact in the western hemeisphere. it's hard to get straight answers. you say san seban was settled in 1510. do you know if they had any slaves. holla back and keep up the good work.Scott Free (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - no, I can't say for sure that they did. Officially there were regulations about African slaves which suggests that this might have been slightly (we are talking about a handful of years at most) early. But were the regulations always followed? I simply don't know. Then of course there were the Portuguese, and surely there must have been unofficial and unrecorded visits. So, who knows?--Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

Doug, I reverted (back-off) your recent adds to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact because it was unreferenced and unencyclopedic in tone. Thanks, and sorry, Madman (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear why some of the most amazing claims are just marked with a need for citation, and this, which is generally accepted and has its own Wikipedia article Columbian Exchange needed deletion instead of a citation request. However, I've replaced it mentioning the Columbian Exchange. Can I now delete all the wild claims made by Menzies etc. where a request for citation has been there for months or more?--Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Missed this, it is also in European colonization of the Americas. OK now? I am still very much of a newbie at this. I didn't know for sure what to do with the 1421 stuff for instance.--Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. I appreciate the editing you've been doing to a couple of articles that deal with ideas about pre-Columbian contact. At lot of those articles are ridiculously biased towards ideas from the extreme fringe, which is a situation that is a little daunting to attempt to address. Remember that no one owns an article or has final say over what goes into it, so feel free to edit as you see fit. ClovisPt (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gene Matlock

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gene Matlock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Matlock. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Roll back and Childress article

The vandal has returned despite the semi-protection tag. Could I please have the rollback feature to make fixing this sort of vandalism easier? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, after looking at your contributions I have decided that you don't quite need the rollback feature just yet. Maybe you could get WP:TWINKLE instead? Also, the roll back feature is only given to people whom have shown that they can be trusted/actually require it. Have a go with twinkle for a few weeks and get back to me and I'll see about giving it to you. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just am not clear how to easily revert and avoid the 3R problem. And I asked for it to be protected, I thought it was semi-protected, but it seems as though it isn't, so this guy is just going to keep vandalising. Thanks for the quick and useful response--Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries mate. If you read WP:3RR it'll tell you that you can revert vandalism as many times as is necessary. 3RR only counts for content disputes (e.g. one user wants to keep a word in but another user doesn't want it included). I'll take a look at the article and see if it requires protection. Good luck with twinkle! If you need anything don't hesitate to ask :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional note - yes, the article was protected from the 14th to 21st of Feb. I have extended the article's protection for a further 2 weeks. Message me if you require anything else. Take care! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)