Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Doug Weller

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 19 January 2012 (Archiving 3 thread(s) from User talk:Dougweller.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

BC / AD

Doug - Are you (personally) strongly opposed to the use of "BC" and "AD" ... see the 'Great Zimbabwe' Talk-File. --DLMcN (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist

Could you possibly provide some diffs? I'm personally not seeing anything but I'm not familiar with the user. Alexandria (chew out) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? Saying the edit the same articles is helpful yes, but do you have any specific diffs to help? Alexandria (chew out) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong suggested I raise an SPI and get a CU check. If I'm right, this is just one of a number of socks he's created. He doesn't repeat himself so I can't show repeated text, except for one possible example that if yo wish I can email you about. I'm not the only one thinking this is the same editor. I wish I could be more helpful but this new editor's interests are identical to those of AP, and the creation of the bios is also a major link. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Third Uninvolved Party Needed for Edit Resolution

Please help to ensure that Prof. Joel Mata's publications regarding life at All-Saints including Filipa Moniz as member of Military Order of Santiago is taken into consideration on Wikipedia's the page about Filipa Moniz, since all my edits are immediately deleted.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Your message about Lee Carroll

Thx. Replied on my talk page -- Nazar (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You are mentioned on ANI

Here. un☯mi 23:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Too late as usual

I see everything I recommended on the pyramidiot ANI thread had already been either said or done, sorry about that. The edit conflict I got flustered me a bit. Then on the other hand Fluffernutter removed my post, lol.. per the ANI bug, I expect, rather than in annoyance at my uselessness (though such would have been fairly reasonable.) Bishonen | talk 00:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC).

Moderator Needed for Edit Resolution

Please help to ensure that Prof. Joel Mata's publications regarding life at All-Saints including Filipa Moniz as member of Military Order of Santiago is taken into consideration on Wikipedia's the page about Filipa Moniz, since all my edits are immediately deleted.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I am back, logged in to wiki after a long time, in some of my messages, an article I created "Oldest Afghan Tribes" has been deleted !!!. Alot of other stuff has been changed!!! mostly by yourself "Doug Weller", whats going on here? Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WarriorsPride6565

He has removed multiple words in nearly every single edit, and tons of the articles which he did it in haven't even been fixed I only just reverted this one.Fixkihitter (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible

I am somewhat confused by your continued revert on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible. You have reverted to an edit that has NO CITED SOURCE MATERIAL, and yet, you state that you are reverting my material because you view it as OR....I'm at a loss for what basis you are using in 1. Preferring one edit over the other 2. Declaring that the edit I posted required any additional source material than the bible, which is what the overall article is based on to begin with and therefore the best source for the material under consideration. Please explain, I do not wish to, nor will I continue to engage in an edit war with you over this material, but I would like a reasonable explanation of you actions and your line of thinking on this edit as so far something seems amiss. Thanks.Willietell (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DougWeller, I'm going to make another attempt at it and provide a non-biblical source, hopefully it will meet your criteria, if not, since I am a new editor, maybe you can guide me through it, because the information I have put in the edit is factually correct. Hopefully this time I get it right, please don't report me for edit Waring, because that isn't what I'm trying to do here, it's just that I'm new and haven't caught on yet.ThanksWillietell (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinianated and Baised

Hi,

your responses leave much to be desired for and to say you are actually a wiki clerk as you have pasted on your page is truly sad, still (please excuse for the language but I have kept my cool for all the wrong clueless editings you have been doing for the last six months) Coming to the point: "I also note that the book I mention above is written in Hebrew (and I also note you have never seen "a" book either, it has been translated into English and quoted multiple times in English and other languages). Your quote doesn't give a page name (The account is given in the book from pages 97-106) and I'm guessing that you haven't actually read the book (and I am guessing you never have read "a" book to begin with,on any account, please dont try to guess for us poor simple folk) and simply copied that from another website (this is what goes in your mind, maybe this is exactly what you have been doing, experienced eh! ). And as virtually all the reliable sources say (so now you are an expert on Afghan History, wow, and you certified yourself did you?) he is said to be the forefather of the Pashtun's, I've removed it. (yes that you can do, but with people like you Wiki is never going to be a knowledge friendly encyclopedia, I gave a referenced excerpt, of a genuine book, one I read and you remove it, they call such behavior fascism, you are biased and heavily opinionated)

>>> You say he is merely legendary?? what a joke!! and you are actually editing stuff on Afghan History?? if this is your level of knowledge on the subject, I advise you to do us a service and stop doing us this service!! The man has "A grave", I have visited "it", "PEOPLE visit it" everyday, books mention it but then for people like you....

>>> From your past reckless actions on a subject you know nothing of, I am still going to state the references and I am going to put them in. The burden of proof is on you. Go to the biggest library you can find and prove me wrong before you do us the great service of editing anything about Afghans.

[Rabbi Avihail A. and A. Brin, The Lost Tribes in Assyria, Translation: S. Matlofsky, Jerusalem: Amishav, 1985, pages 97–106]

Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the burden of proof is not on me but on any editor adding something. See WP:VERIFY. There are a number of graves of legendary figures that people visit, that doesn't prove the person existed. The article calls him legendary, so I don't see why you are upset that I've called him legendary also (not 'merely legendary'. Name-calling won't get you anywhere.
I replied at that link, Thanx. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Your comments invited

Dear User:Dougweller, thanks for your invitation to comment. I've added my comments there. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012

I noticed your recent [edit] and I like it. I've been having to fight POV and POVish editing for so long, and I actually think I've succeeded with much of the Gingrich and Rick Perry presidential campaign articles. The Bachmann page is too far gone, but I think the Gingrich page can be made a lot better and is really moving into a substantive page.

I would like your input on the ==Reviews== section of his page. Do you think it is fair to put reviews of his candidacy based on early speculation? And shouldn't it then be renamed to ==early reviews== or something to that effect? And why is it even necessary for us to have reviews and analysis of his candidacy so forward like that? Wouldn't it be appropriate to hold off until its later on and the campaign has finished? Let me know your thoughts on this.--Screwball23 talk 04:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think Newt would make a great pres of the us. Though I'd really much rather have that nice Bachman lady. PiCo (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Because as a non-American you'd like to see the final downfall of the US? ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Cush, it's a joke. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

User:Carinae986 has added two sources to the Zengid dynasty article. I was curious as to the sincerity of the sources. Only one source, The Venture of Islam, Volume 1: The Classical Age of Islam, is searchable and neither Amazon nor Google books indicate the words Zengid/Zangid, Turkish or Persian showing up on page 152. I politely asked for a quote[1] and received a snide remark in response[2] and to "assume good faith".[3] Since I have reasonable doubt what can I do about this situation? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is sorted now, right? Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparently not[4]. Given the volume of text written by user:Carinae attempting to make this issue personal(You're not much of a researcher[5], how completely ridiculous you're being[6], what this boils down to is that I know something about this subject that you don't, I own and have read a book that you haven't[7]) one would think two quotes from his "sources" would have taken up less space and time! I had no idea I was "asking for the moon"! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
And I guess I don't know anything now![8] --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Do not bother wasting your time on my behalf as I will not longer be editing that article since my "ignorance" was getting in the way. Have a happy holiday, DW. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A shame. I've posted a note on his talk page. Happy holidays to you also. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki

Hi! I'd be very happy if you could help with this request. Particularly with the image which will soon be on wikipedia's mainpage as DYK. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could but I don't have online access to the Yale University Library. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Juan Ponce de León II

Oops! Big mistake. Made the proper fixes, thanks for letting me know. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hello Dougweller, I am beginning to suspect that both Users: User:74.233.219.224 and User:184.32.55.194 are Sockpuppet accounts. Both have dedicated themselves to reverting and making the same edits to a couple of articles. You may want to look into it or advice someone who knows about these things to check into the matter. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, both IPs geolocate to the same place (you can check this sort of thing yourself from an IP's talk page). Not enough edits to worry about yet, but it could be a problem. Having said that, ethnicity isn't really relevant unless it's clearly a significant part of a person's life. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Bible cosmos images

Doug, is there any way we can get some decent bible cosmos images for wiki-commons? Or maybe they're already there? I have no idea how to access or use wiki-commons, unfortunately. PiCo (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Try this source [9] and there's [10]. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Undeaddanny4

Saying the Bible is fiction is not vandalism. You can reprimand the user for not wording it properly, but not for vandalism. In fact, I wonder why the word "fiction" does not occurr once in the Bible article. Too many religious editors? ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

None of this editor's edits have been constructive, including that one. He's going to be blocked but I thought he deserved a final warning, which is why I added "None of your edits so far appear to have been constructive, this is your last chance." It's pretty obvious that the Bible isn't fiction although it isn't a historical text either. It's a religious text and there is a difference. If we can source it, we can say that some people view the Bible as fiction, but we can't state as a fact that the Bible is fiction (which would clearly be wrong as besides the mythological elements there are historical elements). Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The historical elements? The stories about king Arthur also contain historical elements, but it's still fiction. The book Shogun re-tells history, but it's still fiction. Same goes for the Bible. The events and the lives of biblical figures do not reflect real-world events and lives as they in fact took place. The Bible is fiction. All of it. But you know very well how much the sections of Wikipedia dealing with religions and ancient history are under control of religious editors, which is why many articles still are rather proselytization pamphlets than encyclopedic papers. And almost no admins do anything about it although it is very obvious that the used sources are not reliable. Heck, even Mr Wales takes the side of the religionists. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm hardly a religionist and although I agree that it is almost impossible to keep our religious articles NPOV, or our ethnic ones and many of our historical ones, I try and so do many others. But it isn't accurate to call the Bible fiction. It's much more complex than that, and to simply label it that would also be a gross violation of NPOV. 10:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me clarify: everything in the Bible that is currently assigned to before circa 850 BCE is fiction, i.e. prior to the Divided Monarchy. And even most of the details assigned to the time after the United Monarchy have no basis in archaeology or historical research. And that's jsut for the Jewish part. In the New Testament almost nothing comes from any identifiable, let alone reliable author. The Bible is not a reliable source for dozens of reasons, and to pretend that it has some value around here because so many believe in it, is simply encyclopedic dishonesty.
I know you are not a religionist, but sometimes I wonder what you stand for. And maybe you should enforce certain principles around here, e.g. that history is not determined by "biblical scholars" (i.e. theologians) but by archaeologists and historians. There is no objectivity in religious sources ever, and how could there be? So why allow material from religious sources to dominate so many articles, especially with emphasis on the Jewish aspects? Why do I constantly have to change "Hebrew Bible" references to "Bible" references? You know, I do fight for accuracy in describing what the Bible says and what the Bible is. But what has gone on in Wikipedia in the 10 years that I have been here, really is a disgrace for an organisation that has the aim to provide a serious encyclopedia. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it isn't a reliable source for history. If it's being used as such, complain on the article's talk page and let me know. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Gulf of cambay civilisation deletion

the current article (Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay) from which i redirected to my now deleted article does not give the entire picture. Moreover both the articles are resourced from the same sites. Yet one is deleted the other is not !! Moreover my article was resourced not only from graham hancocks website and also from many other websites. It is not only grahm hancock but Prog G a milne who is an expert in "Glacial isostasy, sea-level change, earth rotation, the static and time-varying geopotentia" has verified it. Prof. S.N Rao India's leading archaeologist has dedicated 14 years of his life for this. There are lot of google hits for this article and also you tube videos. Could you please revert the deletion so that I can add appropriate resources to it atleast, otherwise we are denying the write knowledge to readers whi are interested in this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gururaj Nayak (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First, much of it was copyvio and you haven't admitted this. Secondly, it's a POV fork, see WP:POVFORK, ie "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)". We already have an article on the subject, you should be editing that one if you can find sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS and edit according to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. That isn't the only article of yours with copyright violations. And I doubt that you can find any current academic sources that agree with your perspective, which is both fringe and political.
Another issue is WP:NOR. Exactly where does Milne say there is an ancient civilization there? If he doesn't, then you can't use him as a source. You really need to become familiar with our policies and guidelines if you don't want your edits to be reverted. And you need to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia before you do any more editing as editors who persistenly add copyvio to articles end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Apologise for repeating myself but the current article which is incomplete and more importantly with the wrong title refers the same resources and does not get deleted, my article which I have tried to add more information with the right title referring to many resources and also containing a lot more well resourced information gets deleted. Moreover before i could add more resources the article itself was deleted without warning nor i given any time. With in 2 hours of creation it is gone. Atleast i should have been given a couple of days to rectify it. I hope you understand that creating an article and adding resources takes time. this article has been of high academic interest in recent years and the entire world civilisation timeline is not accurate with discoveries like it and this is slowly dawning on many archeologist. just because western world does not endorse it or reports it incorrectly does not make it wrong. Lot of articles do not depict the right picture and it pains me when i see them in wiki and when i want to modify them mods delete it under one pretext or the other. i just wanted to highlight this. coming back to my article there is lot of info, and photographs of this material which cannot be denied. i have asked for permission from graham hancock and i hope when i get it i can add this important article to wiki, better is if he adds it himself so that wiki is benefited. In the name of moderation we should not deny knowledge that is well resourced to the knowledge hungry ppl like me...

Cheers Guru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gururaj Nayak (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears you didn't read the links I gave you. We already have an article that covers the controversy, we do not have two articles on the same subject, nor do we have articles that present only one viewpoint on a controversy. If people are deleting pictures you are adding to articles than you are using other accounts or editing without an account to add them as I see no such contributions by you. If there's an argument over whether an image is correct, use the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Ohh dear !!! when i say "picture" I donot mean the silly .jpeg/.gif image as such but I mean the article as a whole. Lots of article(s) in wiki are not right or rather not accurate. "If people are deleting pictures you are adding to articles than you are using other accounts or editing without an account to add them as I see no such contributions by you" this is so out of context !!! Nobody is deleting my images, it took me a while to understand what you were talking. Anyways I used the word "picture" as a metaphor to indicate that omission of certain articles distorts the entire "picture". Again picture in the sentence is a metaphor indicating the content as a whole and does not refer a .gif/.jpeg file. I have read the wiki rules and as i understand most of these rules are subjective otherwise wiki would not be what it is today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gururaj Nayak (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As a picture you uploaded was in fact deleted, it's not surprising I thought you meant real images. It is still the case that we should not have two articles on the same subject, or change a balanced article (or at least one with more than one viewpoint) to one with only one viewpoint. See WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Sorry mate, looks like you are missing a few points...
1. I had uploaded no image file whatsoever for the deleted article, whatever pics were there in my deleted article where re-used pics from the other wiki article. I suppose one can re-use pics already present in wiki domain. I don't see any rules against reusing of the images.
2. It looks like you deleted the article without even bothering to see it thoroughly which is a shame, otherwise we would not be discussing the above point.
3. The deleted article included all the contents of the current article plus I added much more info, which deserves to be mentioned given all the irrefutable data that we have. So my article was a kinda super set, hence the redirection as explained before. So this also addresses the POV fork rule. since if there is a better article the smaller article is always redirected to that article, which i have seen happening many times in wiki.
4. I referred some more resources on net and found that I did not violate the copyright rules of wiki, since copyright rule says that any info already present in the public domain with no obvious copyright to it can be added to wiki. This article which was referring to "graham hancock's website" was one of the sites where it was present. The article in question was not written by him but he was merely hosting it like so many other websites which are doing it. I found the very same referred material present in many other websites like "archaeologyonline" etc..which in turn means that it is already present in public domain and my wiki article has a right to refer to that material.
5. The article also followed the WP:NPOV since I had carefully included all the controversy related to the article to make it a balanced POV. All the controversies included in the Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay article where also added to my article, so that nothing is left out.
6. We can take any article in wiki and like a harsh critic start breaking it down by citing the various rules, that is easy to do and anybody can do it. I personally feel we should follow the wiki rules in spirit otherwise wiki would get most of its articles deleted.
7. Agreed that majority of the scientific community does not adhere to my deleted article, but that is because this article has not been published with the right data in the right forum by the right people. If this is the sole reason for not accepting my article then no issues whatsoever.
- --Gururaj Nayak (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand our copyright policy. Unless it is unambiguously copyright free, we consider copying text from somewhere else copyvio. Being elsewhere on the web does not make it public domain. You think it's the other way around, but it isn't. Edit the Marine archaeology article if you can do that within our policies and guidelines, but remember that sources must pass our WP:RS criteria and directly discuss the subject. And 'irrefutable' is obviously not the case as there's been refutation. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you so much for your message!!! Happy holidays!!! Everstanley (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Aurangzeb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Carnatic, Puna, Sati, Punjab, Shahu, Anandpur, Shah Shuja and George Oxenden

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, first of all merry christmas! Could you take a look and perhaps take action against an already blocked user that is harassing and threatning me on his/hers talk page [11]. I think these comments from the user plus the fact that the user tried to evade the block yesterday justifies an extension of the block. Seems to me like the account will only be used to vandalize Wikipedia. Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree. I think the block was justified but this dispute should never have taken place, and if either of you had researched it properly it wouldn't have happened. His reasons for reversion were wrong, but in fact she didn't work for France 24. His edits weren't vandalism, and he appears to be a new editor, so WP:AGF is appropriate right now. I think I'll ask him about his edit to Zakir Naik though. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It still doesnt justify threats and harassments from the user like the ones his posted a few hours ago. Instead he should have tried to explained his edits and his thinking properly and yes then the dispute would never had happen. Anyway if the user behaves from now on and just moves on like I will, then I dont see a problem from my point of view atleast. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he shouldn't have said those things, but if he's new he may be used to a very different type of environment. I'm hoping he will move on and learn. If he doesn't.... Thanks for understanding. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is OK. I see your point of view. And I hope it ends here. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
But with continued insulting comments like this edit summary did you read my unblock request? did I attack others? No. It seems to me to be a lot of "knee-jerk" reactions by the so-called "admin" here. I find it a bit difficult to move on but I will be the better person and look beyond it and ignore it. By the way I am not sure if it is directed towards me or you. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your removals

Could you please explain the reason you removed information here and here? In both cases you claim the chapter and the movie were produced by Lee Carroll, but in both cases the official sources say otherwise. Both the book and the movie are written and directed by David Thomas, and they include compilation of interviews with Lee Carroll and other channelers by this journalist. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I said that the chapter in the book is by Kryon - I've now realised he was being interviewed and found [12]. I'm not convinced he's notable enough or independent but have restored it for the time being. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation :) -- Nazar (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sad ignorance

You claim that i've edited two pages on my personal beliefs? Yet you ignore the fact that most of the stuff i changed (which was less than 2 lines) is true. Dont you know thousands of scientists have shifted away from that piece of propaganda? Hundreds of frauds exposed throughout the history, yet you still blindly defend it. It's gonna be even more funny if you even delete this post. That would just show simple fear of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner9999 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Gee, since you don't seem to have edited any articles at all, why should I pay attention to your post? Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Cant you look up my ip..? Last two edits you removed from my ip. I just logged in later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner9999 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may make an intuitive guess, this may have something to do with the Adam and Eve article. Also, if I may be so bold should not the lede say, "....according to the Book of Genesis..", not, "...according to the Genesis creation myth..."? Therefore, we(editors on wikipedia) are not making a judgement concerning Adam and Eve, Genesis, or creation, correct? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, probably. I'm not a check user so can't look up IPs. I thought it had been left as creation myth after discussiojn, but it clearly shouldn't say 'according to the Genesis'. The other edit was clearly vandalism, as the editor claimed it had been discussed on the talk page (he removed the hidden comment) and of course calling evolution pseudo-science.... See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=467795707 ] Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, DW. I did not mean to sound like I was criticising your reversion(s). I simply noticed something that read like a very non-neutral statement. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem - as I said, I thought the issue had been worked out, still do. And even Christian theologians call it a creation myth (it isn't just a creation myth of course). Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Ten_Lost_Tribes

I updated link, but You undo my update. [13] Please, see it link. 1. it update for bad link (without pictures). 2. it link on website author (Kubo, Arimasa). 3. This author is on main article Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory (references #6, 7, Additional reading - 3 links). 4. On Talk page of article is section (2006 year) with precisely these links to this website: Talk:Ten_Lost_Tribes#Theory_about_Ancient_Israelites_in_Ancient_Japan. 92.100.79.169 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it meeting our criteria at WP:RS. I've raised the issue at WP:FTN, scroll down to the bottom. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Newport Tower ( Newport Rhode Island)

The Elizabethan Colonization attempt of 1583

While writing a biography on Rhode Island's first Governor, Benedict Arnold (and owner of the Tower), photographer and researcher Jim Egan came across a chapter in Rhode Island history that has few historians have written about since it was first discovered by William Goodwin in 1934. Goodwin, William B., “Dee River of 1583,” R. I. Historical Society, Collections, April 1934, pp. 38–50.


In 1577, the brilliant polymath John Dee wrote a series of eight books convincing Queen Elizabeth she had a legal right to all of North America (except for Florida which had been settled by the Spanish.) One month later, the Queen granted letters patent to the entire continent to one of her bravest generals, Sir Humphrey Gilbert. Navigational, cartographical, and legal advisor for the mission, John Dee, selected what is now Narragansett Bay to be the site of this very first colony of the British Empire (a term coined by Dee). And he named the site after himself: the “Dee River and port.”

On the summer solstice, June 11, 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert set sail from Plymouth, England with 5 ships and 280 men. Four of the ships made it to Saint John's Harbor in Newfoundland, but on the way down the coast, they hit a fierce tempest. The largest supply ship, The Delight, got stuck on a sandbar and was crushed to pieces.

Gilbert decided to head back to England for more men and supplies. But off the coast to the Azores, he hit another tempest. His ship was swallowed by a huge wave and he drowned. (Incidentally, a year later, the Queen granted letters patent to Gilbert’s younger half-brother: Sir Walter Raleigh.)

Researcher David Beers Quinn found that about a year earlier, in July of 1582, Gilbert had sent a preliminary expedition to the New World. Quinn, David Beers, England and the Discovery of America 1481–1620, pp. 374–377 (New York, Knopf, 1974) .

These 2 ships and about 80 men were under the leadership of Anthony Brigham, who returned to England 9 months later. Egan claims these were the stone-masons and carpenters who built the Tower which was to be the city-center of the first Elizabethan colony in the New World.

Egan has concluded the Tower was designed by John Dee as a Vitruvian circular temple that functioned as a horologium, a building the keeps track of time. Dee was an expert in geometry, astronomy, and optics. Also in 1582, at the Queen's request, he wrote a 60-page treatise explaining why England should adopt the calendar reform similar to the Gregorian Calendar Reform of 1582.

After translating and decoding Dee’s most cherished work, the Monas Hieroglyphica, Egan found clues indicating what the Tower originally looked like, and the function of three interior rooms: as camera-obscura solar-disc calendar-rooms. This conclusion was first made by William Penhallow, retired professor of astronomy at the University of Rhode Island, who found astronomical alignments in the windows of the Tower in the early 1990’s. Penhallow, William S., Astronomical Alignments in the Newport Tower, (republished in The Newport Tower: Arnold to Zeno, 2006, New England Antiquities Research Association monograph., pp. 32-43) .

Egan has also found that the early colonial leaders of Rhode Island in the 1630’s knew all about this colonization effort undertaken by their countrymen a mere 50 years earlier. And that it was Benedict Arnold who insisted Aquidneck Island be named after John Dee's secret code word for the 1583 colonization attempt: Rhode

Egan runs the Newport Tower Museum, just 50 steps northeast of the Tower, and has put all of his 11 books and 25 videos on the Newport Tower Museum website. WILL ARTICLE BE OK IF I SIMPLY DELETE THE LAST PARAGRAPH? Thanks for your careful attention. I appreciate your help, Jim Egan```` ````Jim Egan ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimEgan252 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You really need to discuss this on the talk page (after reading WP:COI. And sources for articles need to both meet criteria at WP:RS and to discuss the subject directly, see WP:NOR which catches out a lot of new editors, including me years ago. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Doug, I appreciate your help. I am a first timer, and am a but perlexeed how all this works. I read your links, and feel I have presented my research findings in a fair, truthful way, with a gentle third party voice. What do you mean "discuss this on the talk Page"? Is there someone who might edit my work for any problems. I feel it's very important my research is included as one of the Newport Tower theories on Wikipedia, as I have devoted 10 years to research and written 10 books, and now want to share it with the world in a few paragraphs. You can see the depth of my research as I have made my books and 25 videos free to the world at newporttowermuseum.com. Everyone who comes to my museum keeps asking "Why isn't your work up on Wikipedia?" I need your help. Thanks. Thanks a million. Jim Egan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimEgan252 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It can be very difficult. I recall editing an article on the book Where Troy Once Stood using really good sources to show why Wilkens is wrong. They were reverted - because none of them discussed Wilkens book. I was wrong, and hadn't understood WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Some of your edit was like that one. But I was also wrong because I was using my own research/ideas - you need to read WP:NOR carefully. When your ideas are discussed in reliable sources (by our criteria) or published in such a form they meet our criteria, then they could be included. But preferably not by you, as you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. The talk page I referred to is Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island) where editors with a conflict of interest should suggest changes they want made in the article, or ordinary editors discuss sources, the structure of the article, etc - or at times throw mud at each other but that is a very bad idea (we ask editors to be civil and assume good faith but it happens). Another tricky thing for new editors is that article talk pages aren't forums to discuss the subject of the article, they are strictly for discussing improvements to the article. I hope this helps. You do some very good work. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Warning is Fraudulent

My edits were completely legitimate. On Aesop, I removed a portion of text arguing that Aesop could not have been a black African because the animals in his fables are those common to Egypt and Libya, not Ethiopia. What the author was unaware of is that in antiquity, "Ethiopia" referred to a region encompassing Upper Egypt, Nubia, and Libya, which the Greeks blatantly attributed to having been inhabited by black Africans. So the author confused Ancient Ethiopia (ie. the Nile Valley) with the modern-day country called Ethiopia. His source material was irrelevant because the conclusion he drew from it was completely false and unscholarly.

You can't just silence me because you don't like my edits.

As for the King Alfred Plan, how can you allow this complete LIE of a page to exist? You have completely disregarded the source that I provided and this is completely unfair. Rex-84 was an actual plan that has now been de-classified as it is no longer in use. You should do the research yourself before jumping to conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktheconjurer (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You either don't understand or care about our policies and guidelines. Our articles are meant to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject - read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to understand what this means and our criteria for reliable sources. We cannot use our own understanding, experience, knowledge, etc =read WP:NOR. My warnings were not fraudulent they were in line with policy. The existence of REX-84 does not mean that the King Alfred Plan wasn't fraudulent, and your source was just one of many copies of a fictional memo - I don't know why you thought it proved anything, you can find that on a number of websites. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


And how about my completely legitimate Aesop edit, what do you have to say about that? In any case, the King Alfred page should be removed because Rex-84 and King Alfred are the exact same thing. There is already a Rex-84 page that has the correct information. In other words, one page says one thing, and the other actually has the right info (The Rex-84 page). So in other words - I win. Your warning is still fraudulent, and you're abusing your "authority". Disinformation is just as morally wrong as lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktheconjurer (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

re. "Origin of Yahweh and the Kenite hypothesis" edit

I tried last night to correct an entry in the "Origin of Yahweh and the Kenite hypothesis" section but saw that you reverted back to the original text. The edit I tried to make was based upon the fact that the language used in that paragraph indicates authority and consensus where it in fact does not exist. Yes, the person who made the comment gave citation to the claim, but if you check the citation you'll see that the so-called expert is far from the voice of authority regarding the Kenite hypothesis.

If you noticed I did not alter what was said to speak to the issue, but removed the language that communicated a sense of academic certainty that does not in fact exist. In fact since the Kenite hypothesis has been rejected by a number of scholars, including E. Koenig, T.J. Meek, P. Volz, W.J. Phythian-Adams, M. Buber, and R. de Vaux, that theory can hardly be regarded as established with any degree of certainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lounsbury (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Welcomed and explained relevant guidelines on his talk page. Welcome back, Doug, hope your holidays went well. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Eduard Koenig, if that is who is meant, wrote over a century ago, right? Meek about the same time. Volz ditto. Oh hell, that's all copied without attribution: "Since the Kenite hypothesis has been rejected by a number of scholars, including E.Konig,21 TJ Meek,” P. Volz,23 WJ Phythian-Adams,“ M. Buber,“ and R. de Vaux,26 the theory can hardly be regarded as established with any degree of" which is from (Yehovah) =: Yahweh : the divine name in the Bible by Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor: [14]. But all of that is actually irrelevant, because what you (Lounsbury) did was add something to cited text that is not in the source and in fact contradicts the source which draws upon modern (much more recent than the people you refer to) religious and secular scholars (well, probably secular, the ones I checked were in fact religious). Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Thanks Doug, I'm not an expert at this (granted) but I was trying to address the fact that the addition of the word and concept of "overwhelming" is a stretch that the citation given doesn't support. I did check the credentials of the Robert Karl Gnuse and he has a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in the area of Old Testament. Fair enough credentials, but the statement is very controversial so my position that the use of the word "overwhelming" either needs a counter-weight to hold in contrast or more substance to verify the claim. As for the age of the statements I cited, the controversy is not new and the historians and archeologists I gave you for reference was just an example that controversy exists to speak to the concept of overwhelming support. When I see the word overwhelming I envision the type of consensus you see when the evidence is so strong and generally accepted that it is nearly beyond dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lounsbury (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

He couldnt let it go

Hi I just want you to know that user Twaftofs couldnt let it go and has started a thread about me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mostly made to offend me it seems.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Carsten Thiede

That seems bizarre, but I won't argue with the idea of academic titles. OCF and KStJ however are not academic titles. I will return those (without MA and Prof). FWTTVK (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Again pseudohistory on "Kurds"

Please check this kind of changes by one nationalistic editor who removed relevant sources as "outdated" and also insulted academic authors on talk page. I left short explanation there about sources. --109.165.156.171 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Could you take a look at these users[15],[16], and see if they seem to be quacking. I would like your opinion in this matter, to ensure I am not seeing this in a biased manner. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Haven't a clue, except to say that I imagine others will notice it if you are right. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Psst, I found a sock

I found someone who probably is a reincarnation of someone else. You don't have to do anything or tell anyone if you don't want to. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Screw that, I'm blocking him, he's up to old tricks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Puri Family Name

The Puri family name is associated with Puru Tribe that is what the information is all about. There are specific quotes as a reference Gpuri (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I know it's associated with the tribe, but we don't need to duplicate the Puri Tribe article. If you think it is necessary, a short summary without the quotes & a main article link. By the way, the quotes are ugly, far too large and against our manual of style. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The only problem removing the quotes by historians and indologists is that it will hard to prove the point. I will try to fix it Gpuri (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes from the Puru Vedic tribe and consolidated at one place in Puri family name. Gpuri (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours

Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:

  • The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
  • An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
  • An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Periodization.

Understand Periodization? --J. D. Redding 11:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY also. Take it to the article's talk page. Start an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently not ... three parts, viz. ancient, medieval, and modern time, of Universal History. --J. D. Redding 11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You're applying a concept from universal history to a recognised period of history. That's OR, take it to the talk page of the article, ask for an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It is the "recognized period of universal history". --J. D. Redding 11:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Richard Dawkins Avenue

Uh-oh... I shoud have checked the edit history of Circumferential Road 5 in combination with the (short) contributions list of the editor. I merely glanced at the article - <blush />.

Anyway, best wishes for 2012! - DVdm (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The same to you. No problem. You might find this interesting [17]. I've blocked his earlier account since he can only have one. If he's got a static IP he may be blocked on his new account, but I doubt he's here to improve Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh. As long as his actions sharpen my sense of deep-checking context before merely asking for a source, he's doing something useful ;-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Parkville High School

Thank you for taking care of the STUDENT section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.18.151 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year.I tagged George Withy article for copyright violations under G12 and it was deleted.Now an IP came to my talk page with this message.

I have received notification that the page I created for "George Withy" has been deleted, due to copyreght issues - but I had submitted an e-mail to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" to confirm that I was the copyright owner and that it could be used. Is it possible for me to re-submit the materail again?

Many thanks

Andy Worrall

Can you help me on how to proceed further in this and know whether they have got the ORTS ticket.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Working on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank You very much it has been resolved.Got the ORTS Ticket.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Zep Tepi

I'm not sure what to do about this article. The Egyptians did believe that a sequence of gods ruled on earth before the historical kings of Egypt, and lists of those divine rulers appeared in several Egyptian king lists. However, those lists differed in the sequence of rulers and the lengths of their reigns, so the article shouldn't use the one list described by Breasted as if it represents a consistent tradition. More importantly, the sources that I've seen mention the phrase zp tpj (e.g., James P. Allen's Middle Egyptian or Erik Hornung's Idea into Image: Essays on Egyptian Thought) don't indicate that the phrase meant the entire period of divine rule, just the time of creation. The article uses a citation from a book E. A. Wallis Budge to support its definition, but I've looked at the Google preview (which includes the entire book), and I can't find any mention of zp tpj or its spelling variants. If zp tpj really does mean just the time of creation, the article should probably be merged with ancient Egyptian creation myths. A. Parrot (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get an expert opinion. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

here's the reply:

"Briefly, the /sp tpy/* represents the primordial, "die Urzeit", "first time" and "first matter". It is the time before creation and represents a mythical isthmus between total 'negation' of being (in the void of Nun) and 'creation' (the emergence of the primordial hill), thought to be situated in the primordial waters. It does not represent a specific time period (pace Wikipedia), but is a reference to the mythological time when the universe began - in short, the creation myth system of Egypt.

The term /sp tpy/ did not originate with Manetho, and is found within a number of ancient Egyptian religious works, which hearken back to a "time before creation." All Manetho did was try and create a "kingship genealogy" for the period before the first actual king appeared on the throne of Egypt, but all he was basically doing was using mythology as a basis for an indefinable period of time.

There is a good discussion of the concept of /sp tpy/ in these works:

Bickel, S. 1994. La cosmogonie égyptienne. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 134. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. (/sp tpy/ is discussed in detail in Chapter 1.)

The idea of a /sp tpy/ is prevalent throughout the culture of Egypt, albeit it was expressed in a variety of "creation mythologies" (such the Heliopolitan, Memphite, Esnan, and Hermopolitan forms, for example). So, I'm not sure what "regionality" there is to the term for it does appear in texts throughout Egypt as that time of either "total void" or "total perfection" (thus, the moment of creation).

You may find this work better in the explanation of Manethian concepts of /sp tpy/:

Verbrugghe, G. P. and J. M. Wickersham 1996. Berossos and Manetho: Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press."

  • Both /sp tpy/ and /zp tpy/ (alt. /zp tpi/) are acceptable spellings for

the concept, BTW. The inquirer's /zp tpj/ is using the German form of transliteration, rather than the English form. (The Germans use /j/ for /i/y/ endings).

/sp tpy/ does not refer to a kingslist (in fact, the term is touched on only briefly in Manetho as a way of giving a "timeline" for his mythical kingslist when the earth was ruled by gods) nor does it have anything to do with actual timelines of reigns (such are dynastic chronologies).

I hope this helps. We might also ask on the Wikiproject. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to add yes, we should merge it. I've edited it down to the bare bones right now, but we should turn it into a redirect and hopefully at least att a bit about it to the main article. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I thought; I even have Bickel's book, though I can't read it (language barriers are quite annoying). Anyway, I made Zep Tepi into a redirect and included mention of the term in the creation myth article. I used the zp tpj spelling because it's the one used in Allen's transliteration system, the one I'm most familiar with. Feel free to change it to a different system, if you feel the need. I just wish Egyptologists would standardize their transliterations. A. Parrot (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

I've returned to this article. I've outlined in the Talk page what I would like to do. You might like to look in, since you were taking an interest earlier. PiCo (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Jeraphine Gryphon's talk page.
Message added 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Request unprotect ACLU

Hi. Could you take a look at unprotect request? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Amel-Marduk

I noticed you changed my edit on the page [18] [19]diff, changing the wording from historical accounts to texts and I was just curious as to your reasoning here. I feel that the term historical accounts is more fitting because of the nature of the material the references are taken from. To use the term texts seems to suggest, to me, that the references come from some sort of religious document instead of a historical one, which is hardly the case. Please explain, thanks. Willietell (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The word 'texts' is neutral and doesn't imply anything. 'Historical accounts' suggests some form of veracity. Seriously, how can the Avot of Rabbi Natan written c.700–900 CE according to our article be a historical account of someone our article says died died 560 BC. And how, now that I notice it, can the Avot of Rabbi Natan have written anything? People write books/texts/whatever, texts can't write texts. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that, Avot of Rabbi Natan wasn't my reference, I was just correcting the wording in the sentence, maybe it still needs more correcting, I'll do some research. Willietell (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wives

Re this edit (and edit summary), what's the point of being a patriarchal society, if you have to mention the wives? ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm slow

Did you mean Rtrammel sent a complaint about me? I'm guessing you can't tell me exactly what he said but I have reasonable cause to believe that he may have lied about me, so I'm a tad concerned here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no problem here for you, but if you initiated an email exchange with an editor you didn't know well and were concerned about, I'd say that's generally a bad idea, which is what I wanted to say. Please don't worry about it. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Charlie Patton studio portrait.jpg @ Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 3

Just a question about this file and the ORTS ticket, are you satisfied that the person claiming copyright does in fact have copyright over the picture ? Mtking (edits) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't responded to my email to him in which I also suggested he contact our designated agent. Maybe I should ask her if she's had an email from him. I can't verify any claim that he purchased it, etc. from just an email. I'll check with Sue and see if she's heard from him. If not is there anything you would like me to ask him? Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, not sure what to ask him other than under what grounds does he feel that the picture is still in copyright, as, by my reading of the copyright rules something first published at that time would need to have been registered and then re-registered to still be in copyright, but I am sure that the designated agent will know all about that. Mtking (edits) 10:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

  • We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
  • A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Userspace categories

I don't think the American and British editors categories are meant to (or allowed to) be used in userspace. Actual articles use them. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, saw it on the user page of someone much more experienced than I am, didn't check. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Columbus was ours (say polish)

Aired yesterday on Polish TV, Columbus was ours video documentary.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metro Walk

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metro Walk. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_22&oldid=472067140"