User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 14

Personal attack?
I'm not seeing where David Rohl is attacking me -- nor, for some reason your warning. (Maybe my eyes aren't working this morning.) Can you supply me diffs? -- llywrch (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is cleared up now, my error. Apologies and blushes. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm no foul. And I think you were trying to quote the Emperor Augustus on my Talk page: "Make haste slowly." ;-) llywrch (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's the original, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

CE article source
hey, im not sure what you did with the original question I sent you, but can you put it in the CE article's talk page and post a response there? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Help needed
Doug, I'm having a dispute - very civilised, no problem there - with another user over whether certain information does or does not belong in a certain article. She says it's relevant, I say it's not. What WP policy guidelines are relevant? PiCo (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)
Hi Doug, you've been involved in discussion on Talk:New Chronology (Rohl), so as a fellow admin, please can you tell me what the hell is going with fellow admin Dbachmann ("dab")? It's hard to see how his behaviour (comments and editing) is acceptable for an admin, so I'm open to the possibility that it's my fault somehow (I feel like I must have done something to Dbachmann in a previous life...). See Talk:New Chronology (Rohl), particularly towards the bottom where he accuses me of "an obviously fraudulent attempt..." among other issues. Thanks. Rd232 talk 16:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of looking for faults in previous lives of his, Rd232 should simply try and remember not to edit war over templates indicating perfectly well-argued and relevant problems with the article. If Rd232 can bring himself to stop pushing an agenda and begin to remember that Wikipedia articles are a reflection of quotable third party publications there can be respectful collaboration towards a compromise within policy. --dab (𒁳) 18:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, edit conflict. So long as Rohl is editing, the coi tag seems appropriate but you know I think that -- that's what the tag is for, so that readers know that someone involved is editing it. I really don't see how it isn't justified, it doesn't mean that the editor is doing anything wrong, it just means that someone involved, in this case the main player, is editing, and I don't understand why you won't leave it there.  I also think the article is unbalanced right now, and that there is a problem with the description of the conventional chronology (which further unbalances it).   We do need third party sources for both Rohl and his critics, we shouldn't be relying on Rohl's own works as heavily as I think it relies upon them.  I've seen one website claim that Rohl is Britain's leading Egyptologist, and that's ridiculous. He's an Egyptologist, ok, but among other Egyptologists he doesn't rank very high at all, and is rarely discussed (hence the problem with sources) and for those from non-English speaking countries, eg Dab, he is probably completely off the radar.  What may let him meet our notability criteria is his media stuff, not  his notability as an Egyptologist, if you see the difference. Rd232, I think you should leave the coi tag, Dab, I think you should tone down the rhetoric, softly softly catchee mousee.  Bottom line, Rohl is fringe, we need to be presenting what Egyptologists really think about chronology not through Rohl's voice but through the voice of Egyptologists and unless we do there will continue to be problems with the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on most of those points, except the COI tag. AFAIK all article tags, including COI tags, are there to note problems to be solved. If the subject isn't making controversial edits, what's the problem? And how can it be solved? That's why I'm opposed to the tag - it serves no purpose that I can see. Rd232 talk 19:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm
You might want to take a look at this. Looks like a user took it upon them self to move the article after the move discussion was closed. ← George [ talk  ] 04:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like the user made a mistake and moved the wrong article to a misspelling... ← George [ talk  ] 04:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's sorted now? The admin who closed the discussion has moved it back. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock needs blocking
Doug, you reverted an edit to Darko Trifunović by. This is yet another sock of the indefinitely blocked - could you please block it? It would also be helpful if you could semi-protect Darko Trifunović to discourage further sockpuppetry. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Too early I think, but I will if it continues. I'll check the sock. Dougweller (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

unfair hypocrtical double standards
Mr. Weller have you been warning me and not the other who have been editing the status quo. It is them who are changing the status quo not me. If they want to discuss they should take it to the talk page and then we can change it. Do you remember when we tried to change the title of the article, you said the same thing. You said to talk about on the talk page and then if there's a consensus and then we change it. So let's do the same thing here, let's not play the double standards where you preach one thing and then say something else. Go check the history Mr. Weller I'm not the one who changed the status quo. If you threaten me one more time by abusing your powers in such a deliberately non objective manner I will take this up to the noticeboard.George Al-Shami (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, please do so. I didn't threaten you, I informed you of the consequences that would happen if you breached WP:3RR. That has nothing to do with content and everything to do with editing. Dougweller (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you did, falsely claiming I was the one who'd closed the move debate. And you've ignored my warning and reverted a fourth time. Bad idea. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Redundant phrase - leave it in twice if you insist
Appears I added it twice, my apologizes. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

months/days
Talk:Common_Era
 * new comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.199.71 (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Genetic Genealogy
Referring to your concerns about SOPHIAN's Paris R1a ata, I know the Paris data being referred to and it is from the YHRD database (www.yhrd.org), as is explained in the Wiik article, and specifically by using STR data converted into predicted SNP values. I do not think referring to the JOGG reason for coming into existence is good enough, and that different data needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. In the case of this particular data set I think the source of it is reasonable for some purposes, but not if the aim is to say that this is a definition of frequencies in Paris, because I do not think YHRD's randomness is always easy to be sure about. For example some sample sets come from specific communities. So I am skeptical about using it for anything very important, although as a person interested in this subject I do appreciate the work that went into the Wiik article, because for France we have very few sources of data.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I think you are agreeing it is not suitable as a source for Sophian's map? Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not perhaps taking as strong a position as you. I think it depends on the case, and I did not look at the case. I am a little nervous of the implication of your argument about JOGG as a whole, because I don't think it is a correct generalization. The reasons that the JOGG came into being do not define all of its contents.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

syrup "flavour"
Regarding your edit query at Maple syrup, Canadians usually spell it "flavour" British-style, and Quebec does dominate production. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought that might be the case and didn't change it, but you could argue that Americans are the people who buy it in such huge quantities and it is more important in America... :-) Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex
This seems like an attached link of vandalism that you may want to check in your userpage: Site Map--then under the "All Pages".24.79.78.169 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't a clue what you mean. Thanks though. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Steorn
Is it possible that you could unlock the Steorn article so that we can have a go at moving the article forward. I haven't actually edited the article and from reading the talkpage, there is a level of broad agreement about moving the article forward. The issues with a single editor are frankly more usefully dealt with in others ways (if they persist, maybe they will not). --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No sooner said (or requested) then done! Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it was a nice idea... I only became involved with the article yesterday after seeing the problems at AN/I and was hoping that some additional input would smooth things out...silly me... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure the repeated blocks are really appropriate, here. It's only one editor who's being disruptive, and you may be sending out the wrong message by locking the article over today's straightforward WP:ELNO violation (suggesting that it's a subjective, both-as-bad-as-each-other edit war, rather than two editors applying policy and the other inappropriately using edit summaries to ask for clarifications). --McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just wanted a short time out before 3RR was exceeded, I agree with you about what's happening, as I now have heard from both of you I'll unlock. But do watch 3RR yourself. I try very hard to be wary of it, even as an Admin, 3RR is a bright line 'rule'. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the unblock, and yes, I try to be careful to step back from 3RR myself, and let someone else catch it. It's good to make it clear to a policy-breaking editor that it's not just one person who disagrees with them.
 * Protecting an article to spare one editor from tripping 3RR seems a slightly odd call, though - if they decide they want to break 3RR after being clearly warned not to, then it seems fair enough to deny them talk page rights as a result, rather than blocking the article to all editors. (Particularly when the 3RR warning template will have specifically told them to take it to the talk page.) I guess you see more of this kind of thing than me, though. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. --McGeddon (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one was given a 3RR warning so far as I can see. Take a look at the history, perhaps you'll understand why I did what I did. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not sure I do. Yes, he'd pretty much breached 3RR without being warned for it that day, but wouldn't giving him a fresh 3RR warning have been the thing to do there? At worst, we'd have to undo one final vandal revert, which seems less obstructive to other editors than protecting the article for five hours. --McGeddon (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, maybe you are thinking about another editor than the one I was thinking about. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, got you. Again, I still don't really see why he couldn't have had the 3RR warning as well, but if there's a lot of precedence for this kind of protection that I'm unaware of, fair enough. --McGeddon (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am having some real problems with at least three editors on the Steorn page. My issues is well document on the page that disputes are on and somewhat documented on the discussion page for Steorn. Presently, I have attempted to add an external link to a webpage that discusses perpetual motion machine, which by definition is what Steorn’s Orbo is. The editors are deleting my changes claiming that WP:EL governs. I review WP:EL and found that this link is appropriate and asked them to clarify. Among the personal attack of trolling and not able to smell the coffee, I was unable to discern any credibility of Cameron’s deletion of my edit. Moreover, the page has an internal link to perpetual motion machines. Their inconsistent editing is more evidence of their failure to objectively edit.Irrito (talk)
 * WP:Consensus is the guideline you need to look at here. You are in a minority of one, and appear to be a new editor who is also a WP:SPA disagreeing with experienced editors with good track records. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry you feel that way, as recent history demonstrates the need to stand up against the well respected majority--Madoff/Enron/worldcom/Bush adminstration/NY Times and LA Times reporting that did not check facts of WMDs. But this is life. 67.94.16.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

Deja you?
Found this account which I am presuming is not an alternate of yours. Just wanted to give a heads up if it isn't an alternate. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 12:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Not me, but too close to my name to make me happy. Theoretically that shouldn't happen I thought, looking at what Username policy says which is that only Admins can create similar usernames, and if anything is similar, that one is. A vandal tried that once but their edits gave them away, these looks like minor edits. I wish I were in the Blue Ridge right now! Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little east of the Blue Ridge but I know what you mean. It is 79 degrees here now...very nice.


 * I've been following the ANI thread and will also try to watch at the Village pump for answers but I'm also curious as to why his username doesn't come up in the Ajax suggestions when starting to spell it out in the search box. Harder to detect when you have to type "Dougwele" to see it but it never shows up before that. Why not for "Dougw"? I was trying to see if other accounts close to yours existed in some permutation as a precautionary check. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)</b>) 16:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We've got a very decrepit log cabin (soon to be torn down) near (8 miles by dirt road) Mount Mitchell. I find it really odd that this editor on a foreign Wikipedia has such a similar name. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Kingturtle meant to leave you a note... Wknight94 <sup style="color: blue;">talk  18:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, is Dou Gweler okay with you? Or should we go with his other choice, Dámenavista? Kingturtle (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Help! please :)
I dont know what my user page is. Im new to this. I guess I sound stupid but I hardly know how to work this thing! Your help would be appreciated :) thank you Assyria hightower (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I supposed to make a user page or can I just leave it blank? Assyria hightower (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

UK Xtian Zionism
I just do not know where to begin, did we try to delete it before? Want to try again? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the chat here, perhaps we should ask, Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've started a discussion on her talk page, want to join it? Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not misuse a warning
According to WP:TPG, talk pages are to be ON TOPIC. I have asked for opinions on two articles to discuss possible neutrality problems and logical fallacies in said articles. "Plus I object to the term "evolutionist" it's a way for creationists to brand scientists/people under a false idea that evolution is a religion and that there are followers, evolutionists." IS NOT ON TOPIC. "Using the RfC isn't going to get this page to ignore the universal and unquestioned scientific communities support of evolution." IS NOT ON TOPIC. Both of these quotes were made by Raeky, and it has interfered with the discussion of the issues I brought up, so I used a warning template. I am GENUINELY concerned with these two articles, and contrary to any belief, I am not out to get evolution. Evolution can become twice as popular for all I care. I feel I have been hindered trying to discuss neutrality issues in one article, and a contradiction between evolution as theory and fact and fact. Two Wikipedia articles should never contradict each other in this way, especially when the source is the same article. All I want to do is discuss this. As an admin, I ask that you look into my past warnings. Shicoco (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They weren't forum type postings in my experience. Wikipedia articles do contradict each other at times, and although that's a pain, you are going about this confrontationally. If you don't want to look as though you are out to get evolution, using terms like 'evolutionist' is not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on articles
You're an admin, your opinion on these articles would be nice.

First one, Transitional Fossils, the section misrepresentations made by creationists, seems to be attacking creationists, as creationists aren't the only group to use these misrepresentations. A better title would be "Common misrepresentations" could shift the neutrality. Also, they aren't necessarily false claims, as most of them aren't proven false, instead, the evolutionists provide hypotheses to answer the claims. I think the section could benefit by being displayed as common arguments and possible solutions. This keeps the benefit of showing disproofs to anti-evolution claims, while ridding the section of the debate flavor.

The second article, Evolution as theory and fact, in the fact section (whose main article is fact) seems to disagree with the fact in science section of the main article. It also doesn't parallel the theory section in style.

Thanks Shicoco (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
As it's such a pain to write a report, I'm sorry I didn't let you know I'd already written one! Best, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you are right, it's a great pain. And I never can get the # symbol to turn into 1st revert, etc, how do people do that? Plus it comes out with no line breaks and I have to put them in. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ref is at the bottom
About, that's Harvard style note-footing. "Wesley, 2006" is the book written by Wesley in 2006, it appears under the references section. I suppose that you didn't notice that it was there? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, given that the article wasn't using Harvard style foot-noting, and that the chief editor of the book evidently referenced is named "C. Wesley Cowan", thus it would be Cowan, 2006, no, I didn't notice it. Do you have know specifically what the reference was for anyway? Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was for a certain PPNA pottery being found at 9.000 B.C. I guess it can be removed now since the Richard source already gives a more accurate date. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that was probably the case. Yes, we've got a better reference now. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki legal threats
I noticed that you had reverted the latest change to Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory. There seems to be some kind of off-wiki campaign by Evans and his associates (Francesco Fucilla) described here with reference to this article. The BLP Myron Evans was removed after legal threats to WMF - I started the WP:Articles for deletion/Myron Evans. Similarly I started WP:articles for deletion/Jeremy Dunning-Davies. Francesco Fucilla seems to edit from various London IPs and in the links above has a running commentary on what happens on WP. I didn't notice the WP:Articles for deletion/The Universe of Myron Evans, an article on the film he sponsored. Probably nothing needs to be done at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I saw a multipage commentary from one of these websites on Wikipedia. Probably nothing to do now unless the editor continues, but he so clearly is making unencyclopedic edits that I don't see a problem. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Myron Evans has actually claimed on his blog that the edits to ECE theory were at his suggestion today. He also mentioned the two other films “The Science and Faith of Larry Horwitz”, and “The World of Hadronic Physics” that Francesco Fucilla put on wikipedia. They should probably be speedy deleted for exactly the same reasons as WP:Articles for deletion/The Universe of Myron Evans. When things calm down on WP, I might post something on WP:FTN, but cannot do anything at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've prodded both articles with links to the previous deletion and reminders on the creator's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Doug. Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

IP eschatology remover
I have token blocked User:64.255.86.242, and reverted some of his removals. If you were able to keep an eye on him it would be useful. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Ok, no edits since the 14th, I use a browser just to keep track of edits of users like this one, I'll add him to that. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

edit war
just got ur message. i just edited African Empires in hopes of resolving this. i hope the source is acceptable.Scott Free (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the talk page and the other editor's actions on the article, I reverted you as you seem to be in a minority of one. Why are you actively using two accounts by the way? It's a bit confusing - not necessarily wrong, just confusing. Anyway, take it to the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note
Thampthis is a Greek form of this person's name. But Djedefptah is his proper Egyptian name and one would usually use the native name whenever possible. But its your call on the redirect. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is something somewhere that discusses this (Greek names) but I can't recall where. I think we usually use the 'common name', but there may be an agreed exception for Egyptian kings. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Warning left for
Re, your message. His edit summary read like it was someone giving their opinion, or someone who wanted to censor a particular bit of information. I've ran across similar edit summaries in the past, and that was their goal.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  20:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It did indeed, I agree. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Multi-licensing
Hi, Doug. I see you got a response from Lumos3 about the the multi-licensing issue. In the case of Lumos3, it appears to be like we suspected -- he is one of the editors who wanted to make their userpages even more available for public use than Wikipedia (which previously only used CC-BY-SA licensing rather than multilicensing). This was certainly permitted -- and possibly even encouraged way back when. However, it seems that even now Lumos3 (among others) doesn't realize that Wikipedia has switched to multi-licensing. He referred you to Multi-licensing, but that text is out-of-date. Notice that the first sentence still only mentions the CC-BY-SA. The best text on that page is in the small yellow warning box at the top, which states that WP switched entirely to multi-licensing on June 15th.

And for some reason, Lumos3 also only updated his userpage template to 2.5 when WP uses the most recent version, 3.0. I think the relevant text for all of these editors is the You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 and the GFDL which appears on the bottom of the edit screen. Pushing the "save page" button is essentially an agreement to that multi-licensing contract. Which I believe supersedes all others.

Anyway, sorry about rambling on here. This was meant in case you wanted to inform Lumos3 or if he knew about it. It's also a way to get it straight in my own head -- which I think I have now -- almost. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm not clear about yet is where you say 'that text is out-of-date'. Doesn't that need to be fixed soonest? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly should be updated. (Which I suppose is the point of the little yellow warning box). Of course, it will require someone much more on the ball than me to edit that text. Maybe a wiki-lawyer type is needed. — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Harut-Marut ?
I did not add Harut-Marut. I wanted to add a link to Armenia. I do not understand, what happened, if this Harut-Marut link had been added. I clicked on Armenia. Please correct, if there is some mistake. Thanks, you are always welcomed, if you find any nonsense mistakes.--Zara-arush (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And you can do the same with me. Somehow you simply reverted my edit, your mouse probably slipped. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia
Hi! My name is Dewan. I understand that the template is too long. Esp. the Middle Kingdom section. Although I strongly believe that size should not be the determining factor in putting the kingdom out of the list (i.e Pallava/ Western Ganga: small but very important culture formed in these kingdom to Rastrakutan or Pala very large). But is there any why to have a thing like a show/hide button that hides much of the middle Kingdom and when people click it they can see the complete list. Also the Middle kingdoms should be separated into two section Earty and LATE middle Kingdoms. Thank you (Dewan 07:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

User:Victorius III and User:Small Victory
I have just noticed that User:Victorius III is an account which occasionally gets used to defend the edits of User:Small Victory. Very few edit explanations or talk page activity, but the one response I can see makes it sound like the User also sees himself as defending Small Victory's edits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It might not be clear that the Victorius III edits to Ashkenazi Jews look very similar to Small Victory edits of about the same time concerning the STRUCTURE program being used to analyze populations. See for example Talk:Genetic history of Europe‎ edits by Small Victory around the same time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I note another person has gone further with the same suspicion: Sockpuppet investigations/Victorius III.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry I didn't reply sooner. I've made enquiries also. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been cleared of the charge. Obviously, Victorius III is copying snippets of what I write about STRUCTURE and pasting them into other articles. I would also like to point out that the individual who officially launched the investigation (Muntuwandi/Wapondaponda) did so in "bad faith", and Andrew Lancaster often acts as his accomplice. He's been trying to get me blocked or my edits disallowed on trumped up allegations for the past several weeks now because I challenge his POV and expose his agenda. And he's got a lot of nerve too, considering he himself has been blocked several times for various infractions, and the last time he created a new sock every single day to try to circumvent the block! He has no shame. His are the actions of a desperate man who'll stop at nothing. Small Victory (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand your ire about Muntuwandi, but calling Andrew an accomplice this way isn't showing good faith, is it? It was a pretty obvious question to ask once Victorius III showed up. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, why are you upset with Muntuwandi who wrote "As a formality Small Victory needs to be cleared because the names are similar.". Are you sure he wasn't more concerned about Sophian for instance? Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Andrew almost always sides with Muntuwandi against me because I suspect he shares the same agenda to a great extent. And Muntuwandi pretends to be concerned about a lot of things, but all he's really concerned about is getting rid of me so he can insert his Afrocentric POV. Small Victory (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A newly created account, with another similar name, has once again taken to reverting Muntuwandi edits with typical Small Victory descriptions: Special:Contributions/Victoriusmaximus. It seems strange to me that 2 new users log on to Wikipedia during a period while Small Victory's editing has been under question, both with usernames like his, and as a first action both choose to revert a recent edit, using an aggressive description of a specific Wikipedian as an Afrocentrist POV pusher. Looks like a duck, probably is a WP:DUCK. If it is not Small Victory, then it someone doing his work in a very specific and self conscious way. Concerning Small Victory's accusation that I work as an accomplice of Muntuwandi, as opposed to someone who works on articles effected by Small Victory's uncivil and disruptive editing, perhaps he would like to make a case, and not just an offhand personal attack as usual? If Small Victory would start making his own cases without loosing his cool every time and responding to everything with personal attacks and subject shifting, perhaps people would take him more seriously and he would be less angry too. See this case as an example of Small Victory having difficulty getting his point across in any way that does not make him sound like a troll: Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya
Hey, saw you on the Common Era talk page... man that thing is a free-for-all, doesn't look like anyone has been keeping it cleaned up of irrelevant crap...I reverted a trollish comment on it just now...was I too harsh IYO? Auntie E. 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably needs cleaning up, I'm busy this weekend. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

from Xellas
Hi D. I am new here and I see you have contributed alot to this section. Nevertheless, I think I can add many stuff to the subject and I will apriachiate it if you edit anything that you think is not apropriate. But first I would like you to discuss it first why you think it is or it's aproriate...e.t.c

Thanks --Xellas (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this
Responding to several comments over at the NOT talk page, based on the idea of "unencyclopedic" content, including yours, I put up a new section, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not on that talk page. Much of the "unencyclopedic" argument is a pet peeve of mine. It's a bit of a tangent to the main discussion, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bottracker
I take it you didn't notice the administrators' noticeboard discussion about this. It was mostly about Nja247, who placed the second block, justifying it using the username policy (inappropriately) and the fact that he was daring to argue against his first block.

This user should not have been blocked. You seem to have blocked him for being a clueless newbie, which is not okay. Call this "wheel-warring" if you must, but I am reversing an unjustified block with the support of consensus from AN. rspεεr (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What did he do wrong? Are there some oversighted edits I'm not seeing, or something? "Refusal to discuss copyright issues" looks rather incorrect to me -- it looks like he was trying to discuss the fact that he took the pictures, but nobody would even listen to him. It seems that the moment he set foot on Wikipedia he had a few overly-bureaucratic processes conspire against him. He tried to argue against these processes, and he lost the argument because he was a newbie. And then you seem to have blocked him for arguing. rspεεr (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have looked very closely at the edit history. I certainly didn't block him for arguing since all he was doing was removing warnings and not adding any text to his talk page. ALL he had to do to get unblocked was to agree to abide by policy and guidelines. Two other Administrators (and Nja, so that's 3) clearly agreed with me. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had built a long list of diffs to comment on this, then decided to hold back one day to see if there was any response to your comments. I'm glad I did. I was pleased to see you properly vindicated. Today's looking up. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  11:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Loads of thanks and I'm sorry to have put you to unnecessary work. If you've got anything I can learn from your efforts about copyvio, please let me know. Many thanks again. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to help
Hi Dougweller. I noticed that you are from Derbyshire so I was wondering if you would be able to get a picture for a forest in your area, Darwin Forest. This Wikiproject England stub was created recently and it would be greatly appreciated if you were able to get a photo for the article to improve its quality. Thank you.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Zanderbobander on David
It's a mystery to me. The sentence he wants to add is almost meaningless. He gives a ref, but its to entire articles, and his name doesn't appear on the list of those who've recently edited those articles. PiCo (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Kade
Based on the fact that the Arthur_Kade article is an orphan article, it should be deleted. If nothing else links to it, it isn't notable or worthy of an article. He is just an extra. Can anyone get their own article in this wiki if they engage in self-promotion that results in mocking press coverage? Also of note, he has no IMDB profile either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmo84ri (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it survived an AfD, maybe in a month or two try again? Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole article cheapens the entire site. It is shameless self-promotion. He uses it as a vehicle to promote himself, and to promote his commercial interests. We're talking about an ego-maniacal extra, not an important figure in society in the least bit. This page only contributes to his over-inflated ego and search-engine-ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmo84ri (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

R1a article
Hi Doug, The R1a article must be one of the worst I've ever had anything to do with do I've had a stab at trying to remove some of the most obvious redundancy and POV. More work needs to be done. I know in the past that the perpetrators of the mini POV-forks in this article are happier to revert anyone trying to do a neutral clean up, than to allow their own bit of turf to be deleted along with all the others. So I thought it worth mentioning to an admin who might be interested to also watch what happens. Please let me know if you think my edits are not correct in any way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to take so long to respond. I'm having operations on two fingers Thursday, so may not be able to do much for a while, and I'm not an expert on this in any case. I'll do what I can. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was expecting some civility, sourcing policy, and 3RR issues, and they have arisen to a small extent so far. I am hopeful, but thought it might be a good idea to have someone watching from a policy standpoint in order to give neutral opinions on policies if any come up. By merging redundant sections and getting rid of the "broken up into POV sections" character of this article I am forcing different opinions into compromises they might not want to make.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge needed
There are 2 articles on the same subject, Song of the Sea and Exodus 15.1-15.18. There's a suggested merge discussion page but so few people ever go there it'll never get to a decision. Can you or someone just do it? PiCo (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't have time today, hand operation tomorrow, if you can't get someone else I'll do it when I can type again, but I'd like advise as to what from the Exodus article to merge into Song of the Sea and where. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done the merge.
 * Another strange thing I've found: Paul III leads only to the pope of that name - no disambig page, nothing. Maybe he is the only Paul III known to man, but I doubt it.
 * Hope the surgery is ok - sounds painful.
 * Please tell me how to go cold turkey on Wikipedia! I want to give it up! (LisaLiel will be sooooo happy)PiCo (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

""You can't, types the one handed man with the bloodstained bandage Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nangparbat
Probably. The IP address seems a little unusual, I don't immediately remember him being on a 110.x.x.x before. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Arnaiz-Villena page" linguistics.
Please,Dougweller,wuold you go to the last sentence of page Antonio Arnaiz-Villena/section “Fringe linguistic theories”.Please link to ref 27. Page,38,2nd Ref:you see that it exclusively refers to an Alonso-Gacia work in 1996,years before that met and worked with Antonio Arnaiz-Villena.But this is maliciuously attributed to Arnaiz-Villena. Please,could you delete this reference and its previous phrasing.? Thank you --Virginal6 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All the best
Doug, good luck with everything tomorrow. Hope you heal well. Look forward to seeing you back soon. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It will be interesting to see how I cope with one hand, and that not the one I normally use. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

best wishes from me too. excessive editing will be the perfect way to train your hand muscles after surgery, so I hope to see you back soon :) --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadian west coast archaeology claim
Hello Doug, sorry to hear you're facing some medical "inconveniences", sincere wishes of good luck on that. When you're feeling better, perhaps you could provide some valued input on this talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about date linking and "mother" link.
When I first got involved in Wikipedia about a year and a half ago, I ran across something somewhere advising us to use date linking as much as possible, and explaining how to. I was unaware of the Style Guide's admonition against use of date linking until you showed it to me, so it looks like I have been misguided. Live and learn. The date linking never disfigured article in my view, and I figured if anyone looked up a date, power to them. But it's not rhe kind of thing that concerns me one way or the other on Wikipedia -- my focus is more on getting information into Wikipedia and linking it up to related articles as much as possible -- so if it bothers anyone enough for them to write me about it, then I won't do it. Frankly, judging by the Style Guide, I am hard put to see when one ever would use the date linking function, as the guide seems to preclude most uses I can think of. I learn something every day.

The "mother" link was a copying error on my part that I did not catch. Thanks for pointing it out. It probably pops up in a few other articles on ships of this class. Generally, I figure that links are good, because I cannot prejudge what someone will want to look up or how good his or her English is wherever he or she is around the great, wide world, but although a "mother" link in a ship article does not hurt anything, it is goofy. I'll click through the articles and do a clean-up over the weekend.

The date linking really seems to have annoyed at least a couple of people. I hope they do appreciate that I am voluntarily producing otherwise well-linked and researched articles on ships others have not, which is a bigger thing to me. Mdnavman (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)mdnavman
 * Yes you are. And I agree, there are rarely times when date linking is a good thing. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Want to trade?
Need some fingers? How about a trade? A few of mine for some more gray matter. Considering the gibberish pouring from my computer, I might do just as well typing with my face. Glad to see you back at the keyboard. Hope your fingers are rehabbing nicely. — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are getting better, thanks. I don't believe you about gibberish! Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank Boas
Why do you prefer to call him a German-American rather then a German American? I've asked the same question on the talk page when an anon reverted German American to German-American. If his origin is irrelevant, why not delete German-American ?--Work permit (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that. Maybe it should be deleted. But the other bit about Jewishness has been well discussed. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, got it. My edit must have gotten tangled up with the jewish one. Can I change German-American to German American?  Or wait for some consensus on the talk page?  I don't want to appear disruptive--Work permit (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be better if we are going to mention his German ancestry at all. But I had hoped we'd laid the other to rest. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned
You removed my addition on the franz boas page. You termed it "vandalism". Why is that? There are many - wiki user editings that i have seen that lack substance and evidence, yet those are not pulled.

Why the disparity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.211.211 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure I will wait forever for a response from doug. So called liberals love to say they are about freedom and democracy, but disagree with them - if they have the power to censor or silence you - they will. You were johnny on the spot when i criticised boas doug, where are you now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.211.211 (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, I'm really sorry I had to sleep and wasn't awake to respond to you. Many apologies. After I explained on your talk page that articles were not a place for personal comment, eg "where are the criticisms, and who are the criticisers? Please provide proof and links. From my experience, the majority of those who have criticised MacDonald's well documented work, are jewish people with an axe to grind. This is unfair to claim that his work is "shoddy" or "anti-semitic" without revealing who his accusers are AND noting that a majority of them are of jewish background (no surprise there).", you continued to post personal commentary, eg "Oh really? Please provide the evidence. What specific studies did he conduct, and what were the results? Were his results peer reviewed? I think not. ". The first time may have been ignorance of how Wikipedia works (that is, if you haven't read many Wikipedia articles), the second time was after I explained it to you. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Herschel
Sigh.. a period of explaining that someone being "really nice" or having "original ideas" is not what a wikipedia article is constructed upon. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

KU Student Authors (Fall 2009)
Hi Doug. Thanks so much for your kind help to my students! I have 28 enrolled this semester in "Ancient Central America" (ANTH 500) who will be working on 1000-word entries (or improvements to approved existing entries) with a focus on the archaeology of the Isthmo-Colombian region. They will be writing the drafts on their user pages before the entries go into mainspace. I (and they) realize that all assistance is voluntary, but whatever help you or others can provide will be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopes (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug
Great feedback I completely agree that it is always best to maintain proper edicate when giving criticism to fellow editors. I was wondering if there was a specific instance in which you are referring to when I gave a user inappropriate criticism. By the way thank you for noticing that I did not site a source for my editing on Haplogroup N. I thought that it was common knowledge since most of the information that I listed was already in the article. Good call though, if people just start writing things without sources there would be a lot of incorrect information on Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions on what kind of feedback to give an editor if they continue to make incorrect assertions even after you have explained to this editor in detail why these assertions are incorrect? In the case that someone continues to make incorrect statements in there editing, would it not be appropriate to tell this editor that he or she is making false statements? If you did let that editor know that you thought they were making false statements would that be inappropriate and why? If you think someone is making false claims in their editing aren't you entitled to speak your mind and let the editor know that you think they are making false statements?

I would appreciate your feedback on this issue. That said, I live in the USA where it is perfectly acceptable to let someone know that you think that they are making untrue statements.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Statistics always need sources, and there is a lot of number vandalism where vandals (not you), just change numbers, one reason why without sources there is a problem. Usually the best thing to do is go to the article's talk page so that others can see the discussion and hopefully going in. Any suggestion that an editor is lying is a personal attack, and where you live doesn't come into it. Calling someone a liar is libel in the US as well as elsewhere. Saying someone is wrong is of course fine. If you really think someone is lying, you could try various venues, see WP:DR. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder which assertions Jamesdean is talking about? Discussions which are supposedly about whether to put percentages from "selected" primary sources in the infobox of an article are not discussions that can be portrayed as cases where people are disagreeing on "assertions" or facts. Jamesdean is starting to show a pattern of pretending he is "not hearing". The R1a talkpage, my talkpage, and the talkpage of Cosmos416 shows him persistently commenting AS IF other people are proposing to say that India is dominated by R1a (something which no editor has proposed) when in fact the main editing dispute he is involved in is about his own unilateral edits trying to say that R1a in India is only found in commonly isolated tribes. No other editor has supported him on this, in any version including his back door in the infobox. I think if Mr Dean would work with others in a more direct way, we could have a more clear discussion, but that does not appear to be his aim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the problem but at the moment so long as he stays clear of personal attacks and tendentious editing... Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also still giving the benefit of the doubt on the basis of WP:NEWBIES, and am mainly registering a doubt about his description of his problems with other editors insisting on making false statements. This claim seems impossible to reconcile with debates about things like what level of information should be in an infobox. OTOH, AGF is being stretched not only by the IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, but also by repeated non-consensus reverts, with contents that do not match edit summaries. In fact I note Jamesdean has himself often included what appear to be obviously wrong information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at the latest round of Jamesdean's contribs. This guy apparently has an obsession now about expanding out these infoboxes and summaries to emphasize Eastern Europe (he has gone to every article which mentions R1a even as a sub clade) and will not listen to anyone? Where does one draw the line?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

YourLord block evasion IPs
Hi. I noticed you recently blocked, an IP of blocked user (himself a sockpuppet of ). While browsing the IP's contribs I noticed this, in which 86.134.231.92 responds to messages left at User talk:86.139.35.101. Clearly is another of YourLord's IPs, and probably should be blocked as well. What are we to do with this fellow? He's gone through 4 accounts and 6 IPs (confirmed) and another 12 IPs (suspected), clearly giving no sign of altering behavior or intention to resolve his block in the proper manner, nor do I expect he ever will given our past interactions. Most of his IPs are in the same ranges (86.13x.xxx.xx and 81.145.24x.xx)...would range blocks be appropriate at this point? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite probably, take it to ANI - I haven't done a range block before in any case. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Dominus Noster is not a sockpuppet of YourLord, nor is User talk:86.139.35.101 an IP I have used, as evidenced by the fact that I was contradicting him. Additionally I have done nothing wrong and will soon be unblocked so there's really no need for a range block. Such an action would also be monstrously unfair to the anonymous users who have had nothing to do with this debarcle. --User:Dominus Noster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.105.251 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord. As you've recently blocked one of his IPs, your input is welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate content
Hello- Would it be possible for you to take a look at the file descriptions for the recent photos uploaded by User:Camille Marino? . She obviously has a COI with the Dave Warwak article as she built most of the content and now seems determined to smear him. The user has been warned three times today regarding her BLP violating edits. I think your keen admin eyes could come in handy in determining whether the photos are kosher....Thanks and cheers, ponyo (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Working on this one, sorry I didn't respond earlier. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a saint! Let me know if I can help in any way...I'll be kicking around cleaning up some BLP articles for the next couple of hours. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Egyptian chronology
Uh, I didn't intend it as a comment on you, let alone a personal attack: it was about your edit, & explaining why I changed the text. When you removed the quotation from Heinrich Otten, you also muddied the point of comparing two ancient Egyptian chronologies by respected Egyptologists: it was to show that, despite 100 years of research & debate, the outlines of ancient Egyptian chronology hasn't changed that much. Your changes, as reasonable & defensible as they are (yes, the mention to Otten was a holdover from an older, frankly useless & tendentious, version), dulled that point -- hence my choice of "botched". Maybe I should have used a different word to explain myself ("mangled"? "muddied"?), but I meant no malice or insult to you, & I apologize that my choice of words offended you. -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Not a good idea generally to mention an editor in an edit summary - 'missed the point' might have been better by the way. Or your word, 'dulled'. Never mind, I really couldn't believe it when I saw it, it didn't seem like you. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This topic has increased the stress level for everyone involved, so I'll have to pick my words even more carefully than usual. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my stress level is high today thanks to David Rohl, who has decided I'm a malicious editor with a COI. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my Sodom and Gomorah section. Why?
I wrote that section in a very thoughtful way. There are many people that confuse a lot of issues when it comes to that story. I simply am trying to express why it is that they totally misunderstood it. If you remove it, all these people will continue thinking that the story is about homosexuality - instead of something else. Like extreme violence for example.

You don't change other things that are clearly wrong from biblical point of view. The bible says that it isn't for anything that Lot did that he was saved, but because God remembered Abraham. I read in that page that Lot was saved because he was righteous. That is clearly wrong. You know that simply by reading the bible.

Yet, you do nothing about these factual mis-statements, but you delete my corrections and explanations.

This wikipedia thing is nothing but a bunch of poop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachaga (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's just not what you thought it was or want it to be. Articles should reflect what reliable and verifiable sources say about a subject (I gave you links so that you can learn what those terms mean here), not what we as editors think. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero
As I mentioned on my talk page I have now opened an RFC for Timewave zero,  on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice Required
I left some comments on the talk page of i.p user 69.254.76.77. Point 6 is the one sticks out. It doesn't seem right that one editor should recommend acts of violence against another, or am I overeacting? Taam (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP wasn't specific, although they were over the top. I wouldn't take it too seriously, I may comment on their page in a little while but I've been editing Shed and need to do some other stuff. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re. Jakob Lorber site
Thank you Dougweller for the welcome and also for the hints to make better and more balanced contributions. Although at this point in time it looks to me more than a battlefield than a website, with bits and pieces scattered all over the place. And somewhere in between the red cross, like yourself, is doing its best to keep the peace. At least it brings the uncontaminated perceived truth of every participating individual to the surface, unfortunately hiding behind a username. A strange real life environment. Thank you again for the welcome and keep up the good work. (NRtruth (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks. Remember though, Wikipedia is not a search for truth and our priority is verifiablity. We are an encyclopedia reflecting what verifiable and reliable sources have to say, not what we think. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My dear Dougweller, you certainly drive a hard bargain. Wiki was asking for reliable quotations on the subject, now I have given them to you and it is still rejected. Isn’t this what the public wants, namely to know what the man has written with proper citations? If I wanted to be informed about the content of books of a certain writer, I would be glad if someone could give me certain sample extracts from it. Nevertheless, I have to concede that you know the rules better than me, but at least you could have left my reference regarding Kurt Eggensteins’ publication about the predictions made by Lorber? What would be wrong with that? (NRtruth (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC))
 * See WP:RS and WP:SPS - self-published books can rarely be used as sources, except in books about the author. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It is copied to talk page
Is now O.K. to revert this? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
 * All right. It is no problem to wait, to see that hope changing to factual discussion. If no discussion, will be OK, to revert tomorrow ? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have responded on the talk page, requesting better references for what appears to be OR. . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tyciol
I completely agreed with blocking this editor at the time, but I've been communicating with him on his talk page and have suggested that he could be unblocked if he promised to run all possible redirects that he wanted to create past me first. As blocking admin, would you be OK with this? He does have some positive edits apart from all the ludicrous redirects. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - but I'll email you as well, ok? Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Random good wishes
Just wanted to pop by and say that I hope the hand recovery goes well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's coming along - I can type with it, but there's more pain than I'd like! And of course I can't drive. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 05:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for changing the setting on my talk page. Hopefully it stops the vandelism. DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Table on Chronology of Bible
Doug, I've made a table for kings of Israel and Judah at Chronology of the Bible (Lisa doesn't like it much). It's in the section called Temple to Exile. My problem is that the first line is for Solomon, who was king of both - that line should be just two cells, one to say he's King Number 1, the second for his name and a bit of info. But I can't make it work - can't make that line different from the rest. Can you help? (I also need to add lots of refs - you might like to put cite needed tags wherever you think they belong; Lisa's merely fuming, not actually helping, but I'm trying to get her into a more cooperative frame of mind). PiCo (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask at the Help desk, I'm no good at markup. There's a Bible cite template that you can use for references rather than links to a website, by the way. You may know about that anyway. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question
I would guess he's contacted whoever is listed as a contact on the wikimedia uk pages? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone here Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And now we know who it may have been, the same person who he quotes on his Facebook page, wonder what the ticket number says... Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure your aware, I was the person he contacted, however from what youv mentioned, he is greatly exaggerating what occured. I would be more than happy to privately share the responses I gave him if you have any concerns. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 22:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anon statistics vandal
Doug, could you just block already for messing with the stats on Berber people? Looking at its history, I think it might have been busy altering the numbers elsewhere too. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I already did. 31 hours so they may be back. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert
What happened here? Svgs are higher quality, did you revert by accident? Himalayan   15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mouse slipped, many apologies, the next line on my Watchlist was a vandal changing 'and' to 'ang', I've rv that now as I meant to do.

toss my salad
Thanks for, it made me actually laugh out loud. I left a request at RPP, hopefully this will get locked down for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

tks
Good eye on the Models of migration to the New World article That guy was clearly trying to sneak in those edit. I will be keeping an eye on user 142.227.237.253, I will inform you if anymore Vandalism occurs by this user

again tks for all that you do here at WIKI Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tyciol
Yep, I asked him to run this all past me, so last chance saloon time. Looks like you were right, oh well. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the block about redirects, rather than refactoring? Ryu's dispute regarding redirects was serious (now I will use search instead of assuming a name is only notable for the place I find it in) as it affected articlespace and navigation. I have learned from criticism about refactoring (no longer adding years, making separate edits when doing things like moving posts into proper chronological order, not changing indentation so freely without checking context). Farix's complaint ("refactoring as you did...") is vague, I think it's better to point out specifically which refactorings are bad. I've made some replies here, but the consensus was misinterpreted: I was part of the majority consensus which agreed that some of my refactorings are bad, such as the one Jack-a-Roe pointed out. Since I agree with (and thus am part of) the consensus that an edit like that's disruptive, I wouldn't edit like that anymore. It's an example of disruptive reformatting, but it does not make the other kinds of reformatting disruptive. Tyciol (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are getting complaints from editors plural, you are probably being disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Though you should know about this, even though it is a relativity minor case compared to the past. Tyciol is still trying to defend his refactoring of talk pages. It's not that he doesn't get that these edits are inappropriate and he shouldn't be doing them in the first place. It's that he doesn't care. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Define "Attack"?
You know, I'm personally starting to get a little sick and tired of you being on my case 24 hours a day. Get a life brother. I'm only reverting edits which were disruptive in the first place. Second, what do you define as an attack? When people call us "Pakis" then that's not considered an attack on us? But when I bring up a good point of Indians speaking so highly on India and not even bothering on residing in it, then where is the disruption in that? Learn to moderate on Wikipedia, because your seriously being a hypocrite. And I'm personally going to make sure that your reported as well for your patethic excuse of what you call "moderation". Learn not to abuse your powers. Thank you.

--MirNaveed (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't reported me yet, let me know when you do. I'd treat anyone calling you a Paki the same way if I saw them. " Indians should go away" is clearly an attack. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your AfD nomination of Darwin Forest
Because what you say is true, I will not object to the nomination of the article and I am happy to let the article go.--<b style="font-family:Rockwell; color:gray;">Sky Attacker</b>   Here comes the bird!  20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I did post to your talk page after I visited the place but you didn't reply. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Beirut Nights and Eurodance
well you deleted my Beirut Nights and Byblos edit. It is funny that you did. First off, beirutnights.com that I own since 1999 for 10 years in addition to the copyright of the name since 2009, was created by myself. Eventhough Beirut Nights is a generic name like New York Nights or Paris Nights, the "series of events or activities" called Beirut Nights emanes from the fact that I as a faithful lover and self appointed ambassador to the city of my love and birth Beirut, decided in the mid 90s to start the awareness of people of this city. In 1999, I bought the official domain beirutnights.com after a friend recommended to me the need to legitimize my action. THe site since its birth have streamed live dance music that is international in addition to the largest slideshow (10,000 pics) of Beirut (and surrounding areas in Lebanon). As a result of that if you do a google search you would see that beirutnights.com's slideshow is mentioned in more than 5000 links. Many sites listed as links on your article including downtownbeirut.com (created by a friend of mine), have been listed as external links eventhough they offer less updates on beirut nights scene (that the forum) and less pictures (than the 10,000 photo slideshow). Not only that, but you actually deleted it from the article "Eurodance" under radios playing eurodance, and is is known by real guide, windows media guide since 1999, beirut nights was the first radio site to stream eurodance and has more than 90% eurodance content while the other radios listed have non updated material and the land radios listed DON't even play 10% eurodance. Therefore, if you are not willing to acknowledge the information or slideshow on Beirut Nights article or even on the Eurodance section, I think you are doing the project of Wikipedia that I find honorable and helpful (eventhough contains tons of fallacies in sections relating to Lebanon) a disservice. I advise you not to rely on some automatic software checkers that saw that I did 4 entries the same night and rather CHECK the site IN DETAILS before you consider as advertisement. In fact, the actual radio costs have for 8 years (out of the 10) been covered by myself, and the past few years had some help from donations of listeners and is not by any way or mean intended to be a money making industry. Finally my fourth entry was regarding Byblos. I thought that may be that one was a little bit iffy just because the site of Byblos Radio didn't offer anything but music. It still represents a mediterranean music site who's owner is from there and I thought that it would be helpful to add any radios streaming from Byblos or representing the music culture of Byblos. But due to the poor content of the site itself ( not well built or done) I think that maybe ONLY on this entry, would it be justifiable to delete. Best Regards BeirutNights.com
 * If you post it on Wikipeida, anyone can edit it. Abce2 |  Talk  Sign  03:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines
Yes it is all messed up..was trying to update but not sure if possible To be honest Pre-Siberian American Aborigines and Pre-Columbian are the same thing ..aswell as Origins of Paleoindians and Models of migration to the New World are same topic pretty much. only solution i see is a vast cut back on info and merge them. really not sure though Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked a couple of other editors, do you want to post the above on the talk page of the article? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mad Science
Good morning Doug,

I have no intention of using this article as an ad. I simply would like to give a detailed description of what the company does, and the different division it has. I will do my best to maintain a neutral point of view, and I would appreciate any feedback you might have along the way. I will be working on this article over the next few days.

Thanks for your help.

Tim --Timthom2 (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When you say I should declare my relationship, how do I go about doing this? Within the article itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timthom2 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On your talk page and possibly the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. I would like to add that the previous article on Mad Science that I have since updates was much more of an advertisement for the company. I only wish to give a detailed description of its history and operations. Many other company articles appear to have an advertising elemenet to them and their is no conflict of interest disclamer above. If no one wishes to lend their "objectionable" view to the article, what steps can I take to have the disclamer removed from the Mad Science article. --Timthom2 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)--Timthom2 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of company articles that read like ads (and university ones, etc) - we have a page on that -- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's not a matter of an 'objectionable view' at all, there may be no criticism of the company for all I know. You could ask at WP:COIN as to be frank I'm not sure. The COI disclaimer is factual, but maybe someone at COIN can advise. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Music of Kashmir
Hi Doug, I am concerned about the recent vandalism about this topic. I will try to talk to this guy else you will have to block him. and semi protect that page to sometime. Oniongas (talk)


 * This user User_talk:MirNaveed seems vandal, it would be better u block him for personal attack and vandalism.Oniongas (talk)
 * Please temp protect the page as IP Vandal is back.. Oniongas (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

COI noticeboard notice
Hi Dougweller, Timthom2 created a report at the COI noticeboard about the article Mad Science. The report isn't that you have a COI, but that he was declaring his own COI as an employee of the company and wanting help on the article. He also asked if the COI tag was necessary, and since you were the one who had left the tag I thought it might be a good place to mention your concerns about the current state of the article and what might need to be cleaned (assuming it doesn't get deleted). Thanks! --  At am a  頭 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion
Indef blocked / seems to be back as. He went and made same minor edits first but came back to edit war on the exact same stupid thing again and tried to change talk page comments from a previous account so they didn't include the swearing. It'd be nice if he'd learn to edit the right way, but I think as long as he refuses to he should stay indeffed until he takes steps to change. DreamGuy (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another new SPA reverting to his preferred version of Blackout Ripper appeared once I warned the above user. So now there's also DreamGuy (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Haroldcoxley994 (how should I display that properly)?

Chronology of the Bible
Doug, could have a look at Chronology of the bible? LisaLiel doesn't like the edits I've been doing, and has now started total reversions. Please note that I'm not complaining about her behaviour, she's been quite civil and there's no personal animosity. But our positions are so far apart that we may need someone from outside to intervene. Anyway, please have a look and tell us what you think. PiCo (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A few strange edits on genetics articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R1000R1000#Genetics_articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already noticed but not sure when I'll have time, hopefully sometime today. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:24.62.87.248
After I saw you level 4-warned him, I took a look at his contributions--nothing but disruptive editing, personal attacks and BLP violations. I gave him a one-week block to think about it. Blueboy96 14:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I almost did the same, glad you decided to block. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protect open
Can I get my account open to be able to edit semi-protect pages? I have the account almost 4 days and more than 10 edits. I also got cookies. Thank you. Ruben31 (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you here? Can I please have my account open for semi-protect pages now? Ruben31 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is urgent pages I need to edit today please? Ruben31 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * that was another Armenian sock. --dab (𒁳) 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we were discussing him here - but I see you beat us to it. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Re chronology of the bible I think an RfC is best. How do we go about that? PiCo (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I think I've solved it - Third opinion. I've asked Lisa to draft something we can jointly put up. PiCo (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Dougweller, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69. 23:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Bilderberg_Meeting  - talk page gone with it.
Sorry, but we really can't have talk pages for non-existent articles. Why not ask Sandstein directly? Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K., thanks for suggesting that. I know it's the policy but it's not a good policy. The article was there, as others were that are deleted now, and should be able to have a talk page. It's a separate point that the article could be developed again, and also, because of this, should have a talk page. The confiscation of the facility to discuss at all about the subject of a deleted article which was published in this human publishing facility, The Web network (whatever reason it was deleted for, for the 'agreed good' or not that) is restrictive. Given that someone decided on this policy, it's quite fascist and against the spirit of anything Wikipedia could be about truly. Unless it's just that not a lot of thought went into it and an article removed means nothing at all worth much thought, but I think most people would have at least some thoughts about keeping a talk page alive for it. It should be quite a basic facility if you think about it.

Consider this article on this subject which was deleted. It's a bit a controversial subject considering there have been claims that the worlds' news media agencies shy away from talking much about it at all. And then the page is deleted, the reason given seemingly humour in poor taste and inappropriate or who knows what. So this subject, that of the deleted article, is a very good example of the restricitivism of confiscating the opportunity to discuss and publish for reading about a subject which had been published about. It is a good example of the kind of anti-information world, and more importantly anti-commuincation world (as I am talking about a discussion page rather than the subject information page itself) which Wikipedia was never intended to embrace truly.

If you agree, I appreciate anyone with 'clout' in Wikipedia, like you, sending a very quick message up to the 'powers that be' or raising it some time if you have a chance. Kind wishes.

Lecochonbleu -15/9/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecochonbleu (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was deleted after a proper discussion, basically because we already have a main article that covers the subject. We have a process, WP:DRV, for appealing deletions. All of these processes are decided not by any single individual but by editors working together. Discussion pages are not meant to discuss the subject of an article but the article itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable sources say about a subject, and it looks as though you'd like it to be something different. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

LaViolette
I put a friendly warning on his talk page. I was going to revert him to WP:COIN if I had to do a third revert. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing on his talk page from you I'm afraid. Did you not notice an edit conflict perhaps? Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Odd.  Oh well, you said what I did.Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I, Paul LaViolette, am editing this page to remove libelous content and correct errors previously made about my biography.
Dear Sirs:

I went in and read how I (Paul LaViolette) have been presented in Wikipedia and do not agree at all with much of what was written. To protect my reputation, I have tried to make the necessary corrections, but your system has reverted always to the previous version leaving the content unchanged. I have no idea why this is happening. In its present form I object to its content. I request that editors wishing to correct the present errors refer to a detailed bio posted at: Starburstfound.org/LaViolette/Bio/Bio1.html. I give my guarantee it is entirely accurate. Also in the future anyone wishing to make changes, please first email me the text they wish to post about me so that I may check it for accuracy. My email address is gravitics1@aol.com. I request that The Washington City Paper (WCP) (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/) not be used as a Wikipedia source of information about me. That source is not something that should be used in an academic setting such as Wikipedia. It is a tabloid, whose main purpose is to serve as a guide to entertainment and activities in the Washington D.C. area. WCP's writing accuracy is rather spotty, not always up to accepted standards; they liked to focus on inflammatory topics and would often do muck raking on politically hot topics. The 2000 article about me was written as an entertainment piece and the author did not get his facts straight. Sean Daly, the young reporter who interviewed me and wrote the article had originally contacted me with an interest to do a story about my pulsar/SETI findings. I soon discovered that he had no science background, little interest in science or SETI, and was mainly interested in writing a piece that would be entertaining to the nightclub seeking masses. Much of the information written about me was either fabricated or inaccurate. I was not given the opportunity to check the article over prior to its publication.

Consequently most of what is written about me in the Wikipedia posting which uses WCP as a source is incorrect. For example, the posting did not even get the name of my father correct. Also keep in mind that in some cases your citations and Talk:Paul LaViolette discussion refer to the source as Washington City Press (http://washingtoncity.org/index.php?sub=Press). This is an entirely different paper published in Washington City, Utah, not Washington, D.C. and is closer to what one would regard as a more standard type local paper. Washington City Press has done no story about me.

Furthermore there are difficulties also with the citation from Science magazine. Although I did take a job at the USPTO, I did not "answer Thomas Valone's call for free energy enthusiasts to take up positions in the United States Patent and Trademark Office" regardless of what David Voss says in his letter to the editor. This is a flat lie and I object to it. I had long ago posted a page informing people about this Science magazine error.

Also the Wikipedia posting confuses my name with that of the oceanographer Paul LaViolette. I never worked at NOARL. That referenced Science article is about someone else.

Under the "Theories" section, the last part of the first sentence is incorrect which says: "...directly to our planet from distant sources in our Galaxy aligned with the Galactic Center." This cites my 1987 paper (ref. 14), but it grossly misquotes it.

Also contrary to the posting, I have appeared on three Coast to Coast programs, not two, and it is misleading to say that on one I spoke about "Galactic Waves & Communications." I have been on many other radio talk shows as well as on TV, but I am wondering if this is important information to be putting into a bio. I don't regard this as a major accomplishment, especially to have it immediately followed by a reference to my rebreather patent which was a notable accomplishment. (PLaV (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Reposted this at Talk:Paul LaViolette Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Berber people
I don't think our friend Mr is going to get Wikipedia policy. Time for a more permanent vacation? --Folantin (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but as he's been blocked for 24 hours, I think we need to wait and give him another chance. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for 24 hours on September 11. His first action after his return yesterday was to repeat the same behaviour. On the other hand, I suppose we could just semi-protect the article if he and his socks continue this kind of thing. --Folantin (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If he continues, I'll probably block him. Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the article now needs semi-protection. --Folantin (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. It was getting a bit too much. --Folantin (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Astral Projection
An appeal to the "Fringe" forum by an editor on the above page brought a response from two editors, Verbal (an administrator) and Simonm223, both of whom have some history of piling into edit-wars on fringe subjects. I'd appreciate advice upon their actions, which seem to me entirely destructive and non-consensual - that is, they seem to tend to foment edit war and perhaps to misuse administrative facilities in this regard (ie rollback reversion on POV grounds). Redheylin (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does everyone think I'm an administrator? Is it because I'm so great, like all the other admins here ;) I trust in Doug's judgement and he can guide my behaviour as he see fit. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno - either you used to be or claimed to be? Anyhow, sorry for the bad info. Redheylin (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither I'm afraid. It's a gross injustice! (joke) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting banned
Dear Doug,

If I can't control my own Wikipedia addiction, then I'm going to have to get Wikipedia to control it for me. I'm going to get myself a permanent ban. I'll keep reverting that one article, Chronology of the Bible, till the admins have no option but to kick me out. Please pray for my eternal soul. PiCo (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's stupid and I don't pray. What's the point? Lisa managed to get through a year at 1RR (more or less), you mean you can't stop at 3 (or preferably 2)? Don't do this. You're not always right but you are still a net benefit to Wikipedia and some articles will suffer if you aren't around. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tain't the articles I'm worried about, it's me! Time is limited, just 24 hours in each day, many of them spent sleeping, a few eating, some in other activities. If I can't have enough self-control to limit my wiki-time (and I don't), then getting banned is the last chance. (Lise will be pleased!) PiCo (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can feel your pain. :-) -- It's hard, you just have to figure out ways of limiting your Wikipedia time, and excuses not to get on your computer. A bit like dieting/changing your eating habits. One thing, if you use a watchlist, only refresh it a limited number of times a day, and not just after you've gone through it. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're really addicted, what's the point of getting your account banned? You'll just edit anonymously, or create a number of new accounts. If you really need to be banned from editing Wikipedia on your end, you will need to get a network administrator to either point wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.1, or if you still need to read the wiki, install a net-nanny software that blocks all of *wikipedia.org*action=edit* for you and then password-protect it so you cannot change it back. --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Eurohist
After a lot of experimenting and some help from User:MSGJ, I added the taskforces to the banner as you requested here. I'm not an expert, but since nobody seemed to be doing it I thought I'd try :) The Polish history task force and the Sub-Roman Britain task force are added, and the categories shown on the template page will have to be created. I have updated the documentation too.

BTW, I noticed the sub roman task force is not in a subpage of WikiProject European history. I think the template you'll have to use for the bot will be

Hope this helps. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research in Timeline of historic inventions and elsewhere
Hello. I noticed that you have edited Timeline of historic inventions. I have discovered that there are a large number of edits, all by the same editor, to this and other pages, in which the editor misrepresents his sources, or commits original research, as it is called here on Wikipedia. In many cases the misrepresentation takes the form that the source claims that X did Y at time Z, and in the edit, this is changed to Y happened first when X did it at time Z. This often results in factually incorrect claims appearing in the encyclopedia.

I have provided a list of examples of this problem at User:Spacepotato/Examples of original research in Wikipedia. I give 7 examples affecting 5 articles, but in reality the problem is much wider-spread. I hope that you will be able to find the time to examine this issue. Spacepotato (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
Good morning Doug, I cleaned up the talk page, removed spam, corrected grammar and added several replies. Just a general cleanup, which is what I do as part of WikiProject Iraq. Izzedine (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One editor almost got blocked for making spelling corrections on talk pages. You've also removed what is certainly not spam, eg


 * In answer to your questions, Mesopotamia is indeed a Greek term. No such name was ever used by the various peoples of Mesopotamia themselves. Many simply called it "The Land." Additionally, I do not find it odd that Assyriologists resist using the term Iraq to designate Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is not confined to Iraq; it also encompassed, at varying times, parts of Iran and Syria. Also, the different peoples of Mesopotamia you mentioned usually lived in specific parts of the region. The Sumerians, for instance, lived in the south, and it would be therefore somewhat incorrect to speak of the entirety of Iraq as their home. Traditionally, as far as I see it, many scholars use the term 'Near East' to refer to Mesopotamia, the Levant, and parts of Iran; scholars will name specific kingdoms or parts of the Near East to talk about certain peoples. This simply allows them to be more specific. --KTN
 * Why was that removed? We have guidelines for talk pages and you don't seem to be following them. Remove genuine spam, by all means, make sure there are section headings if some are missing, but you've gone beyond that. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not a forum but a page for discussing improvements to the article. Izzedine (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am simply trying to find out why you are refactoring a talk page with no explanation or discussion. If you were using edit summaries it would at least have been possible to see you rationale for each edit. The bit you removed above appears to me to be about the content of the article. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am at fault for not using edit summaries. I had a period of always leaving an edit summary but have lapsed. I will try to leave them more often. This comment seems to be a forum-like rendition of someone's personal opinion though, without any focus on improving the article. Regards Doug. Just on a personal note though, i'd like to offer an apology for past run-ins between us, I see helpful edits of yours on many articles I view and edit and I appreciate these contributions. Let's forget past quarrels. Izzedine (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I did look at that comment carefully though, and thought it was discussing the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Mardyks
Hi Doug, I started a list of IPs here so you can see this guy's "contributions": User:Shii/Mardyks Feel free to monitor related pages with me and add to the page. Shii (tock) 01:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Email
I replied (I think). Best of luck! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:SOPHIAN
Thanks for handling that. I was just re-reading the blocking policy to try and figure out if this was justified, and had pretty much come to the conclusion that it was. I'm glad that another admin came to the same conclusion independently. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN
I don't know why you said this, but SOPHIAN isn't banned.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was the end of a hard day. I've amended it. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome, glad to help.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Paradoxic
He has broken 3RR again, today     (see changes in the "2009 Quds Day"section). Alefbe (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Another user has asked User:Rjanag to stop User:Paradoxic who has violated 3RR (See User_talk:Rjanag). Instead of blocking Paradoxic, Rjanag has locked the page (on Paradoxic's version). This is getting really ridiculous. Admins should enforce Wikipedia policies, instead of making rules and talking about their own standards. Alefbe (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: see Talk:International_al-Quds_Day. Alefbe (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice admin shopping, Alefbe. You have every right to disagree with my handling of any situation, but when you seek outside input it's better to say that (i.e., "I'm looking for your opinion on this"...), rather than "hey this other guy didn't do what I wanted, will you do it instead?" <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case, you have repeatedly failed to use your admin access properly. A better thing to do might be filing an RFC about it. If I don't do that, it's just because I don't have time for endless RFC discussions. Alefbe (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to file an RFC/U on me. It might be more constructive, though, to comment on the proposal I left at the al-Quds talk page; I'm trying to find a solution that will allow the article to be unprotected and editing to be kept in check by consensus. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Paradoxic violated 3rr two times in less than 4 days. Since last time, User:Rjanag did not blocked him for the violation of 3rr, User:Paradoxic got him more confidence to violate the 3rr rule. FYI, Paradoxic deleted information including the sentence " In recent years, only a marginal proportion of young Iranians have attended." 4 times. ,,  , --WIMYV? (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR is a bright-line rule and is not meant to deal with vandalism but content disputes, so I'm going to disagree with Rjanag's evident position on how it should be used. However, at the point of the blocks, both editors had overstepped it so both editors should have been and were blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Siv Jensen
Hi Dougweller!

I do not understand why you undid the IP's edit..All it did was to remove the peacocky "highly influential" from one sentence. Looked like a perfectly reasonable edit to me. Regards, <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP was adding claims based on unreliable sources (BLP violations), I guess that got caught up in my reversal of the claims. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done what I meant to do and removed the whole thing. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation
<div style="border-style:solid; -moz-border-radius:10px; background:white; text-align:center; border:1px solid black; padding:12px; font-size:120%; font-family:helvetica;"> The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our permissions and photosubmissions queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider seeking approval at the volunteering page. Thank you.

Vinland
Thanks for alerting me to the Vinland page, which I'll confess I hadn't bothered to look at in recent years- and now I have looked at it, I wish I hadn't! I'll address some of its numerous shortcomings over the next few days. David Trochos (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cloak request
I am Doug_Weller on freenode and I request a cloak. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Dunning-Davies
Hello. Why has this article article been restored with minimal changes (addition of CERN spokesperson) following the AfD discussion? added a copyvio picture of Dunning-Davies. He has made a mockery of the AfD discussion in which he participated in June. He must have copied the whole page to his userspace somehow with its complete history. Admin did userfy the article when it was recreated on September 19th. How come the whole edit history of the deleted article is still there? This is very odd and seems to be completely agaist wikipedia policies. No further notability has been established. I don't understand the edit warring over page moves with NuclearWarfare after NW userfied it. I read your comments to Headbomb on his talk page but again do not understand his response - he says he "checked around" before reinstating the article with its whole history. Where are the diffs and why should such small changes justify ignoring an AfD? How did he store the article with its edit history? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've raised this with Juliancolton, I also asked and was told it was improved. I then got sidetracked. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Juliancolton has not replied. There has been no expansion apart from one sentence added to the lede, which doesn't establish notability. The sentence about cold fusion and the Telesio-Galilei association seems to be something has invented himself. It certainly does not appear in the link (not reliable in any way!) or any associated sources that I know of.  This is presumably the prelude for wikipedia having articles on even greater non-entities such as Stephen B. Crothers, another award winner and pillar of the T-G association. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The so-called "expansion" by Headbomb resulted from a misidentification of John David Davies, a spokesperson for CERN. Not at all helpful to add that to the lede. I've prodded the article once more. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle
Doug, you might want to check your last couple of TW warnings. I was going to warn an IP about vandalism at Çatalhöyük. You were (as ever) well ahead of me at reverting - but no warning evident at the IP despite TW. Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird, I know I opened the editor's talk page, I've got Çatalhöyük in Clipmate ready to copy it, I'm not at all sure what happened there. Thanks for the reminder. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. And your acknowledgment on the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome is much appreciated. Haploidavey (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits
I had copied from the edit portion of the Medjay article specifically so that I could get the sources. I even went back on the history of the article and it shows the refernce links at the end of every sentence. I do not understand what your complaint is about since the Medjay article is very revelant to Nubia-Egypt relations section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the Ancient history article where the edits were broken. But the main problem, and you've ignored my warning, is lack of attribution. This is copyright violation and easily avoided if you'd followed my advice. As for the Medjay, the bit after "No longer did the term refer to an ethnic group and over time the new meaning became synonymous with the policing occupation in general." is not about the Nubian Medjay. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But please fix the copyright violation issue now, you seem to be ignoring my comments about it and we can't let this go on. It's easy to fix, I've told you how. You can do null edits (just add a space somewhere) and put the attribution in. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

DUDE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LOL!!!? I already notated the article and inserted the links to the material on both of those pages that I edited. If you are trying to convey something to me be super specific and descriptive to me as I have already complied with you request of copying from the edit pages of the orginal article. Oh and not to mention the egypt article on the Ancient History page doesnt have a single refernce to verify its subarticle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries for Ancient history say nothing about copying from an article, nor do the ones on Nubia. I've explained on your talk page what to do. Then we have the problem of an article on the written past (Ancient history) containing a section about a culture but saying nothing about its written history. Again, one is a copyright problem and must be fixed, the other is a content issue. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So what are you telling me that I should put 'copied from the Nubia article' on the page to explain where it came from? Wikipedia is essentially a electronic encylopedia so what difference does it make if I take info from page 567 and add it to info on page 320 during the process of creating the encylopedia. And what does written history have to do with why it should be included in the Ancient history article since there a refernce link to info about the society itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and about the Nubian Medjay. It means that the Medjay doesnt refer to that specific area anymore but to the Original Medjay who in turn became warriors of Egypt so much so that they were the elite warriors of Egypt which is why Medjay doesnt refer to the specific area anymore. See Medjay article and its subsequent links for further information. (Wufei05 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
 * You didn't write the stuff you copied, someone else did. As it says below this edit window, you agree to be credited for your writing. That can't happen without a link in the edit summary back to the article where the text comes from. It's a copyright violation and people get blocked for doing it if they don't stop. It isn't optional, I'm afraid. The Ancient history is about cultures with a written history (if anything else is there that shouldn't be there, then it shouldn't be there). It isn't even about every culture with a written history, that would be too large. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I didnt write it Im not an acredited history professor thats why there are links there for where the info comes from I havent nor have I ever claimed that Im the author of the material how could I!!? If however you are insist about this I will put a 'copied from BLANK article'. Also what are you talking about with regard to the Ancient History article that there is no more vacancy for anymore relevant articles? (Wufei05 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

New World Order (conspiracy theory)
Hello Doug. I would appreciate if you could had some comments to the neutrality-in-question debate over the the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article on its talk page. Thanking you in advance. --Loremaster (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David's article
Hi, You probably rememner my last edits on David's talk page. I was then wondering why David is also spelled in Arabic. I still do, I can't find any relevance of the Arabic name to the article, much before David become relevant to the Arabs via Islam he was known to most of rest of the world.

On another issue: the name is translated to "beloved" in English. However, I'm a native speaker of Hebrew and never I have heard that the name have this meaning in Hebrew and I think that it need verification.

Cheers,--Gilisa (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that because David is an important personage in Islam someone added the Arabic translation. As for 'beloved', a web search on etymology and David has a lot of hits. You might want to read this also (although it couldn't be used as a source). Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramses I
Was this a case of vandalism in Ramses I's article: or tag maintenance by IP 75.14.215, etc? (I reverted the edits) Given the large scale deletion of sourced material, I thought it was the former case.

PS: I have rollback rights here but it seems one can only roll back the very last edit to the article...but someone had already made an edit after this IP made his. So, I had to use undo instead. I've been editing mostly on Commons lately from here and the problem there is the large number of copy vios and people claiming a photo is their work when it is almost certainly someone else's. On Wikipedia, its almost always vandalism sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly classic mistake (I've made it) trying to undo vandalism -- a vandal fighter comes along, sees vandalism and reverts it, not noticing that the editor before the vandal was also a vandal. I do a restore usually, comparing the good version with the current and clicking on restore - also very useful if you want to go a long way back to an earlier version. Copyvio is a really difficult problem and I'm glad to see you working on it. For my sins, I am now a trainee ArbCom clerk, which will keep me busy. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One Reason I like Wikipedia
As a note, the links in the references section of Wikipedia, this very site, provided me with the tools necessary to neutrally assess Menzies' claims. I did believe Menzies (who argues his case persuasively if all you have read on the topic is his book and if you don't know that, for instance, the Bimini Road is most likely a natural formation) and changed my opinion based on references found through Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena false biography
-Arnaiz-Villena page- I am removing false biographical statements: De Hoz comments dismissing Arnaiz-Villena work (in general )are not true:

He published a review of ONE BOOK [ISBN:84-89-784-84-1],PUBLISHED IN 1998.ALL OTHER WORK WAS PUBLISHED LATER [ISBN:84-81-784-66-3] in late 1999,[ISBN:0-306-46364-4] in 2000,[ISBN:84-7491-582-1] in 2001,[ISBN:84-7491-652-6] in 2001. See also Then ,De Hoz criticism”to “Arnaiz-Villena”work has been removed because does not correspond to reality.

However,they say it is not worth waisting time with Arnaiz-Villena,and put a lot of false commentariesbehind. You saw how they referred Arnaiz-Villena with Alonso previous writings.

Could you please help to clean this attacked biography of a full and respectable University professor? Could you please look up the references of ISBN and see that all except the first one are after 1999,when the critics appearedfor the first book? In addition,taking insults fron academics who attack others with different views,should not be picked up In biographies.Just to say that they disagree (in this case with one work:the rest of the work is included as criticised ,and it has not been)

Biographies are not articles,and if linguists uses such a bad wording,should not be inserted in biographies. --Virginal6 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, real life commitments will be keeping me away from Wikipedia except sporadically for a while. I advise you to post your concerns at WP:BLPN, the noticeboard to discuss concerns about the biographies of living persons. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This made me laugh
Are you are a Mossad agent too? Fences  &  Windows  01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your edit summary "see suggestion that this is ...", I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree and have left him a warning. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

userpage
Replied and agreed on my talk page. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request
I've finally finished a major expansion of the inner German border article - it's the 20th anniversary next month of the border being opened and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at the article and let me have any comments on how you think it could be improved. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Flamarande - Mausoleum of Halicarnassus
Hy there, I'm giving this notice because you seem to be quite active in this article (current name: Mausoleum of Mausolus). I made a formal request for a move towards 'Mausoleum of Halicarnassus'. IMHO we should simply use the common name (the subject of the article is world-famous under the name 'Mausoleum of Halicarnassus'). I will even go further and say that AFAIK the majority of us never even heard of a 'Mausoleum of Mausolus'.

I will not speculate about the reasons for the past move towards Mausoleum of Mausolus (but you can check the history of the article).

I hope that you agree with me in this matter (if not fine by me, but at least give me a sensible reason). If you agree, and if the move goes unopposed, you could even protect the article against a future move. Flamarande (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Worthy of a complaint?
Hey there, I know that I'm probably exagerating but is this worthy of an offical complaint or something? I mean, the guy fully admits that immediatly after getting a 3:1 result he felt himself justified to make the change he propossed. I reverted the change once arguing that the result was not enough (and quite franky I find it dubious that he (an interrested party) is a proper "judge" in this matter).

After a single revert (and "solely in the interrest of avoiding a possible future revert-war") he asked for support in IRC. After getting the votes he wanted (thereby fixing the result into his own liking) he immediatly archived the discussion as swiftly as he could.

Please study the talk-page and the article carefully first. Flamarande (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bragging but just compare this kind of behaviour with my own move-request above. I'm not planning to request any help whatsoever in IRC (I'm here to improve the English wiki, and not to make friends on IRC for the purpose of asking their help when I want). I will not lower my own standards to such a level. I'm not, and never will be, a defender of PC bull. Flamarande (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

deleting without fact tags
I think someone needs to take a look at the activity of User:Simonm223. He is constantly deleting things without the usual fact tags or discussion. This will be bad for the reputation of wikipedia. Anyone paying attention could point out many of his edits which are clearly uninformed. It would help if someone he wasn't trying to argue with took a look. I'm not overly concerned and am giving up myself but he could drive some people to the opposite extreme. In many cases the best argument for pseudo-scientists is the unscientific behavior of pseudo-skeptics. This doesn't help people understand the subject it just increases the dispute and prevents people from understanding the subject. Anything you do will be appreciated and more respected since he probably considers you a skeptic. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How can deleting unsourced writing be bad for the reputation of Wikipedia? I think it could only help. Auntie E.  21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder yet again
The usual suspects are pushing again for the Cyrus cylinder to be promoted as the world's first human rights charter, this time in Human rights. Given your involvement in the discussions on this issue last time it came up, your views would be welcome at Talk:Human rights. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Berber people
Looks like another IP is going ape on this page. Could you keep an eye on it and take the necessary action? Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Back and it is still on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect image license
Hi there, I actually picked up randomly. :-) The image license is incorrect for this image. Tue uploaded attributed it a CC license, while it's copyrighted. I don't really know how to tag it or change the license, so if you could have a look at it... Cheers. Klow (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Old European
Hello,

You have written to me: [edit] Copying from other articles To allow attribution to editors, when you copy and paste you must put a wikilink to the original article in the edit summary (and you should always use edit summaries anyway). Also, please try to follow the citation style already used in an article. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ceckauskas_Dominykas"

I am absolutely Ok with your remark. It is just that I am new to wikipedia. But I don't understand why have you erased the section? There wasn't any problem with it it's just that there was no edit summarie... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceckauskas Dominykas (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can put it back, with the appropriate edit summary but please fix the citation so it follows the same pattern as the existing citation (see WP:Cite if you aren't clear, or just add it in edit mode). Dougweller (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)r

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry to bother you ...
I'm bringing this question to you because I admire the calm and fair way you deal with things. Could you tell me what I'm doing wrong in this discussion? I've spent a week trying to correct a gross grammatical error in the name of a category, and figure I must be misunderstanding something. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

degree (angle)
I don't really understand your point. To me 366 geometry is the first theory that explains the 360-degree circle correctly. It seems both logical and, in a way, "straightforward," whereas the former theories failed to convince anyone, don't you think? I'd be curious to have your view regarding the origin of the 360-degree circle.--Little sawyer (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One Good Fello
Thanks for your note. I blocked him earlier this evening as, and he returned to make the same edits again. He's been adding some personal opinions about Thomas Fleming to several different articles. I'm not a fan of Fleming, but these were unacceptable edits. I've added a block reason to his user page. If he goes back to making the same edits again when his block expires the pages may need to be protected.  Will Beback   talk    06:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And another, this one a doppelganger: . This guy's determined.   Will Beback    talk    06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DougWeller
Just checking, but I take it that User:DougWeller (with 2 edits) is your account? It's not important, but you might like to leave a not on its user page if it is as there are a few links to it (more than I expected considering the account only has two edits). I came across it while looking at the mess that is the front page of WikiProject Archaeology. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ouch, I'd forgotten that even existed! Yes, I'll do that. Odd about the links. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Peter 2009
Hello Sir

I Made A Small Edit, On The Page Bilderberg Group, And List Of Bilderberg Participants, But Can Not Understand Exactly Why You Have Reverted It. ????. What I Did Is Added Two Names To The Page. I Truly Am Sorry If This Is A Problem But I Would Appriciate A Reply. Thank You And Sorry.

Kind Regards

Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter 2009 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Our policy on living people is that anything controversial about them has to be sourced to a reliable source - please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. We also wouldn't add things like 'high-ranking degree' unless they were sourced, we should not use our own opinions. Take a look at the menu I gave you. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at [WP:RSN]
I have replied to your post at [WP:RSN]. Shazbot85 Talk 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you've restored the edit without substantiating the claims. You've ignored the issues raised and successfully inserted, at best, questionable information about a dead man. Shazbot85 Talk 22:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That simply is not the case. You've been ignoring what others have said, and the SPLC is not the problem you claim it is and there are clearly other sources which say the same thing - a search on Google books turns up quite a few and I see some have now been added. You've also made a number of personal attacks on me. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, now that there has been a good deal of cool down period, I'd like to apologize if I offended you or if I did personally attack you. I hope you you'll forgive me for losing my cool and letting my suspicions get the best of me. Shazbot85 Talk 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A little report
The article Persian war elephants has been vadalized by User:Shahshah39. I thought you should know as as admin.--Jastcaan (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but why did you revert the warning? Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, mistake. Besides hes done my userpage & talk page now. User:Marek69 sorted out the userpage vandalism but i had to sort out talkpage vandalism.--Jastcaan (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Split of E1b1b article
Apparently User:Cadenas2008 also quietly split E1b1b into two articles: E1b1b and E1b1b1. The text of one is now just a few bits of text identical to text equivalent text in the other. I have posted a merge proposal and discussion on the talkpages, and I've also tried to fix some problems in both, but my gut instinct is that this should simply be reverted. Can you please advise whether such an action is even permitted? Is this going to happen everytime a journal article announces a new mutation? One passage which was removed from BOTH the new articles explains how closely linked these two articles are. "A large majority of E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35). Exceptions discovered so far are a few M215 positive/M35 negative ("E-M215*") cases found in a small number of Amharic Ethiopians and Yemeni." In fact it was 2 Amhara and 1 Yemeni. There were 3401 individuals tested in just one such study that would pick up such cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That sort of split should only be made after a consensus has been reached if the article is active. With no consensus, it can be reverted. There is another major issue and that is that any text copied from one article to another with no attribution in the edit summary is a copyright violation. When you copy and paste you must provide an attribution, eg "copied from this article ". That didn't happen there and that has to be fixed. I guess you could revert and then start a discussion, pointing out the copyright problem as well. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd. I see the most edit of E1b1b shows me as having reverted. I did not think I did that. I was playing around with the idea, but it seems odd to do something like that by accident. Am I going mad or is there some other way this can happen? Anyway, I'll leave it and post an explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that sounds reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

New theory
I am glad that you think that relativity is a new, minority point of view. Presumably you have discovered a new theory, replacing relativity. For sources, see any Wikipedia article on relativity. The article on Heliocentrism, for instance, notes that heliocentrism is "not true".


 * Do I gather you are a 'modern geocentrist'? Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a
Hello Doug. I just wanted to say I concur with AndrewLancaster's sentiments on this. The proposed split is, in my estimation, a bad idea. Accompanied by threats to do the same, it is a worse idea. I would also much appreciate if you might look into this when you have a moment. Many thanks and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lancaster's sentiments about the tactics employed on the R1a page. Today it's being suggested that only those with experience working on wikipedia pieces know anything about the English language and structuring an essay – a conclusion with which I vehemently disagree. It seems that some editors here, when things aren't going their way, resort to bullying and insinuation instead. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence
Hi Doug, you are listed as a clerk for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. I just added my evidence, and I'd welcome input on improving the presentation. Miami33139 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done it. You may not like what I've done, but a) it was far too long, and b)what I've cut really wouldn't help you if it was left in. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not done a word count and I will assume your advice on helpful comes from experience. Thanks. Miami33139 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Oppenheimer
Hiya, I added a ref. Just commenting here as I accidently clicked minor edit before saving.Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Warn the other person first
Hi there. I notice you either did not read it or let Hans Adler get away with a worse offense. I have removed your warning from my talk page but responded to him. DinDraithou (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it was more serious advice than a warning, advice from my own experience. What I saw was the diff (hovering with my mouse). I'm very dubious about Oppenheimer myself, but he can't be ignored. You are of course welcome to remove anything from your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to remove my quip, but Hans Adler will not remove what he wrote without a message from someone, and that needs to happen first. Currently, as you may have observed, he is trying to look as important as possible. I guessed you were probably a friend of his the way your advice followed his "advice" but accept that you did in fact not see his initial remarks. I am not typically personal in talk pages and tend to be quite the opposite. If you could say something new on my talk page about this exchange and its future I would appreciate it. DinDraithou (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Your page move without discussion may have been part of this argybargy. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to you here since DinDraithou made it clear that I am not welcome on their talk page.

Perhaps it's just the selectiveness of my watchlist, but I had the impression that DinDraithou is going around Wikipedia removing all references to Oppenheimer they can find and libelling him on the talk pages, while not presenting anything remotely like a real argument. He is also boasting with this at various places and has announced that he is working on a POV fork of the already contentious article Genetic history of the British Isles (an article where he already engaged in a move war without any discussion), an action that would be likely to initiate another huge battle of the Anglo-Irish war on Wikipedia. (Note that he already unlinked the article from Genetic history of Europe.)

I had the impression that he avoids any kind of technical discussion. He claims that nobody takes Oppenheimer seriously, but is not putting forward any evidence at all. That's very odd given that Oppenheimer has a list of relevant publications (even though DinDraithou dismisses them, perhaps because they deal with a different part of the world) in journals of the highest quality, and I have not seen DinDraithou put forth any evidence for that there is anything other than normal scientific dispute with Oppenheimer. It also needs to be noted that Oppenheimer is working in an interdisciplinary subject that touches archaeology, a subject that is so conservative that it's still more of a protoscience than a science. It would be strange to dismiss Oppenheimer based on DinDraithou's arguments without dismissing all archaeologists as well. These things make me suspect that DinDraithou isn't actually very knowledgeable.

On the other hand it's obvious that he feels very strongly about Oppenheimer. Might this be related to DinDraithou's obvious enthusiasm for Celtic culture and the fact that Oppenheimer contradicts some of the dogmas of Celtic nationalism?

If I was wrong on any of this; e.g. if DinDraithou is not just another nationalist but an obvious genetics expert who has given convincing, WP-compatible reasons elsewhere and just got a bit impatient on the articles on my watchlist; or if my remark to DinDraithou stepped substantially out of the boundaries of robust debate as observed by DinDraithou themselves – then please say so clearly. Also if you think DinDraithou's response (now redacted) was commensurate with my provocation. (I am sure it wasn't, but I abhor hypocrisy so much that I wouldn't want to appear hypocritical to anyone I respect.) But if there wasn't anything wrong with my post other than that I applied the tit-for-tat method in dealing with a bully – then I prefer not to redact it. (Diffs for all factual statements available on request; I omitted them as they seem to be easy to find.) Hans Adler 07:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I simply endorse Hans Adler's position on this, and draw your attention to this as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say, he's redacted his reponse after my request that he do so. I haven't looked at all his contributions but I was not happy with his page moves. All I am saying, to everyone, is stick to the facts, guidelines, policies, please. It then makes it easier to deal with other problems and I'm not denying they exist. I'm extremely dubious about any nationalism, particularly Celtic nationalism - I still like Simon James approach, have either of you read his book The Atlantic Celts? Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm someone whose interested in the topic, but (despite his comments) come down neither on one side or the other. I think that's as it should be - the best editors, in my view, are those who do not have very strong views about the "truth" of one side or another in areas of dispute. My concerns about that editor (he's "told" me not to mention his name!) are that he has been and is acting in a highly uncollegiate way, to put it mildly, and certainly could benefit from being shown a WP:CIVIL yellow card.  But, personally, I'm not in the business of exacerbating the situation - I rely on admins' good offices to keep an overview and step in when necessary!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, thanks. He's removed the comment I asked him to remove, which is progress. Now if we can all concentrate on good sources and good balance in the associated articles.... Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle is obviously the sort of user who resorts to reports when he can't get his way, and follows people around trying to discredit them when he knows too little about something. As far as Hans Adler he has yet to remove his own remarks. Do think I am within my rights to report either of them? I suffer from having never tried it and don't know the procedure or guidelines. DinDraithou (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to add my voice to the concerns about DinDraithou a moment ago, but something went awry and I seem to have (unintentionally) deleted some other text. Sorry. Anyway, I think that DinDraithou's lastest personal attack on Ghmyrtle speaks for itself, adding to the litany of provocative edits and talk page comments, for example and . This comes on top of his controversial move without consensus, reverting reverts, a whole catalogue of WP:DISRUPT in recent days. I've asked him to be civil, others have asked him, all to no avail so far.--Pondle (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you tried, others have tried including me. He's not helping himself or his pov (to which he is of course entitled, we all have a pov of some sort). Thanks for trying, don't worry about the unintentional deletion. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pondle, I recall you were on the unsuccessful block team with Ghmyrtle. I haven't touched Genetic history of the British Isles for days but came back to the talk page after being rudely addressed by Hans Adler. Now I respond to Dougweller, telling him I have no interest in bothering with the article anymore, and you're all over me again. I'm a little concerned about you. DinDraithou (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Btw Doug, I'd appreciate an answer about my rights here, and hope you can take further action with Hans. This could go right back into the discussion following Ghmyrtle's report, and/or a report against him/them if continuing to attempt to discredit me in a vague manner. It would be another thing if specifics were brought in or people other than me were doing anything contructive with the articles. Nobody else here is, although Irish people is starting to look nice since an unrelated productive user and I have been working things out there, with a little banter. I still don't see the overall purpose of any of my three accusers here, or what suits them for the discussion if they're not familiar with the issues. DinDraithou (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to say what is spam
You said that my link from the Abraham page was spam. How can it be spam when I sell nothing on my site at all & the link was to a Family tree of Abraham as well as a Timeline. OH Yah I get it, because I'm a Christian & believe that Abraham really existed & base my timeline on Conservative Scholarly data, you liberal christian haters at WAKOPEDIA must delete it because if it's not liberal or condemning the Bible then it doesn't belong on Liberalpedia This is why no one uses WAKOPEDIA it is just a liberal rag for the loony liberal left. I will replace my links I would appreciate it of you left your Anti-Christian bigotry out of your "I'm a god so what ever I say goes" judgments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.221.124 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's a personal website and fails WP:EL. It's also heavily political, as you know. And as you admit it's your site, it's a conflict of interest - see WP:COI. We aren't here to help you promote your site, and since you don't like Wikipedia anyway you shouldn't be bothered by not having a link. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of links to PERSONAL SITES on WAKOPEDIA Hey it even likes to your site & the fact that you delete every thing that isn't Liberal & Christian hating means that you & your site are political as well as KKK style bigoted. I wish you Liberal Christaphobic megalomaniacs at Wakopedia would be honest & just admit that you delete anything that doesn't fit your preconceived misconceptions. I bet if my timelines proved that the Bible was 100% wrong, you wouldn't have called it spam. well have fun on Mt. Olympus with the rest of your egocentric liberal narcissistic Wakopedia dictators. As for me I will continue to post up Informational links to REAL BIBLICALLY CORRECT EDUCATIONAL HELPS even from Public Libraries if need be so ban away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.221.124 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For your information: If you carry out what you are announcing, your site will be added to our spam blacklist, making it technically impossible to add links to your site to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a Christian website, so we don't feel under any obligation to offer the other cheek in such situations. If you weren't blocked now I would ask you how you feel about Jesus' approach to conflicts. I wonder if you think it's just a nice theoretical game, or whether you feel that there might be situations where one should follow his example. I am just trying to understand how Christian minds work. Hans Adler 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

From Adam Vallery... Asking Help Info
Hello Mr. Dougweller. I' am a student at University of Minnesota and my teacher expect me to give a persuasive speech for the class about Racial Profiling. In addition, my teacher she's more likely to expect me to research or found any police officers are breaking the law or been guilty of Racial Profiling. Well, This is speech due on Monday and I thought you could maybe help to found an evidence some police officers are breaking the law by Racial Profiling people..

Thank you for your time. Adam Vallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.78.22 (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam - I'm afraid I can't help you, but we do have a page where you might get some help, please post your question at Reference desk/Humanities Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Nephilim
I didn't kinda lost track and didn't realize I had gone over three reverts. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should go to the ANI page and comment. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or not, the page is semi-protected for 3 days so the IP will not be able to edit it. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

journal of genetic genealogy
Hi Doug. I think you asked me about the JOGG before. The journal has a form of peer review but is not "academic" in the sense of favoring authors who are professional in a specific academic field. So that is ok by WP norms. As per the name, the authors are coming from the background of genetic genealogy which is not a university discipline, but rather an amateur cross over area. However the (amateur) leaders, the ones who get published, in this field are people who can and do hold their own in conversation with geneticists in discussion about the subjects pertinent to their field. So it is no fringe journal, or popularization, and that is also important for how to judge according to WP norms. Many of them, despite not being human population geneticists as such are scientists. For example Ken Nordtvedt did his maths for moon shots at NASA, and frankly he is probably a step or three ahead of the geneticists on the subject of the maths they use. As you undoubtedly know, I have published there, so I have a "conflict of interest". But this also give me authority in saying that I know from correspondence that the journal is known and respected amongst "normal academics". Indeed I believe the journal itself has been commented upon by relatively big name academic population geneticists here: .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rosetta stone
I have changed to text so that it doesn't even have the slightest hint of endorsement, even to the point of removing the quoted text. As is the text simply reports a widely known fact.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pole shift hypothesis
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Granite07 (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's generally considered a bad idea to template the regulars. It is particularly a bad idea to warn someone of 3RR who had only made 1 revert in 24 hours, and 3. And combine that with using 2 IP addresses to replace the same material and ignoring the objections of 4 other editors, plus accusing them of acting in collusion -- not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is 3 IP addresses if you look closely, two are nearly identical, differing only in the last few digits. This is not deceptive only non-stationary. The templating is per the instructions for protocol. The 'if not for' rule applies here. If not for four editors appearing to act in collusion, (two are obvious friends) and two are typically vandalism reverters, your non-collusion claim looks thin at best. This may not be the best idea but the truth and standing for what one believes usually falls out that way. Granite07 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

arb question
should the users who have been mentioned in the evidence be notified that their previous interactions are being discussed? Theserialcomma (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, crossed wires as I didn't realise the lead clerk was temporarily inactive. We'd encourage a neutrally worded comment from the person submitting the evidence, with a link to the section on the evidence page - was this evidence you've submitted or someone else? I emphasise the neutral wording as I'm about to point out to another person that their wording was not neutral. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for welcome (bluedillygal)
It's not as hard as i thought at first. sort of getting the hang of entries. I wish i could find images for my Crop art article (was a stub- i have added content). I am so confused by copyright, etc. tried to understand permissions, etc. so far the only images I have located in Wikimedia or anywhere else are completely lame/inappropriate for my illustrative purposes.Any advice? (Bluedillygal (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

bluedillygal query
Dougweller...Of course, good faith! No personal connection to Stan Herd- just discovered him last week. He is the only major artist I've found that calls himself a "Crop artist". Connection to Lillian Colton Crop/Seed artist interesting to me, and this made me see all of topic in a much in larger frame. Just trying to link them to things that in my mind connect for expansion of thinking purposes. Christo one was a stretch-- but Herd does mention Christo's work as early influence (in Herd's book). The guy- Herd has been quite famous. I can't believe I only just found him when I stumbled onto a 1993 Smithsonian mag. article. His work is nuanced and thoughtful and philosophical has been going on since the 1980s. I started "Crop art" from a plain stub that already had a couple of internal links to things: "visual art" and "seeds", etc. This made me think a contributor could point out connections to whatever seemed to make the topic more complete/extended. Honestly- the existing links on page when I found it were not super enlightening-- not that I would mess with whatever innocuous entry another author had seen fit to create...but I did think: Why do you even need that, isn't it obvious? I was more interested in making leaps to think about topic from various angles.So I am trying to link internally FROM and TO my article to help flow. does that make sense?(Bluedillygal (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I think so. I've suggested on your talk page you create an article on him as adding him to articles is attracting a bit of attention. Also gave you a link to help with your images question. I hadn't seen this when I posted to your talk page so I've struck out the bit I wrote there. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(Bluedillygal (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)) BTW
I emailed Stan Herd and told him I was going to make an entry on Crop art in Wikipedia--and that I wondered if he minded me mentioning him (I don't know the protocol for this) and did he have an image to contribute?. But he hasn't replied. What happened was I picked up the old Smithsonian a couple weeks ago and was very interested in Herd's amazing images and (of course) Wikipedia-ed him- no article. Then looked up "Crop art" also and found just a tiny stub. So I decided to write one, also, I liked the connection to Lillian Colton ('cause she is cool.)Crops/seeds/crops/seeds... and then there's this philosophy part with the preservation of the seeds and the land both. Just trying to give a context for the reason anyone would care about Crop/Seed art... I don't know very much about Herd. I ordered his book used from Amazon and it is a large format photographically gorgeous gem with eloquent explanations of the WHY his art. But other than that- I didn't even know if he was still alive until I found his website and realized it is current.

Causing a lot of talk- oops! Kinda scary. Meant no harm, certainly! (Bluedillygal (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Don't worry about it. I can point you to more help if you want to write an article on him. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Babylon
What was the reason for making the move allowed by administrators only on Babylon? Please place a talkback when you reply underneath here. warrior 4321  04:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was done twice in 2008 by two other Admins, the reason given being page move vandalism. Moving an article like this one really needs discussion and consensus on the talk page, why would you want to move it? Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the reason for -your- decision? I don't see any -recent- page move vandalism. Please provide some diffs. warrior  4321  20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't do anything at all about page move. I was simply adding semi-protection of the article to what already existed. Exactly what is your problem? Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I thought you had added the move=sysop (indefinite). I re-looked at it and understand what happened. Thanks. warrior  4321  21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More bluedilly
Started Stan Herd page per yr. sugg.- just wanted to leave a kind of place holder for others to work on too=- it raised all kinda wikiflags about improper this/that... maybe you could look there? Also- all I want right now is to turn my mla style (I know not wikistyle--) page ref into whatever Wiki wants- but I CAN"T FIGURE IT OUT! How to? EASY-- I am dumb as a box of rocks now certain.(Bluedillygal (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)) (Bluedillygal (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC))PS That ref thing is for everlovin' Crop art page which is better(!) I think than yesterday...(Bluedillygal (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)) (Bluedillygal (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)) Thank you Dougweller. I will try to make all Wikippropriate. Learning as I go here. You are very helpful watcher-over person.(Bluedillygal (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Romulus
Yes, I've identified the fact - to my surprise - that it was you. See the talk section. The whole thing needs to be cut down for sure. It's too much of a long story. Obviously is there is a copyright problem (with a translator of Plutarch) it needs to be rewritten. I thought restoring the flow was necesary as a temporary solution to make the article at least readable. Paul B (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me - I didn't mention the copyright problem but it was something I was concerned about but couldn't prove. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoofed IP addresses + scripts
In the last month or so we have seen a number of incidents, in the ANE area, of article vandalism by what appears to be spoofed IP addresses (either TOR or some equivalent). Also, what appears to be testing of script based editing by those IP addresses has also been seen. Is there some plan for dealing with this kind of thing on Wikipedia or is the IP address blocking scheme now obsolete. Seems that a person using IP spoofing and an automated script could cause major havoc on Wikipedia in short order. Just curious.Ploversegg (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)ploversegg
 * We still block IP ranges. I'd suggest bringing this up at ANI, especially if you have any examples. The script thing bothers me quite a bit, so yes, bring it up at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Oh, as a simple example since it just happened, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/164.116.219.23 Ploversegg (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)ploversegg
 * Interesting. I look forward to your ANI report. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection on AIDS denialism
Mind if I unprotect AIDS denialism (or would you be willing)? It's just one AIDS denialist with a sockpuppet, not too bad compared to some of the coordinated assaults the article has seen in the past. Semiprotection might be good for awhile, but ongoing full protection doesn't seem necessary for one agenda account and his sockpuppet. Up to you - I don't mind waiting the 3 days, but thought I'd ask. Happy Thanksgiving. :) MastCell Talk 05:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wu Sien
After searching the Internet, I believe that Wu Sien refers to 吴宣, a fictional character in a 2009 Chinese TV series: Zheng He's voyages to the Western Ocean (郑和下西洋). You may find the relevant plots about Wu Sien (Wu Xuan) in this TV series at, e.g., this, this, this, and this pages. --Pengyanan (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Zheng He's voyages to the Western Ocean]] isn't about a tv program but definitely should be just a redirect to Zheng He. I found an English mention of the tv series here. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that the current article Zheng He's voyages to the Western Ocean is not about the TV series. I just provide the link to clarify what this TV series is talking about. And I cannot find any evidence to prove that Wu Sien (Wu Xuan) was a real person in history.--Pengyanan (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will check it out. I still don't know how the article got past new article patrol with no references and getting zero google hits. I still don't know why the speedy delete template got removed. Best, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wu Zhong? But I can't match the stuff in the article with what I can find out about him. Thanks Pengyanan, I was confused. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wu Xuan, not Wu Zhong. What have you found about him? I cannot find anything about Wu Xuan except the plots in that TV series. --Pengyanan (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing, just a timeline, probably from the series. I've created Wang Jinghong which needs work. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding versus wikistalking
I think I know the answer, but can I simply add a reference to the arbcom, from this:
 * stalking

to this
 * "stalking"

Maybe everyone wasn't as progressive in 2006 as we are now today? I think I know the answer...let me know and I will do as you ask. I will watch your talk page. Ikip (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm asking everyone, Arbs included, to change their terminology to say Wikihounding. As WP:HOUNDING says, "To use the older term "Wikistalking" for this action is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime." Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yes sir. I am doing it right now. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

*cough*
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:Dream Focus

Request for advice
Re. the circumstances of: Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, is attempting to pursue what is admittedly a content dispute and his question of sourcing issues on ANI. It is both an inappropriate forum for this, and as well quite possibly harassment . Cirt (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could advise Redheylin that ANI is not the proper forum for sourcing questions and content disputes? Cirt (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither of the 'resolved' comments call it a content dispute, and I see comments not by Redheylin that clearly consider it appropriate for ANI. And I see you have said "rather this thread not yet be resolved," so I presume you think it is appropriate there. Having said this I don't plan to do anything more than asking the closing Admin if he still considers it resolved. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User has a long history of such counter-attacks (see User talk:redheylin for example) and this marshalling of admin support to PREVENT investigation of use of bogus references in a snowstorm of bad-faith allegation has now become unacceptable, I believe. It goes well beyond content dispute. It is my understanding that the user's request for adminship encountered substantial concern, ending in a requirement to desist from hostile editing at "new religious movement" related articles. This has not happened. I'd like the whole history reviewed.Redheylin (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redheylin is citing above User_talk:Redheylin. That very thread shows that he was already advised by multiple admins that WP:V can be satisfied without the source itself needing to be on the Internet. Note the comment to Redheylin by Peteforsyth, a review of WP:V is probably in order. Even if a link has gone completely dead, a book citation is still "good." -- It appears that Redheylin still does not understand this aspect of WP:V. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly does not have to be on the Internet. It could even be in, say, Parish records where there is only one copy. That would of course be a bit of a pain, but it seems to be the case. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you advise Redheylin of that in a post to his user talk page please? Btw, he just started yet another thread about me at ANI, with nothing to back up his claims. Again. After already being advised against making unsupported accusations, by admin Georgewilliamherbert. Twice now, Redheylin has claimed I have used what he calls "bogus" sources. He has refused to retract these claims. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate the action you suggest. The admin Georgewilliamherbert made repeated allegations of bad faith but did not address the complaint, then closed the issue as "resolved" (it having been previously so tagged by a non-admin) before I could respond. When I asked for it to be opened again he gave a "final warning" for disruption, then repeatedly demanded unspecified detail. When I had offered as much as I could, including a good deal of repetition, he stopped answering. Yet, although I, Cirt and others have asked to keep the matter open, and although Georgewilliamherbert continued to make submissions (while refusing to withdraw his first counter-allegations) the matter remains tagged "resolved" (twice)! I do not understand the comments beside the tags. The matter is confusing and unsatisfactory.


 * In reference to the above, on unverifiable references, I do not expect them to be web-available EXCEPT where such refs consist merely of web-links (as was the case with those I mentioned above). However, references to articles THE EXISTENCE of which cannot be established on the web or by any other means (such as where Cirt says "I found it on a database" but refuses to say which), particularly when making extraordinary claims, especially with regard to BLP - I cannot see how it acceptable to say "yes it is in a parish record - it's up to you to find out which parish".


 * Correct me if you will about this latter matter. I would like the matter I referred looked into by neutral admins - I consider the closure inappropriate and seemingly non-neutral.Redheylin (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome but...
I think you'll find I've been editing since march. Routerone (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add you've been very judgemental in reverting my edits, however those sources were legitimate as.


 * Whilst the source is a wiki, it is not a public wiki and the wiki mode is for display purposes only and so it can be easily added to by the small band of authors. Editing access is completely restricted publicly and you can't sign up for it.
 * The work on the wiki is that of an official professional foundation
 * The foundation has made books
 * The organisation is 100% independant of the LDS Church

I make my point. Routerone (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you've been editing since March, I still thought a nice menu would be helpful. Some good faith would have been nice. I understand your point, but since at least one of the links seems to use Wikipedia as the main source, I'll probably take it to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi. :) Now that I'm back at my home base, since it was a courtesy notice which is sort of almost a template, I thought I'd let you know that I had replied to your message at User talk:Moonriddengirl. :) And to make it completely unnecessary for you to read it, I'll just restate here for the record that I can't imagine it would be controversial to restore the history of Country mile if the content that was there would be useful to you in your new article. And I'll add to that, as I've now had a chance to read over the deletion review request from a decent connection with more time to spare, that if you didn't want to write the article yourself but just thought that the lack of an article is a problem, that a soft redirect to country mile might serve. I know if the link is redlinked, contributors are more likely to actually create a usable article for the space, but in the meantime, those unfamiliar with the expression looking for information about it on Wikipedia will be able to easily access it. So far as I can tell, the redlink theory won't make much difference, as it currently is not linked from any articles. Oh, and I appreciated the personal note. Generally, a deletion review leads one to wonder what one has done wrong, and it was nice of you to take the time to tell me that you thought my actions were proper under the circumstances. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That had me confused until I found out you'd seen 'Dweller' and replied to me, an easy mistake as I've used 'dweller' elsewhere, just not on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Duh! You should see my blush. :D I need to pay better attention Well, anyway, for the record, Dweller was very nice about his note. LOL! Thanks for letting me know, and I'll go copy this to its proper home. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

M2m2m2 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wolter comment
Please be advised that self-publication is the normal route for highly controversial topics. Also, be advised that the fastest growing publication channel is the web, which has absolutely no peer-review at all. Sadly, most of the peer-reviewed literature in most reference libraries is trivial, derivative, and dogmatic - 'tenure' has a political price. A glance at the ISI publications impact ratings will quickly show that 99.9 per cent of all 'scholarly' publications are a waste of paper. They are written and published to ensure the authors of their tenure rights with an organization, not because they are of any real value.

FROM WIKIPEDIA: about self-published works:  see list below, the original writings of William Blake, Virginia Woolf, Walt Whitman, William Morris, and James Joyce. Spartacus by Howard Fast (during the McCarthy era when he was rejected by previous large scale publishers) The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield A Choice, Not An Echo by Phyllis Schlafly [8] The Joy of Cooking by Irma Rombauer What Color is Your Parachute? by Richard Nelson Bolles Poems by Oscar Wilde In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters Chicken Soup for the Soul by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen The Christmas Box by Richard Paul Evans Invisible Life by E. Lynn Harris The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward Tufte Contest by Matthew Reilly Eragon by Christopher Paolini [9] (The book was later published by Knopf) Other well-known self-publishers include: Stephen Crane, E. E. Cummings, Deepak Chopra, Benjamin Franklin, Zane Grey, Rudyard Kipling, D. H. Lawrence, Thomas Paine, Edgar Allan Poe, Ezra Pound, Carl Sandburg, George Bernard Shaw, Upton Sinclair, Gertrude Stein, Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman and Mark Twain. M2m2m2 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically a list of novelists, poets, and kooks/fringe writers. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

clerking
Hi, regarding this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew_one_year_unban_review/mentors_page&diff=328745934&oldid=328741601

Actually I ran it by Penwhale for a thumbs-up before posting. The context is Moreschi's most recent posts, particularly at the bottom of this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew_one_year_unban_review/mentors_page#Ottava_Rima.27s_statement

Highlights: "It's bullshit" "telling them all they knew nothing of a subject of which you yourself know jack shit"

Both I and Penwhale politely asked him to reconsider. Penwhale's words: "Just like to point out that (1) Cool Cat is now White Cat, (2) if things aren't looking up, maybe it's time to take a step back and relax rather than actually having to curse in a public thread? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)"

Moreschi's reply included: "the reasons behind this bullshit needs to be dragged into the light of day"

Now I don't mean to paint a halo over anyone else's head, but Moreschi is in a mentorship role here. If Jack Merridew followed that lead he'd get in hot water quickly.

Problem is, how does one turn the heat down without running the risk of spreading drama? A clerk noticeboard thread could backfire. So I contacted Penwhale offsite and asked him to look at it. He formed his own opinion and agreed. As you can see, Penwhale wasn't any more persuasive than I was. So we put our heads together and I started that subthread with the intention of resolving the problem without putting the spotlight on anyone and with a bit of humor. Penwhale saw the opening post and agreed that it was more likely to have the desired effect than anything else either of us could think of.

Respectfully, Durova 371 07:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that another clerk has marked this resolved at the Clerks' board. But you've put back the fly. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove it and find another way to make your point if you need to still make it. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The silent ones
Howdy Dougweller. I understand your frustrations with un-responsive editors. It's certainily destroys the atmosphere of collaboration & just plain being social. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Caucasian Ainu
Hi Doug!

As an anthropologist, I have thoroughly studied the evolutionary history of the Ainu subspecies of humans. Even though they are not evolved from the main branch of European caucasians, it is widely believed that the Ainu subspecies shared a common recent ancestry with perhaps some subpopulation of Eastern European caucasians that were residing in East Asia several thousand year ago, as evident in the caucasian mummies of western China in Xinjiang. As such, the terms caucasian are best applied to describe the evolutionary and morphological similarities the Ainu people have with other European caucasians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.219.178 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to reflect the article, and that reflects the genetics. You simply can't have a lead that contradicts the rest of the article, and I see no reliable sources (by our standards at WP:RS) saying that they are Caucasian, whatever that means. You really need to use edit summaries, but in this case you need to take it to the talk page of the article and gain consensus. If you keep reverting you'll hit WP:3RR. An account would be a good thing too. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

good catch
that genealogy spamsite's insane. Not only is it a scam, that tree's pure nonsense. Everything before Pepin II, charlemange's father, is just famous names that let him navigate all over, and it seems to stop in egypt at the point in time where young earth creationists would say it has to stop, without ever tying into A&E. He can't even be a member of his own society. ThuranX (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

History of England
I agree with your note, except that to me the History of England can't begin before the beginnings of England in the 5th and 6th centuries. I suspect there's little point in fighting this battle, as all this much earlier stuff would just keep coming back. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

R1a
Hi Doug. Can you have a look at a potential problem? I do not know if you'd be aware of it, but R1a has been the subject of a lot of work, mostly positive I think, and then recently two new articles arrived in the literature, which made the editing job a bit confusing, and this seems to have annoyed one editor. A situation has arisen now because User:Pdeitiker first proposed, and then made, a massive change to the article, trying to distinguish R1a's rare siblings into a separate article from the most common clade within R1a, which is what most authors mean by "R1a". He also bizarrely moved all recent discussion on R1a to the talkpage of the secondary article. He asked for opinions, and received disagreement, , which he apparently ignored. After looking at the result of the splits, and realizing that neither of the two articles were in a coherent state, and that the talkpages had become useless, alarm bells were rung,. His responses are obviously in bad faith, because when they were responded to he changed the excuses. What it now clearly comes down to is that we should not just be blindly accepting what is published. I then later reversed this split, also trying to answer at least some of his concerns, and also returned material back to the original talk page. This has resulted in repeated demands now that other Wikipedians have until Saturday to appease Pdeitiker, or else he'll revert to his split versions. The main threads of talkpage discussion are here:, , , ,. This User is a good faith editor, who does normally like wikilawyering or anything like that, and I would like this to calm down and get practical, but I thought it worth mentioning because some of the comments are getting silly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest further observation. The talkpage tone and the main page editing are getting uncivil in a very childish way. Other editors are starting to disappear. My attempts to communicate are now being constantly met with the old school boy trick of avoiding response with "you are upset because..." answers . PB666 is threatening to keep reverting one section I've mentioned as being in error, unless I work on other things instead. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The critical error in these works which you fail to place on the page is that they have not done true sequence comparisons between clades, for example R1a1a* and any R1b*. That is part of explaining why there is differences to the layman. Since you don't want to do that I created a cladogram that implies that is what is going on."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that PB666 feels it is unquestionable that people should defer to him on everything including writing style, but his editing is terrible. How do you tell someone that without being "personal"? Discussion has become very blocked:- "I repeat this, you are not going to get me to back off on pushing the readability aspects of the article, I am doing this for your own improvement such that in future you can do this with Y-DNA pages by yourself. I have had the almost same discussions with older editors (3 years back) that you are having with me now." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:DRV, see if there is anything there you thin you can use. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I see the relevance. The article split proposal might have been a trigger for worse communication but it is not being disputed anymore.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a WP policy on people who think they are kung fu masters putting apprentices through hoops in order to make them stronger? :) See, just for examples from today--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page will not self-improve if you also do not self-improve.
 * Again, this should be your baby, and there are about 6 days left before GA occurs, if by that time we haven't gotten around the basic issues of style and working, then I might replace the sections. However I would hope that you will take the initiative at this point, looking at other GA articles and these edits go about making the repairs yourself. I will focus on the lede, henceforth.

I would like admin opinion on at least a couple of issues: Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very intensive use of hidden notes expressing personal opinions within the main text of the article. I have been removing many of them.
 * A big point is being made about the fact that Wikipedia demands that the lede must be bigger than what we have right now. PD is insistent that we are therefore forced to insert material there which largely duplicates material in the main body.
 * The assigning of deadlines, as in the diff mentioned above. (For the two other questions any look at the article and talkpages involved should show you what I mean fairly quickly.)

Doug, I believe that the ONLY discussions on the R1a talkpage right now are about interpretation of Wikipedia norms, both in terms of editing and also acceptable talkpage behavior. I can't seem to break out of that. We really need some outside input on these things at least. It seems everything I propose or do is being described as being in violation of PB666's interpretation of some rule somewhere, with no discussion possible. And indeed I'd say most of his postings currently really are in violation of the spirit and letter of Wikipedia, but maybe I'm crazy. (The long long postings of PB666 are largely devoid of relevance to anything, but I can understand how they make Wikipedians feel unqualified to comment.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Doug, a familiar sounding user just appeared at the R1a talkpage, User:HonestopL. Looks like Cyrus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jog my memory please - maybe a link to Cyrus's contributions? Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant User:Cosmos416.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PDeitiker is becoming more of a man on a mission out to make a point now: then to this. His attempt to call for GA review as way to apply pressure during silly content disputes blew up in his face, as it had to, and this has led to an increase in problems. What his real point is, is difficult to define. The nominal target keeps changing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just left with a headache. I know I hate infoboxes. I really just don't understand the subject well enough to know what this is all about. If it were archaeology or history, sure, but genetics? Sorr. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * :) the reading I just gave you will be sure to make you feel more positive right? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe these cases should be easier to follow for you:, --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to think how I can avoid having to respond to the accusations and distortions. I was wondering what the feeling is about simply deleting pointlessly long or pointlessly argumentative posts if they keep coming and the disruption is obvious? (I imagine that if you asked people to name which ones come under this category on the R1a page there would be little disagreement about some of them.) My first impression is that this will not be accepted by the community?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Please don't delete them. And with respect, language such as 'fantasy accusations', right or wrong, doesn't help your case, especially if you go for a RfC on him (which would need someone else such as Marmaduke Percy). Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone to ANI twice. Language such as "fantasy accusations" is about as far as I go, compared to the increasingly hateful and obviously deliberately disruptive language of PB666. If anything though, it seems to work for him like a magic "wall of invisibility" keeping admins away from him. He cites the ANI cases now as being on his side! And who is going to bother to look things up? So far this morning he has expounded almost 20,000 bytes worth on the R1a talk page. He is openly gloating over his power to disrupt now, and it is aimed largely at me personally: "The thing is here, I am the one person he can't deal with".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like an admin opinion about this usage of the comments option on the R1a article:. The record shows that PB666 is using such comments, and also making reviews about the quality of articles he is working on and/or disputing about. He then refers to reviews during disputes as if they were done by someone else, and more generally he quite frequently writes during disputes as if "people are watching". I have raised it with him on the talk page, and he has now reduced the size of these particular remarks but they seem to be things that should just be worked on either on the talkpage or else by simply trying to find better wordings etc. He quite openly objects to the idea that people should be able to post their reasons for disagreeing with the comments. When I tried to open discussion on the talkpage he accused me of "getting all peeved about the 3 remaining comments, and then going biserk" and "carrying on the war ... working his Maelstorm". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

question
Hello, I disagree with your decline on the ANI I had started. It was fully valid, and time should not make a difference. The fact is that the user is incivil and he was in fact engaged in a edit war so stale does not come into the question. But to the point, If I am unhappy with your application of rules and WP in terms of the equality rule, then is there anyplace I appeal your decision? Just answer here as it is easier for me to keep track this way. Hope this is ok. Fragma08 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ANI3 is for violations of WP:3RR. How would blocking someone over 10 days later help? Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it would make a statement instead of leaving it unaddressed, as the behaviour will simply continue only stronger. My understanding from reading on wikipedia, is that the administrators, when encountering an edit war, should block all particpating parties. Being kind of new, I only learned this now, hence I initiated the ANI. I understand you disagree due to lapse of 10 days, but still. Fragma08 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We block to prevent further problems, not to punish. Take a look at Blocking policy#Purpose and goal. Yes, if you read the Administrator guidance at WP:3RR (which I advise you to do if you haven't so far), we can block for "deterrence and forceful education to reduce the likelihood of future occurrence in the face of repeat behavior." Hipocrite has never been blocked for editing warring (his only block is a 1 second block for technical reasons in 2007), and he hasn't been particularly active on that article since you were blocked. In addition, we take potential BLP violations extremely seriously (have you read WP:BLP? So if you ever get reverted for a BLP violation, please stop and discuss it on the talk page.
 * The fact remains, when two people are in an editwar then both must be blocked. That was not the case and this is problematic as this indicates favourism/bias. The reason for the user's inactivity is simply, because he got his way i.e. the version he wanted, so he owns the article: threat to neutrality and will continue to be the minute the article is reverted. User also sought the article deleted, in vain. So this would have been his first and very legitimate block for 3RRR. His lack of being blocked for 3RRR previously, is irrelevant. Neither have I ever been blocked before, might I mention. The future threat hence remains. There was no BLP violation as a person can not be defamed by his own words which was also confirmed by an administrator so this claim makes no sense. It does not appear that wikipedia takes 3RRR violations seriously when it comes to certain editors. There was a 3RRR breach by the user. That needs to be addressed irrespective of his past blocks. I have done everything according the WP to the best of my knowledge but been told to "get the fuck out" etc. Therefore it is severely disappointing that I am being falsely accused, when pointing out the lack of action taken against another user who made 4 reverts in 1 hour. I do not understand the protectionist stance as several editors have pointed out to the user his behavioural problems. Fragma08 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless your report was stale - ANI is the correct forum for complaining about my decline if you are still unhappy, but I don't think anyone would have given him a 3RR block at this point. If the dispute on the article picks up again, past behaviour of editors would normally be taken into account. I can't comment on why Hipocrite wasn't blocked at the time obviously since that wasn't mentioned in the decision. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some action ought to be taken to make him aware of his incivility, refusal to discuss while simultanously 3RRR and baseless arguments for 3RRR. Question of principles. His reverts are vandalism from a BLP POV. There was awareness of his 3RRR violation sadly, yet it was not addressed, which becomes an separate issue on its own. Is there no other option than ANI, as I fear the bias may be a problem as much indicates that some administrators are protecting him which should not be the case. Fragma08 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the AN notice
I will be posting a reply forthwith (within the next few minutes). Thank you. I am sorry if this is the incorrect place to notify you that I got your message. Moogwrench (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I had placed my reply to the ANI issue on the ANI board. Again, sorry if this is the incorrect place to notify you, I really don't know, since I never have had to deal with this before. Moogwrench (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please
Please, stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.23.253.111 (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are clearly, indefinitely blocked by another Aministrator- all you need to do is ask to be unblocked and be willing to discuss your edits - and start using reliable sources as references, etc. You need to learn to work with others if you wish to edit here. So far as I can tell you have something to add to Wikipedia if you are willing to work with others and follow our guidelines and policies. But so long as you evade your block, expect your edits to be reverted, blocked editors can't edit, that's the purpose of the block. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Albert Stubblebine
I notice you deleted the text I had appended to the paragraph dealing with General Stubblebine's testimony in the documentary "One Nation Under Siege". I find it very unfortunate that you deemed it necessary to also remove the link to the YouTube document I copied it from. I am not at all familiar with all those copyright concerns, although I know they do exist. In this particular case, I doubt very much that the copyright owner would object to having someone linking a Wikipedia article to a YouTube excerpt from his movie. He could more understandably object to YouTube distributing the video than for someone just linking to it. It seems to me that since he doesn't seem to object to the video being freely accessible on YouTube, it is very unlikely that he would object to someone merely providing a link to the publicly available document on YouTube.

That being said, I fail to see why the phrase mentioning that "he states that a Boeing 757 airplane could not have crashed into The Pentagon on September 11, 2001" was allowed to remain. What is the logic here? That information comes straight from the video. Why did you delete his views about the free press having become very expensive since 9/11 and kept intact those about the Boeing at the Pentagon ?

Is it because I faithfully transcribed what he said word for word? If that is the case, would it be acceptable to mention his thoughts if I summarized them in my own words? Oclupak (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to reply, I've responded on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with Yongle
Hi Doug. Looks like I'm becoming involved in the problems with. Please have a look at the actions of. Seems to be yet another puppet, whether sock or meat I cannot tell. I have reported him to the administrators at WP:ANI, but I don't feel competent to undertake a clean-up. Favonian (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Piri Reis
Hi! First of all: it's not Resi but Reis, which is explained in Reis. Secondly, as an admin, you must well know what this cat is supposed to be. If you really wanna know, check please cats for notable people. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what a Reis is, but your category was Piri Resi and see Piri Reis map which still has a red link to it. So, a typo, right? I thought ok, maybe I've missed something and there is a word 'Resi'. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see now, İ didn't realize it. My bad. Sorry my comments. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

YtG
Thanks for the note. Short of continuing to WP:RBI until they start to communicate, I don't know what else to suggest. The IPs are close enough that a rangeblock might be appropriate, but I've never done one and don't know what sort of collateral damage is acceptable - I wouldn't want to take out the entire country :) If they are static IPs that makes it easier, but at the moment I suppose we just have to wait and see. I've tagged the socks you mentioned. The only additional measure I can think of is article semiprotection; I realise there are quite a few articles involved, but it would curtail the IP editing. If we make it unproductive enough for them to continue evading the block, they may eventually be brought to the table. EyeSerene talk 13:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm slowly doing that. Not something I really want to do, but the only practical way to stop this disruption. There's not much else you can do when an editor won't discuss their edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I had wondered if there were language issues, but they seem to be able to produce article text readily enough. EyeSerene talk 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The redlink already existed in the sock templates I'd added to the accounts I was aware of; I don't know if I got them all though. I've created the listing page, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yongle the Great, so in future all anyone need do is tag their accounts with and the account will automatically be added to the category. Hopefully the rangeblock will help.  EyeSerene talk 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, how about confirmed sockpuppets such as user:Emperor of China, shall I use it anyway? Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created that category too (not done much actually - if you follow the redlink from a sock template on a user page and add to the blank category page, then save, it auto-detects whether they're suspected or confirmed and creates and populates the page accordingly). We now have two cats:
 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yongle the Great
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yongle the Great
 * As long as any future socks are tagged with the right version of sock, the pages will maintain themselves. Only one other thing - you only really need to add the template to the userpage, not the talkpage (it creates a double listing in the category otherwise). EyeSerene talk 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks. I've been sticking to the user page today. :-) Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh :) I've also just tagged User:Yongle the Great as the sockpuppeteer account, so hopefully everything's in place that should be. You're very welcome, anyway. It can be a bit of a pain dealing with editors like this; some of us are chasing one around various milhist articles at the moment, and it's not much fun when there's other things you'd rather be doing. Still, Wikipedia attracts all sorts... :P EyeSerene talk 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This Yongle fellow & his increasing number of socks might need a range block. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm working with Nishkid64 who has blocked 123.23.240.0/20 for five days. And I agree, EyeSerene, I've got more constructive ways to spend my time. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
Don't you spell artifact with an "i"? Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 07:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Archaeology/archeology, artefact/artifact, both are correct. Artifact is not a spelling used in British English but artefact and artifact are both used in American English. You will sometimes see the ae spelling for archaeology and the i spelling for artifact together. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue
You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk advice please
Despite the arbitration, Tothwolf is doing large scale removals of edits I previously did, usually with no edit summary. On the discussion page he isn't answering why, but is telling me to fuck off and accusing me of paid editing. . The paid editing accusation has no evidence in the arbitration and is a particularly egregious assault on my character - this community despises it as Jimbo has said it is never acceptable. I do not know how long this situation can simmer if the arbitration continues at idle. Is there anything that can be done in the mean time to make the attacks and revert warring stop? Miami33139 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC) As for large scale removals, exactly how many articles are part of this "large scale removal"? 2+2=5(?)... What's to say I've not provided evidence of your sponsored editing Miami33139? You are the one who made several mistakes, the first being to engage in such editing with a clear and absolute conflict of interest. I and others also told you to leave me alone and disengage but even during the arbitration process you've continued to follow my contributions and prod/AfD my past contributions purely for harassment purposes. You have not and are not fooling anyone, Miami33139. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:SMirC-stoned.svg|24px]] If UrbanDictionary.com is now considered to be a reliable source then there are several articles I need to go add citations to.
 * If you have made evidence of my being a paid editor, please show it to me. I am not a paid editor. Miami33139 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, email it to Arbcom, this discussion has to stop, I've commented at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence and Tothwolf's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Doug, now, I know you may not personally like what I have to say here, and while I'm going to keep my comments here civil they are going to be quite matter of fact. To put it bluntly, I feel as clerk you really should be taking a much more objective view of things and not taking the continued trolling of myself by Theserialcomma (who has been warned and told to disengage repeatedly by other administrators previously; see their talk page history ) as anything more than baseless trolling. Despite being warned, Theserialcomma continues to troll, wikihound, follow my contribs, prod/AfD articles from my contribs, and make false statements. None of this has yet to be addressed and I've provided plenty of evidence of these continued behaviours on the case's Evidence page that shows these behaviours continuing even during the Arbcom proceedings. Theserialcomma even did it here as well while following my contribs. There are many other administrators, both on-wiki and off-wiki, who have since been made aware of both Theserialcomma and Miami33139's continued behaviours, so this will no longer be happening in a vacuum anyway. Considering that I've never been blocked, never been threatened with a block, and have not, nor have I even attempted to "out" anyone, I think you are going overboard with your comments here and here   where you threaten me with a block for "outing". Considering Miami33139 has taken to harassing Hm2k now, and even moved sandbox articles from Mabdul's userspace to articlespace (an attempt to change from MfDing user pages to AfDing articles), someone really should be taking a much harder look at what Miami33139 has been up to. Now, while I fully understand that you have a lot going on which has left you limited time to deal with issues relating to this case, this case is not the simple case people initially thought it would be and it really needs more attention directed its way. In the interest of stopping the disruptive behaviours from Theserialcomma and Miami33139, I suggest a proposal of an injunction for Miami33139 and Theserialcomma based on the actual evidence provided in the Arbcom case (which has been provided by both myself and others) that shows the continued patterns of harassment and gaming the system from these two specific editors. If you wish to reply to my comments above, I'll gladly follow up with you here, otherwise I think what I've said above pretty much covers things and I intend to leave it at that. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) The original working name for the RFAR was "Hounding of Tothwolf" (RFAR link), however Manning Bartlett went with a shorter name when he opened the case after it was accepted  (case name discussion). Considering that you've taken to harassing and wikihounding multiple editors (too many to name) and even administrators (such as Jéské Couriano, Georgewilliamherbert, and even SarekOfVulcan), with your last baiting attempt of Nukes4Tots leading to you being blocked, I'm not really surprised at all by your actions towards me. Are you going to even attempt to explain this edit (which has also been presented as evidence  in the Arbcom case)? Theserialcomma, let me also be quite blunt with you: I'm not afraid of you or your bullying. Try as you did to find my identity and information about me to use to out, bully, and threaten me, you failed to find anything (although you certainly left quite a paper trail during your efforts). --Tothwolf (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To follow up with you on your comments and concerns, I already emailed Arbcom so we can certainly leave it at that.
 * I do however want to point out my comment here (which Miami33139 has removed  and "moved") where I said: "That's all I intend to say about this issue." "[...] discussing this further will be a WP:STICK issue." That should have made it readily apparent that I had already said what I needed to say and that I intended to leave it at that. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * tothwolf, this is why you must be blocked for bad faith accusations. you claim i made this comment: [] by following your contribs. did you ever think that maybe i found that comment, instead of via your contribs, but through the public arbcom case against you? did you honestly forget about the arbcom case where this information was posted? this is an egregious violation of civility and failing to assume good faith, especially in the face of the timestamped evidence against you. while the right thing would be to retract your bad faith accusations in the face of this obvious evidence, the more pertinent issue is that you stop threatening to out people with erroneous information. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either. You already know the case was not filed against me, it was filed on my behalf by Jehochman against yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system.

Doug, what is the procedure to see this secret evidence? Miami33139 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Secret evidence
 * You ask the arbitrators. E-mail us at the address at WP:ARBCOM. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to all the above (posting here as an arbitrator) - please post evidence at the case pages, not here. Engaging in an argument on the talk page of the case clerk won't help matters at all. If you want to discuss the evidence or conduct of parties in this case, please do that at the case talk pages and not here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Laura Grimblay
Good point. I left a comment on User talk:Laura.grimblay about it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk procedures
I think that the is an obsolete version of the template. On the proposed decision template, it has. It seems that the two templates do the same thing, so I took an educated guess that that was the version I needed to subst ;-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
 * ACMajority is the template used on the proposed decision page to indicate the majority. ACA is the template used on the proposed decision talk page to list the status of arbitrators. The former is only needed during the case, and what is needed when the case is closed is effectively a copy-paste of what it says at that point. After a case closes, the ACA template needs to be substituted to show who voted on the case and (importantly) who was recused. This is important when additional motions are later proposed during requests for clarification and amendment. In my view, substituting dumps unnecessary code and extra bits on the page. Copy pasting the relevant bits does just as well for both templates. The important thing is that the page is preserved in the state it was when the case closed. If the templates are left as they are, then future changes to the template can change what is displayed, which is not good. Hope that was a clear explanation. Doug, if Lankiveil doesn't see this, could you point him towards it? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very clear, thanks. I'll probably revise the Procedures page tomorrow on the basis of this. I've pointed Lankiveil to this. And thanks for your help above. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Boas and Jews
Thanks for the heads up. My activity is down now beacause of RL but I will try to keep an eye on it, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Astrologer
From AN/I: I had a lovely attack this morning from an 'astrologer' on an article talk page, " I here by send out my prayer that such people including Dougweller personally be slaughter by God between now and Feb 2. ". Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC) So waitaminit: don't "astrologers" pretty much nix the whole NOTION of "God"? And doesn't the Bible put the kibosh on all that "sorcery"-type stuff? Methinks your "astrologer" may be a bit off....GJC 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thermopylae...again
Hi there,

I'm having some trouble with the Battle of Thermopylae infobox again&mdash;as you may have seen. An IP address user made some changes which I reverted because they were, I felt, unhelpful. However, after some to-ing and fro-ing, their purpose has become relatively clear - to insert as low an estimate as possible for the Persian army into the infobox.

Predictably enough, the IP user is now claiming to be a professional historian, and demonstrating their thoroughly "professional" conduct ; ;.

Whilst this is not vandalism, it is certainly disruptive editing, and all too reminiscent of good old Ariobarza. I'm fairly sure it isn't Ariobarza, since the IP address is registered in Croatia (Ariobarza seemed to live in the US, but who knows). However, I had a very similar run-in with a now banned user, User:Orijentolog (whose IP address was also in Croatia) a few months ago, regarding a different infobox. The style of insults was very similar.

To cut a long story short, I'm after advice. Do you think it would be reasonable to get check-user run on this IP address/addresses? They seem to change their IP address everyday, so I'm not sure if it would actually be possible (no idea how the system works). To me, it seems like a good possibility that they are a banned user, but I'm not really sure what the burden of proof needs to be.

Best, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone else has had the same thought and the IP has been blocked as a sock of Orijentolog. Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, I thought I'd replied. I had a crash which must have been at the same time. I was going to block if only because of the edit summaries but it was already blocked. I wrote that I'll try to keep tabs on it but let me know if there are further problems. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)