User talk:Dave Light

License tagging for File:Seked.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Seked.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

September 2010
(Other editors, see this) for rationale for starting at this level) Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Numerical approximations of π, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

July 2012
Your recent editing history at Pi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave, you appear to have broken the WP:3RR rule at Pi, and an administrator would be perfectly justified in blocking you from editing Wikipedia. Please participate at Talk:Pi and try to persuade others to support your version. In a heavily-watched article like this one, you have no chance of forcing your version into the article against widespread consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Pi. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I came in only just before your last edit. I didn't even know this was going on until you were given a 3RR warning as I wasn't watching Pi. There is no team, there are individual editors. You chose to ignore the warning, no one forced you to keep reverting. We work by WP:Consensus and you were ignoring the other editors who were reverting you. You even mentioned edit warring on the talk page. There is no 3RR exemption over a content dispute, which is what this is. And Dave, please understand that if after the 24 hours is up you simply add the same material again, that's continuing to edit war after a block. 3RR isn't an entitlement. Note that I pointed out that John Legon is not "some Egyptologists" and that that article doesn't mention Pi, so to use it to discuss Pi would be original research, see WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Think of it like this John, if you were co-authoring a paper with a colleague, and you wrote a paragraph which your colleague believed was wrong. Would you repeatedly re-add it every time they deleted it, or would you discuss it with them to establish the best way to proceed? Please understand, we're not trying to drive you off here, if there is one thing Wikipedia desperately needs it's academics and experts, but you have to realise that Wikipedia operates differently to the academic world, one key difference being that while we welcome your expertise, it doesn't automatically make you right-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. thanks for your messages. In that case yes I would like to start a long term discussion on this subject. The reason I was reluctant to enter into further discussion on this is because I have already discussed it over several years and published a book on this, and academic papers. I supplied Doug with a full list of the quotes from authorities and facts previously. I am happy to enter into a permanent discussion on this subject. Really, the facts are clear on this, and the wiki page is not correct. Here's three examples of flaws in the conversation so far:

1/ The wiki page says "Pyramidologists". This designation is false. Professor Flinders Petrie, Professor Verner and Professor Edwards were Egyptologists. The reason the wiki page says 'pyramidologists' is apparently in a deliberate attempt to undermine the case they made, as it is audibly similar to the more well known pyramidiots and therefore their statements were made to carry less weight that the correct term, Egyptologists. Why have they done this? Why do they want to undermine the facts? You tell me. I am not a mind reader.

2/ Secondly, the dates for the Rhind Papyrus were edited so that it looked like the Egyptian dates were later than the Babylonian dates. Whoever edited it took out the fact that the Egyptian papyrus was copied from one 200 year earlier. Why was this deleter? You tell me. I have no idea.

3/ Doug says Legon is not 'some Egyptologists". If Doug reads the paragraph properly again he will see the 'some Egyptologsits' I referenced at the end of the sentence was to Professors Flinders Petrie, Verner as well as Legon. Those were originally quotes that were all IN the paragraph but someone shifted them off to a small box. Why? You tell me.

The Legon quote at the end was only referenced with respect to the article regarding Seked. The only argument of any substance that has been made against the established facts was by Robins and Schute and then followed by Rossi. The suggested that the proportions seen were because the Seked system was used, not proportions. The Legon reference was to his article that demonstrated long ago that from papyrus exampels we already KNOW the seked was usually worked out FROM the already established proportions, not vice versa as Rossi held. This is all long ago discussed. I reviewed all of these publications in my 2008 BAR report:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Egyptian-Tomb-Architecture-Archaeological-International/dp/1407303392/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342987631&sr=8-1

So yes, the Wikipedia page as it stands is misleading, and yes I want to open up a long term indepth discussion of this.

Dave Lightbody University of Glasgow


 * And if Legon doesn't mention Pi, and in the cited article I couldn't find it when I looked at his article on the web, then you can't use it to make an argument about Pi. Again, read WP:NOR. Our articles are very different from what you might submit to an academic journal. A journal argument can use any sources the author wants to make an argument, our articles use sources that discuss the subject of the article to show what they have said about that subject. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the article Doug; it's online and has been for years. All you have to do is type the title into Google....

http://www.legon.demon.co.uk/pyrprop/propde.htm The reason its relevant is because he explicitly addresses the issue of Seked in the first four paragraphs of the article. The only substantive argument ever made against the circular proportions at Giza was that it was Seked not proportions that determined the slope. The Legon article refuted this argument as long ago as 1991. I have also refuted it as have others.

If the wiki editors would only accept the clear statements of the authorities on this matter then it wouldn't be necessary to dig up these refutations in the first place....


 * If you'd read WP:NOR as asked, and WP:VERIFY you might understand that you can't use a source that doesn't discuss Pi to build an argument about Pi. If you think I'm wrong, please ask at WP:NORN, our noticeboard where we discuss issues of original research. And please sign with 4 tildes, ie ~ Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Circularsymbols apotropaic Egypt shen and cartouche.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)