User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 28

Template:Yazdânism
Dough please leave your opinion on talk page because I nominated template for deletion. Yazdanism is just nationalistic religion-irredentist concept claimed by one disputable scholar (Izady), and making series-templates on such basis really makes Wikipedia look like kindergarden. --109.165.207.188 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

request for restoration
can you restore Christmas Island cuisine? it was essentially entirely rewritten by another editor and passed an AfD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Entirely? Hm, yes, entirely. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks! (and i should have linked the AfD cause it was bundled Articles for deletion/Vatican cuisine ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys - wondering if the old version of the talk page could be restored too? I had left a note there with another great source and I'm not sure if I can find it again. Hist merge at least? I can drag it back out then. Thanks! Stalwart 111  22:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant, thanks! Stalwart 111  06:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Stable date style being changed by new account SPA, possibly a returning user
Please see Talk:Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site and, which suspiciously reminds me of the guy who started these Talk:Cahokia and Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 4,. The SPA is obviously not a new user, but a returning one.  He  iro 02:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Mkdw talk 08:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Ascents of James
Not much that can be done about the DYK at this point. The set the article was a part of was rotated off the Main page at 08:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC). --Allen3 talk 17:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Paul Bedson sock?
Based on the format of the userpage and the timing of the account creation, I'm wondering if User:Emile Largo may be another Paul Bedson sock. If so, there are also a few recently created pages to be deleted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, clearly. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look here, too: Accents of James. --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Archaeoastronomy Problem
Doug,

I just came across this new WikiProject that was founded by a new editor in the course of the last two days. He added over 300 members to the WikiProject with no indication he had consulted them. You were among them. I'm trying to tidy this up before it gets out of hand; could you let me know whether you were contacted before you were "volunteered" to join.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that the list was lifted wholesale from WP:AST (many of whom are retired or inactive, based on a little random sampling), sign-up timestamps and all, with the content of WP:WikiProject_Archaeology/Participants likewise appended.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Read a few of the posts above to guess who this new editor is! Bedson, of course. Dougweller (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for resolving that so quickly; I had expected spending the morning cleaning up the mess. Well done! SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Great Zimbabwe (Murdock?)
With regard to your instruction not to make any edits at GZim which could be regarded as "Original Research" - would that prohibition apply to re-inserting George Murdock as another possible adherent of the 'Lemba' theory? - for example by including [my earlier]: "...The Lemba claim to Great Zimbabwe was supported by Murdock((ref name="Murdock"))((/ref)) and by Gayre ..." --DLMcN (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A request, not an instruction. Replied at the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ascents of James
Though it may have been a sockpuppet article, it was well supported by references. Why should we deny wikipedia a decent article? IMO, we should retain it as it clearly meets notability. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a sock puppet who creates literally dozens of socks and hundreds of articles, some clearly vandalism, doesn't get special treatment. He also created "Accents of James" - note the spelling - which another Admin deleted. No one can check all his articles and he's known to misuse sources and to create silly articles for a laugh. You are free to create a new article in userspace and ask an Admin to move it for you. It would almost certainly be a better article than his. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-english explorers
Thanks for the assist at United States restoring my previous edit on non-english explorers. I'm a retired school teacher with a bias for representing diversity and inclusion, not that I think I can be comprehensive or exhaustive, but because I think it is more useful to understanding how things came to be and how things work and how things change.

Lots of my previous edits over the last two years is evaporating recently. Sometimes it's at the hands of big-hat editors two sizes bigger than mine. Sometimes it's just new association members of a group with an IP address who like their flag and have no respect for history. There ought to be a way of making some facts in an article greater tamper-proof, such as the info box? Or the Introduction? Then if the article has accumulating changes in the text, there could be a multi-administrator (to guard against WP:OWN) oversight of a six-month or annual review to re-evaluate overall style and substance, editing infobox and introduction for a limited time.

I wish I had a better handle on how to craft the encyclopedia style and article scope. The discouragement for editor-writers is after the interest and pleasure of research, writing and collaboration, the work can be so easily forfeit in the blink of an eye, in spite of "watchlist" and an ongoing interest in the subject area. Thanks again for allowing something about Spanish and French and Russian early settlement in the places that would become the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. That was removed by an editor who tried to present the Institute for Historical Review from the point of view of its website, removing all criticism and the mention of holocaust denial. What you suggest isn't possible I'm afraid. What might be a good idea is to start a discussion on the article's talk page about what you think needs to be in the article but at the moment is missing. I'm taking a wikibreak starting today for most of the month so won't be able to participate, but I will look at it when I come back. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just noticed your block. You do realise now that the block was correct I hope. It doesn't matter if you were right or wrong, you broke WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I acknowledged as much on the blocking administrator's talk page in apology and explanation. Another fella broke the same rule not three but seven times, but I did not call it first? yuk. And the wording I want is the outcome of the dispute resolution, his overturns it. But the fella (Golbez) does lots of other things which are really good, so I just need to learn more before I go back at it again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey Dougweller; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock's page deleted
The article Ascents of James was deleted by you on 5th & 6th May. It had featured on Main Page in DYK as the bold link. Is created-by-a-sock such a grave reason to delete content that was found featurable once? I hadn't read the article. So i can't judge anything on the content. Just came across it while strolling in the archives. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Followup
Hi, Did you ever get round to setting up some kind of workgroup for fringe archæology? I still think it's a great idea. bobrayner (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — 2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:8 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  watchful eyes

Thank you for keeping your eyes on articles and reverting vandalism, for inviting to discuss, for greeting new editors, for boxing yourself nicely, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (4 October 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Move Sabur Khan
Dear Sir,

Sabur Khan article was deleted you visit using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabur_Khan link. Now what I can do? Please guide me to futher development.

Thanks

--Alam5131 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC) be

Coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEgyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques&diff=533265186&oldid=533225458

Man, you should be more open minded for the good of the wiki. As u point, the pyramid is itself in the center of the land surface. And his meridian crosses more land than any other. To believe that all this is a coincidence is at least a poor poor consideration. --Kim for sure (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So long...
My time will be up tomorrow, for it is time to move on. I would like to wish you well. By the time you come back and read this, the user signature will read VanishedUserABC.. because I will be history, in more ways than one... Take care. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
I see you've been victimising poor old Scott Wolter as well. What on earth have you got against these highly-respected experts? :-) Seriously - been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.  Apparently I am "a sad little person" who "makes award-winning authors jump through hoops"!  How on earth I managed that I don't know.  Don't let the b******* grind you down.Deb (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

More Madoc
Have you seen Gwennan Gorn, created by the same editor who brought us Moon-eyed people and using a lot of the typical sources?--Cúchullain t/ c 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * POV language, and a lot of rubbish sources. The article appears to be a content fork from Madoc and should be redirected, with a mention of the ship in Madoc's article. Hobsbawm's book at mentions this and can be used.

Even a lot of that is rubbish, eg "One historian of the late twelfth century recorded that the Gwennan Gorn was constructed from oak trees of Nant Gwynant." Historian? Then why is his book self-published by Trafford? There was no "Zella Armstrong Willem", the 'Willem' seems to be an error, but she was basically a genealogist from what I can see. And as she published a magazine called The Lookout, she may be self-published as well. Ah, they were, and she may not even have been a geneaogist, see. Don L. Wulffson has an article which is just a stub, but he isn't an RS, just a writer. may be ok but is a copyvio link. Haven't we discussed the Boren's before? I'm sure we have. Clearly not an acceptable source. Ditto Curran's self-published book. Deacon isn't an RS either, we discussed that. Not every source in "Some historians say Madoc landed in the Florida area with his ship the Gwennan Gorn on his trips from Wales" mentions the Gwennan Gorn. But as I say, redirect, a para in Madoc's article. I'm still on a break. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gutian people
Gutian people has turned into Kurdish kindergarden once again. No arguments, just accusations and reverts --46.239.43.249 (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Cyaxares also. --109.165.175.186 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Cuween Hill Chambered Cairn
User:Adrazahl has recreated the above page. When I saw your reason for deleting it in the log, I thought I would pass along the information. Taroaldo   ✉   00:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

James Bacque
I think the analysis that you've done is very good. Probably Ambrose was over-represented because he's the only historian in the discussion who has a measure of mainstream fame. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing style
Don't take this the wrong way, but the condescending tone of your edit summaries is starting to bug me. I get the strong impression that you're belittling the work of others and have strong opinions on things like FRINGE which isn't uncommon on here. I appreciate a lot of the editing you do removing redundant text and self published sources but it concerns me that you appear to target Doug Coldwell's articles in particular. Your editing comes across as aggressive, in fact iIinitially mistook your heavy-handed summaries in the Caldey article as vandalism until I remembered who you were and examined your edits. I agree with your changes mostly but can't you go about things a little easier and amicably? We're all volunteers here and most of us are pretty intelligent, I don't see a need for the tone in a lot of your edit summaries. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * could you be more specific? I don't see the problem with my Caldeybedit summaries. I'm not commenting on any editors, just on the content and I think I try hard usually to explain my edits. And I don't understand why you think a tearoom belongs in the article - or the reservoir, especially as a 'facility'. And "old charm"? As for Doug, I feel I and others have been trying to explain things to him and failing I didn't find the article on Madoc's ship through his contributions but by someone telling me about it, and I will be adding something about it to Madoc's and making it a redirect which seems entirely appropriate. I'm pleased he found something on it, just not happy with what he did. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dr. Blofield, please try harder not to be a gossipper. If you talk about somebody, invite them to the conversation. Do you have a complaint with me? Jehochman Talk 11:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gossipper? You have strong opinions about FRINGE as Doug also appears to.... The conversation hasn't anything to do with you, why would I invite you here? You're only here because of the silly new notification system which alerts you even if just mentioning you!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just telling my wife yesterday what a good system this new notification thing is - helps make Wikipedia more transparent. I'm not clear why you mentioned Jonathan but you did, and he's welcome to comment here. Meanwhile I note that you replied to him but not to my comments. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is, actually, more or less related to something that I have been, more or less, working on off-wiki for the past month and a half or so. I've gotten together a list of those reference books which the American Library Association has, over the years, considered the outstanding reference sources. I have also been, in a somewhat related matter, trying to get together some basic points of discussion which could be used by others, probably not including me personally to any particular degree, to develop guidelines on the matter of "beliefs" of all sorts, religious, political, pseudoscientific, etc. Give me a few days or more to get together the full list of those outstanding reference sources on wikipedia here, and then, on completion, with any luck maybe by the end of the week?, I intend to get together at least my own comments and some indications of "problem spots" regarding beliefs in general for others to review, and maybe for them to get together some idea of what the guidelines for religious, political, racial, and other beliefs should be. I also have a few ideas how those reference books, and others, might be able to make wikipedia run a bit better. Because of Blofeld's very valuable input in article creation, and Doug's rather irrationally criticized, valuable, service dealing with fringe opinions, I was actually expecting to request input from both of them on such proposed guidelines, or, rather, ideas for others to use in perhaps putting together draft guidelines for others to consider. Telling Doug that directly was actually my reason for coming to this page today myself. Like I said, with luck, I'm hoping to get the list of reference sources up here by the end of the week.
 * This is rather strange timing, admittedly, but I think that the time has probably come and gone already for us to have some sort of guidelines of these sorts, and it is probably in everyone's best interests to have some sort of hopefully accepted guidelines in place, John Carter (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion
A few more voices experienced in NPOV editing would be useful at the Tea Party movement moderated discussion.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant material in Caucasian race
User:Kavkas keeps reverting my removal of off-topic material in Caucasian race (and went so far as to vandalise my user page in retaliation, something that has never happened to me before – he also seems to believe I am Russian, presumably because of my Slavic-sounding surname – which is actually a Czech name adapted to German spelling, but nevermind –, and because he is a proud Chechen nationalist or something who views Russians as main enemies). I cannot get him to understand that the etymology of "Caucasus" is treated in Caucasus. Not to mention that some eponymous ancestor "Kavkas" posited in the 11th century is not a plausible etymological source; I referred to Dorus as demonstration why such explanations are generally disbelieved now and considered mythical, ahistorical after-the-fact rationalisations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca
When you get a chance, please have a look at the article La Ciudad Blanca, which has experienced a major flurry of edits over the past six weeks. I've been involved in what has been a contentious process of attempting to make the article more balanced, in the process exposing some of the methods that have been used to give it subtle spin in the direction of pseudoarchaeology. Be sure to look at the talk page! Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Question: Warnings
Hi Dougweller. Which Warning message/template is well suited for users with "source falsification" behavior? Zyma (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the Uw-nor(1–4) series would be appropriate for synthesis that goes beyond what the sources say; where citations are irrelevant or otherwise fail to support a statement, the Uw-unsourced(1–4) series might suit. Otherwise, such behaviour might be covered by the general Uw-disruptive(1–3) series.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the text being cited was changed considerably, maybe the disruptive ones, but for a new editor perhaps something more explanatory and not a template. In any case, I've made it clear to the editor that their edits aren't acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Helpful notes. Thanks Odysseus1479 and Dougweller. Zyma (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites
Could you take a look at this?

The first questionable edit was the addition of an "off topic" tag at the head of the Genetics section. The topic has has been discussed on Talk page. Talk:Theory_of_Pashtun_descent_from_Israelites

Today he removed the entire sourced Genetics section with edit summary “(toc)” 

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Both of you are good editors. He's posted to the talk page about this, so I suggest you join in. At a quick glance I will say that claiming the results of a study have been withheld seems to be something Wikipedia shouldn't be saying without something better than the source, but I haven't looked at the rest. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that. Knowing that you are familiar with the editor is reassuring.
 * I did contact him on his talk page, and he replied that the "theory" was not mentioned in that section.
 * The passage on Parfitt is in need of attention, but I'm rather preoccupied with the TPm at the moment. Other studies in that section seem valid. I did take a quick look at the Parfitt book, which I believe I obtained after that material was added, and Parfitt doesn't have a section in the book on the Pashtun, nor is there an index entry for it. It needs a little researching.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ebionites
I have recently removed material again from the above article, which had previously been tagged for violations of SYNTH and WEIGHT. Amusingly, and somewhat amazingly, whoever decided to restore it decided to restore it with the tags, which fairly clearly fails to meet WP:BURDEN. I think you have access to reference sources regarding this topic, or at least know where to get them, and your input would be more than welcome. And, yes, given that the ALA is the largest librarian organization in the world, I think that the reference sources they consider outstanding and highly regarded are probably the best indicators of the content of our own articles. Additional eyes watching the page are very definitely welcome, and I believe that this broad issue is probably one of those which will have to be dealt with in any guidelines, basically, the opinions of non-notable or barely notable religious groups, and/or those academic sources which have received comparatively little support. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry John, I have no sources on this and really no interest. I don't think I've ever edited the article. I agree with your last sentence and will put it on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug, you might want to add this article to your watch list while you are at it. I have already informed Ian Rose, the admin that passed the nomination for FA yesterday. This is probably not going to end well. Ignocrates (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it ever would have started had people bothered to consult the leading reference source in the field. The fact that such was, apparently, not done is a very good indication that it will not end well for someone, at least. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ANP
Thank you for your message. The link to ANP (http://www.americannaziparty.com/about/index.php) which existed before my edit lists Suhayda as it's President. ANP14 is identical website and has the same content. I can switch the links if you want. Again, the link www.americannaziparty.com existed before my edit and is the original ANP. The HITMANACTUAL (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am repeating myself too. Again, the page before my edit and as it exists right now, under "Website" contains a link to Suhayda's ANP. The HITMANACTUAL (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok then that was the confusion, as I went by that link originally. I'll do some more research on the link between the two parties. What's the requirement, legality? Also how would you feel about creating a page for Suhayda's ANP, since that is the prominent Nazi Party in the United States (I think). I am inexperienced in creating a page. Thanks. The HITMANACTUAL (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that confusion, the link thas been there quite a while and I didn't notice. See WP:ORG for the criteria required to create an article. A party's website would be a reliable source for what it says it says, but not for what it does/stands for etc - it has been known for political parties to lie!. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Somali people are of mixed race
Sorry about that Dougweller i was unsure where to place Somalis. But Somalis are multiracial. Their Y DNA is 80% E1b1b, 10% T, and 5% J. Somalis are a mixture of themselves, Arabs, and Persians. Those numbers are not exact for all Somalis cause of ranges of mixture among them. This is clearly shown in the different features they have.

"Besides comprising the majority of the Y DNA in Somalis, the E1b1b1a (formerly E3b1a) haplogroup also makes up a significant proportion of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers, North African Arabs, as well as many Mediterranean and Balkan Europeans. The M78 subclade of E1b1b is found in about 77% of Somali males, which, according to Cruciani et al. (2007), may represent the traces of an ancient migration into the Horn of Africa from Egypt/Libya. After haplogroup E1b1b, the second most frequently occurring Y DNA haplogroup among Somalis is the Eurasian haplogroup T (M70), which is found in slightly more than 10% of Somali males. Haplogroup T, like haplogroup E1b1b, is also typically found among populations of Northeast Africa, North Africa, the Near East and the Mediterranean." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.215.206 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see where that actually says mixed race. What race are Araba and Persians? And I am still considering how to list Americans. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Persians and Arabs are Caucasians. Not all Geneticists consider Somalis Caucasian or "Black"(sorry I forgot the term for it). This is still debate about the origins and race of Somalis. Its best to leave them as Mixed race instead of having them in a certain racial category. Also Americans are not a ethnic group. To be American is to have USA citizenship.


 * I've seen that, but every member of a ethnic group is also a citizen. I consider myself an ethnic American - my roots are centuries deep, what other ethnic group could I belong to? A lot of other Americans do also. See American ethnicity. My point is that we should not put Somalies in any racial category. Leavng them out of the article doesn't put them in a category. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what your saying about Americans being of mixed ancestry but this article is about mixed race not ethnicity. The vast majority of Americans can tell what their race is. Those who can't are usually those of mixed racial ancestry. But what I don't get is your last bit about Somalis. Could you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.215.206 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines
Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Bosnian pyramid hoax"
If you have some time, it might be helpful to have your opinions at Talk:Bosnian_pyramids as someone familiar with the article, as an admin, and as someone that might be able to identify editors with backgrounds in archeology. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Reopen arbitration
Fyi, I asked Jayjg to reopen arbitration User_talk:Jayjg. If you can get to it first, please do so, and let's put an end to this. I assume both of you will be involved anyway. Ignocrates (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I be involved, and why do you think I could reopen it? I don't recall being involved in this. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you made this post to my talk page concerning the arbitration case. Ignocrates (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, forgot because nothing happened so I was only briefly clerking it. But I'm not a clerk now so can't do anything about it. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, should I proceed by asking someone who is currently a clerk to reopen the case or does that request need to come from an admin? Ignocrates (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ask a clerk what has to be done to reopen the case. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, I was able to locate the archived case file here with a major assist from the help desk. I have brought it to the clerk's attention and asked Brad to reinstate the arbitration case. Ignocrates (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Australian roads)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Australian roads). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Spamming
User:Johnleeds1 is spamming multiple articles with a huge diagram (i.e. ) despite objections from multiple editors. What should i do? He doesn't communicate much either. Pass a Method  talk  18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Pass a Method you did not ask me to communicate with you. You just go around having a go at me all the time behind my back but never asked me to talk with you --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Kushwaha
Please could you consider re-protecting Kushwaha. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ROO BOOKAROO
Hello. I would like to notify you that this user keeps inserting OR to various Christianity-related articles (mind the non-sensical edit summaries). S/he has been repeatedly asked to either start justifying her/his edits or to stay away from certain articles. I'm wondering whether her/his declining to do so is a sufficient reason for a block. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Refered > Referred
Please see this

If there are other problems with the page Gates of Alexander, please correct them; but don't just do a revert to reinstate a spelling mistake- Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was not my intent, I missed the spelling mistake in my reversion of the original research in the article - I don't see my edit summary as meaningless at all. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh hell, I see what happened, clicked on the wrong thing - I didn't miss the spelling mistake, it goes away when I remove the original research. Careless of me. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - a person who has never made a mistake, has never done anything - Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Era Reversions
Hey. This is Dcastorina. I do not like the way the eras are represented on a page based on a Catholic subject. I am a Catholic is it is offensive to me to have the Tetragrammaton's history be expressed with BCE and CE. I would like it to be expressed in the Catholic Church's view of B(efore)C(hrist) and AD. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcastorina (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should the Catholic Church's preference (if that is the case) be favored over anyone else's? If we did that we'd have to alter every other article vaguely related to the Catholic Church. That's why we have WP:ERA - you have to argue on the article's discussion page for a change based on the article itself. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Mount Sinai: 28 June 2013
Hi Doug,

You removed my recent addition to Mount Sinai as unverifiable fringe evidence. I think it's important in this article to point out that a video-record has been kept of the Jabal al-Laws site showing a number of unique features that match the biblical description, even if it is a terse or merely referential statement.

The video does exist and there are many excerpts on YouTube, many people have seen the larger part of the video documentary, and Caldwell maintains a website [Split Rock Foundation] which is currently undergoing content improvement. I'm sure that he will be able to authenticate his existence and any further archaeologial verifications that accompany his video record.

On a final note, there will always be disagreement with any proposition regardless of video/dvd evidence for many reasons: scientists (and I include archaeologists) tend to be protective of their ideas, and there are even christian church denominational leaders who will disagree with evidence on the basis of the fact that they want to play a prominent role in any major theological discovery. It's worth noting that it's alleged by those who support Richard Caldwell (though I don't know whether by Caldwell himself) that he was arrested by the Saudi authorities, because a christian archaeologist who was supposedly assisting him in his first expedition contacted the Saudi authorities to warn them of Caldwell's presence in order to have Caldwell arrested and to take the prominent role in the original discovery. It's not been unknown for scientists to go to such lengths.

If there's any further evidence required, could you please fill me in as to what it should be.

Thanks,

Qlj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlj (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The unverified stuff was about Caldwell himself, see WP:BLP - perhaps that can be verified. But the real issue is that it is WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE applies here I believe. If it's discussed in major media sources or in sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS, maybe it can be included. But just having gone there and made a video, etc isn't enough for inclusion. Maybe this should be on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Doug, Thank you for the clarification. Qlj (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That IP
I already gave them a soft edit-warring template earlier today, which I assume counts as a formal 3RR warning? (It mentions 3RR and points out that breaking it will result in a block.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but the IP is theoretically new (possibly not of course) and I wanted to make sure they understood, and that pov wasn't an exception. Then I noticed the other article. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca
Thanks for taking a look at the article on La Ciudad Blanca. My edits there resulted in a constant struggles with one editor who has apparently relented in his deletions and reversions for the time being. I think the article runs the risk of contributing to and perpetuating misinterpretations and incorrect information, thereby adding to the hype about a "legend" that is being actively promoted for commercial purposes. It is essential to separate fact from fiction (and rumor and speculation). Hoopes (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
SudoGhost 10:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Kariong/Batman
I really find it an unfair act for you to remove EVERYTHING and not at least EDIT SOME BITS OUT - why revert the whole thing and not edit bits out yourself? There is nothing copyrighted in the Batman page.

I've always edited and created pages here until someone else comes along reverting everything I'm doing for the sake of ad hominem. Just because I lightly copyrighted something, which I then corrected by summarizing them in my words doesn't mean the content is still copyrighted. And I if I write my own stuff I believe you will tag me as "OR - Original research".

I see that you're an ancient Egypt fan. Look, the Gosford Glyph section isn't supposed to be bias - we must hear the opinions of public figure on either side. If it's a fringe theory then why revert to the old version? Why not COMPLETELY REMOVE the paragraph? The original section of the 'Gosford Glyphs' is rather vague, source-less and, well, a fringe theory, is it not? Why pick on MY VERSION?

Lionhead99 (talk)


 * See the question at Talk:Batman and also my comments at ANI about the copyvio at Fox Studios Australia. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange genetic genealogy edits
Doug I agree with you. These edits are nonsensical OR. I see that as an IP, the same editor (he/she replied to you as an IP on the User talk page) has been busy on one article I watch: Haplogroup J-M267.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More editing activity today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two new articles created about specific mutations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

AJ sources
Hey Doug, I noticed someone recently tried to create an article on the Ascents of James and you deleted it because the person was apparently a sock User_talk:Dougweller/Archive 28. Is there a way to retrieve the content and paste it to this draft talk page User_talk:Ignocrates/sandbox/Ascents of James? All I care about are the sources, not the article content. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving those sources. What made me think about this again was Richard Bauckham's contribution to "The Image of the Judeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature" (2003) where he covers the Ascents of James extensively. I also have a copy of Robert Van Voorst's book on the subject. I can at least create a decent stub using those two books as sources. Ignocrates (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked out the sources. Van Voorst's encyclopedic article in Eerdmans Dictionary is a short summary but ok to use for the lead. There may be a few nuggets worth incorporating from John Painter's book on James the Just. This should be plenty to get started. Thanks again. Ignocrates (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca
FYI, the version I restored was the original version (which was previously changed without discussion), so your edit summary makes little sense. It BRD, not BRRD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phoenix (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dcastorina- Dcastorina (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Dcastorina

User:Wran
Hello. Could you take a look at this user's activity? Whenever an editor asks her/him to justify her/his edits Wran replies with comments that could be described as either trolling or as borderline personal attacks  Additionally he keeps removing cited content without any serious reason, tampering with quoted/referenced material  (this is explained here), engaging in lame edit-warring , and messing up punctuation. I have opened six threads so far on her/his talk-page to ask her/him to give reasons for her/his actions but Wran's responses failed to address any of the concerns I raised. I would like to stress that this is not a content dispute. Wran keeps declining communication and showing bad faith. S/he employs trolling and harassment tactics instead of explaining his "corrections" to articles. This activity is not just the sign of her/his poor understanding of Wikipedia policies but a sign of intended disruptive behavior. Furthermore several of her/his edits show that s/he has insufficient competence to edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like your opinion on this, please. Wran keeps making personal attacks ("you are the one who needs to learn how to read")  ("you're blithely fooling around")  ("adapting the same language used against me"), breaking 3RR, and making blind reverts . Should I take this to ANI?


 * Sorry, I did look at this yesterday but got sidetracked. My advice would be to take it to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ISOGG article
I noticed this new article by Valentino. Another mess, but probably this can become an article because the organization is now frequently cited by academic publications. I will point this out to User:RebekahThorn and User:HelenOnline who I know have been working on articles recently about Family Tree DNA.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably can be but needs sources. I gather you see it as a reliable source for our genetics articles. As for the other new genetic articles by Valentino, do you want to redirect them? And did you get my email? Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at home right now, but will be today. I think indeed most of the articles about very specific mutations or "twigs" of J1 are best turned into redirects. Concerning ISOGG, what I have always argued is that it is there phylogeny site which is what is cited by academics, and is most useful. It is a kind of a scorecard, and I know it is closely controlled and errs on the side of not accepting new info.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You might get somewhere if you build out an ISOGG section in the genetic genealogy article first. Come back and try to create the ISOGG article afterwards. Mind you, WP has NPOV standards, and ISOGG leadership might not want their club as they call it covered in a NPOV sort of way. The ethics of using individual test results without research consent is fascinating? It might be best to check with them on that first, then consider COI. I would love to help more, but I am in the middle of cleaning up the Family Tree DNA article. --RebekahThorn (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You might be right that it is not time to make an article, but events have led to it coming into being in a very poor attempt. If it gets deleted now, it might require more debate later. Maybe we can convert it into a redirect to genetic genealogy for now Doug? On the other hand I do believe the phylogeny part of their website is verging on notable given how many citations it now gets, but we kind of need a secondary source which points this out. Perhaps it was mentioned in . Also here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A redirect sounds good, but of course the editor who created it will fight that. We really need other eyes on him. His edits on non-genetics material are bad also as he has Wikipedia making claims in its own voice about religious genealogies - I've taken those to RSN. The point Rebekah makes about NPOV is interesting and probably correct. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I do not think that the opinions of an organization normally would stop us writing about them, so I don't see that as a big issue. The issue is whether anyone has published anything about this organization. By the way I should probably mention (I guess you both probably realize) I am a member of ISOGG although I do not play any active role. Of course it has a lot of members, and basically this is just a bit like saying I am a genetic genealogist (which I am). Anyway, FWIW, I do not really get Rebekah's comments about ethics and clubs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's a reason to postpone a dubious article. I'll ask Rebekah what she means. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt the current article is a non-starter, and unless RT or HO have some handy sources, the best quick fix I can think of is to redirect it to genetic genealogy. As RT proposed, this is where a new article might also perhaps be nurtured, if anyone can find sources, and to repeat that is what I think is the big issue here. At the moment the only sources we have are its own website, and a few very brief citations here and there. It is enough to show it exists, and is cited, but that would not be much of an article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's 3 of us who agree. By the way, I raised another sourcing issue at WP:RSN about Valentino. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is that ISOGG lacks enough notability to have the article be edited by any Wikipedian who is not also a member of ISOGG. Isn't that enough of an issue to put off spending time on the article for now? We may have to jump through a few more hoops down the road, but that is not a bad thing if the result is a high quality article. --RebekahThorn (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm this logic makes sense to me. My only question was whether maybe anyone could find a source. It would not surprise me if there is something published about them somewhere. But if not, I in agreement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please join the talk on a merger then, Talk:ISOGG. --RebekahThorn (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Will you redirect it or do you want to wait to see what happens about the speedy? And what did you mean about the ethics and clubs bit? Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy has been removed, so will you redirect it? I've reverted enough of the editor's edits recently! Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bother. Can I do a clean redirect without doing a merger debate first?--RebekahThorn (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ISOGG has a very good PR machine volunteer though it may be that will actively work against NPOV representation in its efforts to ensure it is presented in only the best possible light. Until we have many solid high quality sources, it is an issue. The club issue is the opinion of ISOGG's director, i.e., that ISOGG is a club like a book club and not a society like the National Genealogical Society. I know that as a Wikipedian and a member of ISOGG I do not wish to have political pressure put on me to clean-up an ISOGG article if something ISOGG leadership sees as negative or even not-positive is put in the article. The idea of the politics is giving me a throbbing headache. Let me grab some aspirin, and I will look at the emerging mess of the genetic genealogy article again. --RebekahThorn (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the editor to ANI for persistent copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Era Revisions
I am not saying that the Church should have say over everything. But I am saying that when you are writing an article about something that the Catholic Church holds sacred, please use the church's preferred terms. The Tetragrammaton is a Church term, therefore, you should speak about it the way that they wish. Also, is it really that big of a deal? The eras both express time, but one just shows respect to the Church when it comes to their property and their sacraments. Thanks! Dcastorina (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Dcastorina


 * Well, we have guidelines on this at WP:ERA that you have to follow. And I think you are confused, as Tetragrammaton is a Hebrew theonym, it isn't specifically Roman Catholic. It is in no way the property of sacrament of any particular church. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Era
How would I start a proper consensus? -Dcastorina


 * As it says at WP:ERA, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change." So you have to start a discussion at Talk:Tetragrammaton. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Hey, I laughed because you mentioned hidden comment. I think this is better. Please explain why are you against it?--Fareed30 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You think "f you swap out an image, change the "x##px" entry for EACH image in the row so that the width of the row lines up with the others--" should be removed? Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think in this new version you don't need that, it aligns all images automatically, so if someone ever swaps an image it will be nothing to worry about. The new version looks alot better because the person's name shows under his image (quick way to know who is who) and the 4 rows are better than 3 since there are too many images.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Edit summaries would have sped this up. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

á== Wikipediocracy ==

You blocked non-administrators from editing Wikipediocracy immediately after you unilaterally removed the external link to the website.

You failed to explain your use of administrative tools, after you removed content from the article. Please explain yourself immediately at the talk page of the article. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  12:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Doug: I don't know if this is what you mean by "privately", but an explanation would seem appropriate. It seems strange to remove an EL and lock down an article for (I assume) BLP violations on WO. - MrX 12:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm asking for advice on this. I took emergency action - bear with me everyone. Any discussion by me might be a policy violation. Sorry to be obscure. This shouldn't take long to resolve, so if I'm wrong, it's no big deal. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't WP:BADSITES this. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's a nice WP:Boomerang. The request at WP:RFPP is definitely a Streisand effect.  Regards, Crazynast 18:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Explicitly violating the protection policy isn't a big deal?Crazynast 18:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the protection. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  20:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And thank you for thanking me. Hopefully I keep my head? :-) Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Doug, I also want to thank you for removing the protection. I believe that you have the best interests of the project at heart. I'm sorry for bringing you to the drama boards, although after your lack of response to my above queries, and generally obscure responses to other colleagues questions, I didn't know what else to do. I think that you acted a bit recklessly, but not I think, maliciously. My concern, as stated in the original AN/I post, was that your actions where in conflict with two aspects of the protection policy, and that your rationale (BLP concerns) did not seem to match your actions. Regards, Crazynast 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The problem was that when outing is an issue, being obscure can be the best thing to do. I wasn't aware of the content dispute on the page. I'm going to read the talk page and perhaps I have a proposal. Dougweller (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I'm not an active editor on that article. I came across it when I was browsing RFPP. It was not a question of content, or 'wrong version' that was the issue for me. It was the relationship between your edits, your protection and your rationale for protection created the appearance of impropriety. Reagards, Crazynast 08:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about page protection
Doug, would it be possible to set up semi-protection for the GEbi article in advance? It's going to be a TFA on July 14th. I would like to have it semi-protected on that day and for a few days afterwards (say for 5 days, 14th-18th) so that it won't be picked apart by vandals and religious "enthusiasts". Given that is what happened when the Ebi article was TFA'd in July 2007, I think it's only prudent to take precautionary measures. Ignocrates (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get involved in TFA, but see Perennial proposals. In 2007 protection was more common, but opinions have changed. See  for the discussion. You might ask at the current talk page of TFA. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That was an interesting read. Clearly, I'm not the first person to think about this! Thanks for the links. Ignocrates (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynast 19:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Dougweller. I just thought I'd drop you a note of thanks for your behaviour over the past 24 hours. There may have been people calling for your head, but to me your actions appear considered and reasonable in the circumstances. I appreciate it when I see admins who think about what they're doing and work to protect others, and thought you deserved this note of thanks. Worm TT( talk ) 08:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, this is much appreciated. As an Admin I do see part of my role as protecting other editors - helping Wikipedia be a place where people might actually want to edit and enjoy editing, which is not exactly easy at times. And I have strong feelings about outing. It's nice to hear that you realise that I did think about my actions. I'm hoping that something good might come out of this, but I won't hold my breath! Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

== A note on your edit and my edit-revert thereof on Byzantine Greeks ==

Roman West vs Orthodox East instead of Catholic West vs Orthodox East is wrong in 2 very important ways: 1.As per my edit summary, no they weren't both Catholic unless by Catholic you mean self-perceived universality; in that case both are still Catholic and both are also Orthodox since both believed and believe that they follow the correct, the true Christian doctrine and both believe and believed in the Universality of their own Church. 2.Both were Roman; in fact the Orthodox, at least from one perspective (which includes the Byzantines themselves), could claim more so since that part of the Roman Empire hadn't been conquered by third parties centuries before the Schism. Better (though still not perfect, not 100% accurate) to think of Latin or "Latin" West vs Greek or "Greek" East; a dichotomy mentioned later in the article. P.S.1. Regarding the Schism as the Orthodox-Chruch branching off the Catholic main branch, is a Catholic view (and a view shared usually by third party people not knowledgeable in the relevant history) not shared by the Orthodox who believe the opposite thing; i.e. both sides think of the other side as haeretical. Just about like in any other schism... P.S.2. A similar thing is true about the Roman vs Byzantine-Orthodox. The Byzantines saw themselves as being the Roman Empire; "Byzantine" is just a later Western term that got popular but is nevertheless an anachronism. ;-) Thanatos|talk 18:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

How to delete this?
I don't need this subpage/script page. How can I delete it? Zyma (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Either blank it or I can delete if for you. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please delete it. Zyma (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Zyma (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thanks for help with Old Europe (archaeology)
Old Europe (archaeology)

As far as location of the Danube River settlements (proto-cities?), sources do differ as far as which present day country they were located in. This seems like it would be an eminently answerable question, and we probably just need more sources.

And in general, I think this article can use a fair amount of help. If you or someone else reading has the time and energy, please, by all means, jump in and help out. :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did look for more sources - does Gimbutas actually give any specifics? I'm afraid I'm not a fan. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Atlantis
Where exactly are the sources for "Most of these interpretations are considered pseudohistory, pseudoscience, or pseudoarchaeology, as they have presented their works as academic or scientific, but lack the standards and/or criteria."? Afro- Eurasian  (talk)  08:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't just delete non-controversial text. That's only controversial to those who hold fringe ideas. You didn't try to source it, you didn't add a fact tag. It isn't obviously wrong. You know that in such cases you should source or add fact tags. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
I don't know what my editing in 2011, has to do with it, but this version of the page has both BCE and BC - an inconsistency that remained until today. The article was created using "BC", so that should be used per WP:ERA. StAnselm (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied - WP:ERA no longer talks about when the article was created, and BC was removed quite a while before BCE was added. BCE was the established style until recently changed. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't the established style, since the article has (inconsistently) had both styles for at least the last two years. Yes, I just looked at the initial version, without realising BC had gone and come back in. StAnselm (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm not sure if WP:ERA was ever explicit about the first major contributor picking a variety - but it's described at (or by analogy to) WP:DATERET on the same page. StAnselm (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * BCE was added at a point where there was no style, and has been in the article since December 2010, see . BC was removed in July 2009. I believe that at some point the original version was mentioned, but that was a long time ago, eg it isn't in the version from March 2007.. As BC was missing from the article for over a year when BCE was added (without BC at that point), then I can't see how BC can be considered the established style - which you need to show before making the change. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Forum-like comments/Incivility on discussions
How we should deal with comments like this one? Report them? Remove them? Send warning message to user(s)? Zyma (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would remove it per Forum. I believe this "Redman" is a sock of a banned user(Alpha Beta Gaga/Cupcaker/Confederatre/188.202.146.7). Their edits are extremely similar. Sockpuppet investigations/Alpha Beta Gaga/Archive --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Kansas Bear, the diff that I mentioned is not about you. The diff is about the new/recent comments on that discussion by another user. See that discussion and version history. Zyma (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was about me, either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't know that user. But I reviewed his contributions and that discussion, maybe you are right about him. Because there are similar stuffs on that discussion (by IPs and by some users). Zyma (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Toluca Lake, Los Angeles
Should the following paragraph be kept or deleted from the lede section of the above article? "According to an analysis of the 2000 census data by the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles section of Toluca Lake is an affluent, 71.9% white, domestically stable, older-aged, low-density neighborhood of the city." The discussion is at Talk:Toluca_Lake,_Los_Angeles. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=563797030 your edit] to Anti-Christian sentiment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2013-02-12}} the burning of the image of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (national Patroness), http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/chilean_bishops_deplore_attack_against_our_lady_of_carmel_at_

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I need your help. Please comment and verify that incident/issue. Thanks. Regards. Zyma (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems this user is not very familiar with Wikipedia policies. Involved in an endless edit warring/reverting on several articles plus poor/bad edit summaries. If you have time, review and verify his contributions. Zyma (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca
Can you please review the recent edits to the article on La Ciudad Blanca? I have been seeking to improve the quality of this article but my changes are continually being deleted or reverted by a specific editor. I think that today he has violated the 3RR. The objective assistance of additional editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See Talk:La_Ciudad_Blanca for explanation of the disputed edit in question. And for the record, I reverted once (same as Hoopes). And I too would greatly appreciate more editors as many of Hoopes' "improvements" amount to original research on his part (IMO).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (extrasolar planets)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (extrasolar planets). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopianism?
Yeah, I know that you really look forward to self-righteous, self-important jerks like me telling you what to do, right? ;) But I have been seeing the word "Ethiopianism" used to describe both some African indigenous churches and, in the Journal of Black History and in a few other places as well, to describe the ethno-religious racial views of people of Abyssinia/Ethiopia. I think the "racialism" Ethiopianism of the current country of Ethiopia is probably notable enough for a separate article, based on that article in the Journal above and its sources, but I haven't seen any content related to it here yet, and I get the impression that you, dealing more regularly with content about racial/ethnic/religious issues than me, might be in a better position to develop such content. If you have time, of course, and I know just how many things come up which tend to make finding such time difficult if not damn near impossible sometimes. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have one, Ethiopian movement covers Ethiopianism. I would not use the Britannica as a source but this gives another overview. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That covers the AIC Ethiopianism, but not so much the ethno-religious Ethiopianism of Abyssinia, which is evidently the claim of the ethnic groups in power to be "superior" to the out of power groups in old Abyssinia, and the problems which have arisen as a result, as per the Journal of Black History article above. I regret I don't remember the name of that article right now, but I don't think the databanks would produce many matches searching for both. That one seems to be based on Kebra Nagast and other specifically Abyssinian ideas. And, yeah, there does seem to be at least one relatively senior editor around here who personally adheres to it or in some POV way supports it, and once in a while that can be a problem. A separate article on it might help, although I'm not sure that person would necessarily appreciate its existence. It is also probably notable enough, I think, given its references, to qualify for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I really don't have time for more research - I've already got a list of articles I want to fix and one I want to write about Native American petroglyphs. If a subject is notable, it's notable and it doesn't matter what an editor thinks. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling, believe me, so no problems there. In my case, using, unfortunately, slow wi-fi today, I've been uploading a monster pdf of a book to Commons for, oh, six hours now, while doing other things. It isn't one of the most significant articles by any stretch of the imagination, and a lot less significant than many others we don't have either, so I'm fairly sure we can live for a while more without it. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Couchoud
Hello. I have just noticed this edit (accompanied with a rather bewildering edit summary as usual). I think it might be appropriate to make the page fully protected. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
I have full confidence in your objectivity and I know that all your work is aimed to create better Wikipedia. Sometimes I am doing two or three things in hurry at the same time therefor I am both sorry for taking your time and thankful for the great work you are doing in keeping Wikipedia well sourced. All the best.--Tritomex (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's much appreciated - and I know the problem, trying to do several things in a hurry. Don't worry about it. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:PD-signature
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:PD-signature. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sovereign citizen edit-warring
I went ahead and blocked them for 48 hours before I saw your note, since they've ignored clear warnings and appear to be intent on promotion. The block is as much for the promotion as it is for the edit-warring.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I've added a codicil to my note. If they edit again with no response I'll indef them (my attitude towards indefinite blocks is that when it is something like this it can be lifted at any time if the editor agrees to play nicely with others). Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Babita Sharma
See my comment, here Administrators' noticeboard. Jimthing (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
RadioFan (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Author Solutions edits
Doug, I appreciate your edits. I've never tried to hide that I work at Author Solutions. I genuinely would appreciate pointers on how the deleted section on the NY Times best sellers that arose from self-publishing could've been written. Both the Genova and Echols stories made headlines around the world. Genova in particular was one of the first self-published authors to make the leap, her story was reported in a story that appeared on page 1 of the NY Times, Time Magazine, CNN and various other prominent and reputable outlets.

Echols story was less about the leap from self-publishing than the rise from a death sentence to renowned author. Again, a quick search will yield dozens of results from large and reputable media.

New to this, but thanks for pointers, it's my intent to contribute elsewhere as well. Thanks.

KevinGray17 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Kevin - I made it clear in my edit summary you weren't hiding your COI, so no problem. Basically material such as that should be suggested on the talk page. I think the articles you are editing are on enough people's watchlists so that sooner or later you'll get a comment. There is rarely a rush on Wikipedia, some exceptions being copyright violations and articles about living people (WP:BLP). Any edits that might change the tone of an article, add or remove possibly promotional material or the opposite, etc need to be suggested first - in my opinion (as an experienced editor). Read the 5 pillars carefully. Be upfront about your position - put it on your user page. If in doubt about something, you might be brave and ask at WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You could also add the template just added by another editor at Talk:Author Solutions to talk pages where you have a COI. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Doug. A section on the page stating that Author Solutions has a history of charging for it services... keeps popping up on the page. Author Solutions has never hidden the fact that we are a for-profit services company. The source cited is a blogger famous for slamming the company in an effort to promote his own competing services and to sell his own book. I edited the phrase Author Solutions is a for-profit author services company. I got a threatening message from Orangemike saying the edits are disruptive and violate the neutrality policy. That seems out of line. The source cited is entitled to his opinions, but is he a reliable, neutral third party source like a newspaper or news site? This seems to be cloudy at best. Thanks for clarification.

KevinGray17 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ask at WP:RSN and post to the article talk page saying you've asked there. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

AJ
Hey Doug, I submitted a stub for the Ascents of James, and the reviewers bounced it for being inadequately sourced; see Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Ascents of James. Of all the reasons they could have given, this one is the hardest to believe. Richard Bauckham, F. Stanley Jones, and Robert E. Van Voorst (both article and encyclopedia) are all first rate academic sources. Since when does a stub require more than four reliable sources? Opinion please. Ignocrates (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fyi, I received additional clarification User_talk:Ignocrates. The stub apparently needs to be de-"salted" by an admin. Ignocrates (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The decline has been removed. Thanks Doug. Ignocrates (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw you completed the move to mainspace yourself. It's only a stub, but something to build on with community involvement. Ignocrates (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I couldn't find the button that is supposed to automate it so I was just bold and did it. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Your reverts
And you are a long time editor and should not trying to force this in without discussion on the talk page or insulting other editors. I believe you misunderstand WP:VERIFY and WP:LEAD and have raised your tag at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been busy in real life and, fortunately for you, in the meantime someone came to your rescue and added the necessary citation. I suggest next time you stop quarreling about the obvious and jump on WP:RSN quicker: someone is likely to come by to save you quickly - plus it will save you a lot of aggravation. I do commend you having been wiser than Alandeus, who had time for his ignorant comment pointing to the other article, when the other article is talking about about 10,000 BC in the context of growing potatoes, not in the context of making contact with other civilizations. And for being wiser than the average Joe, you deserve some credit. But if you thought I was going to enter into a time-wasting Talk Page discussion with you on the obvious, well,,,, lessons learned...now you know better. Or, perhaps you have too much time in your hands -- I don't. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * And yet you still won't say exactly what it is that you want referenced. I doubt very much that the source actually references "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, and peoples of other continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492." Unlike you, I'm willing to answer a simple question. And there is nothing controversial in the sentence.  Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
Edit warring is, when reverts are made without any basis, or simply more than 2 or 3 times, thus both sides should be warned about it, not just one. Capitals00 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But you are the only one hitting or breaking WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Advice sought
Doug, I think I've inadvertently broken the 3RR rule here, and I was taken aback when such a carefully sourced, non-controversial statement was deleted. I didn't mean to edit war, and admit I've been incredibly snappish lately for personal reasons, but is there something I should do to say "didn't mean to act like a crazy woman" in the eyes of admins? (I'm right about the point, and have abundant sources compared to none from the other side so far, but that's no excuse for my erratic behavior.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've only reverted 3 times. I've warned the other editor who has definitely broken 3RR. You might want to ask for a 3rd opinion or go to a noticeboard now. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also only reverted 3 times, thanks. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 times, the first edit removing information was a revert of someone! Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, will seek a third opinion at a project before going to a formal noticeboard. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to the book of Job page
The Book of Job page violates the Wiki rules in that id misquotes the text. The article uses the word God when referring to the word 'LORD' in the Book of Job. This is original research as best, as it is unverifiable in the Book of Job. I plan to accurately change the page to reflect the Bible itself. Whenever I apply the name Yahweh I'll cite the Bible verse in the Book of Job as well. You wouldn't allow anyone to misrepresent an encyclopedia article this way. Yet when it comes to the Bible, popular opinion seems to triumph over the text itself.

I'll be back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.125.197 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol. You spelled i Yehweh. And which version of the Bible? Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll
Maybe your approach will turn out for the best, but the header describes my thought when I saw this. Just saying. :-) --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably you are right. I'm off now, hopefully can stay away although email notifications grab me back! Anyway, I'm taking at least 2 weeks off for a breather. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Enjoy! --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Time out
Please gently exert a calming influence here: diff 1; diff 2; diff 3. I'm asking on behalf of two editors with whom I have an excellent working relationship. It's bad enough that I have to deal with this kind of thing on an almost daily basis. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really am trying to take a break and be uninvolved with Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. Breaks are a good idea as there is hardly ever anything so desperately important it can't be left for a while, especially in the summer. Why not take one yourself? Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice you are on break. I could use a break myself. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a FAR and JC claims on the FAR page an arbitration filing is coming as soon as next week. Several editors have been appealing for calm and I was trying to do that too. Don't worry about it. Ignocrates (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:STALK, Ignocrates. Please produce evidence of the two editors to demonstrate that this is not just another of your well somewhat regular misstatements of fact lately. First, you are once again demonstrating your own fairly regular hysterical overreactions in your comment abut this being "on an almost daily basis". WP:CIVILITY does state that honesty is also a basic conduct guidelines. Please make an attempt to actually familiarize yourself with the guidelines all editors are supposed to abide by before once again going crying to somebody. Or, alternately, just wait for the week or so before the Arbitration request is filed. It might be that long, unfortunately, because the few days per week I am free lately I have been trying to spend going through for articles and subarticles from the Eliade/Jones EoR for a list for the WikiProject Religion, and, honestly, Ignocrates' obviously self-dramatizing, overreacting hysteria is not my highest priority. And I agree with Dougweller about taking a time out yourself, given your own rather immediate response of hysterical overreaction which you have displayed on a regular basis lately. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't want my page used for arguments while I am trying to take a break. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note the irony of an appeal for calm being interpreted as hysteria. Enjoy your break. Ignocrates (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also note that the appeal for calm was itself phrased in one of the most self-serving, self-indulgent, overreactions I have ever seen. And that the "appeal for calm" included as one of the topics about which it was complaining, ironically enough, a warning to an editor who himself had gone far over the top in his own lack of calm. So, basically, apparently, Ignocrates believes that no one can even request others behave in accord with guidelines without him seeking someone else to control it. It is amazing to me that Ignocrates cannot see the irony of his own actions, or that someone who so regularly complains about spelling seems to be unable to himself do that which he so regularly comments on others not doing. Doug, I grant that I will probably not be doing much most days, but if you believe that there are pages needing attention, or sources I can find, let me know. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please help me to deal with this racist POV-pushing vandal who keeps removing valid and relevant information from articles. I've warned him to stop but he keeps doing it. He refuses to use the talk pages and is erasing every Pashtun/Afghan and reference from Dilip Kumar, Fardeen Khan, Anil Kapoor, and Prithviraj Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to talk to you but u havent replied. Ur own sources have disputed views about their origins. First get some authentic sources and then portray your view. See your talk page and you will find what i am talking about .Dont portray me as a villian in here as you yourself is using information that is not even present in the sources. Saladin1987 20:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Civilization
It seems striking to me that such an important article is in such bad condition and apparently hardly being watched. Then I noted that it is not in many project lists at all, only sociology. How can we get the word to more projects that this article needs help, and probably should be on more lists? I have already posted at the Philosophy project, but there must be more?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also posted at WP:TAFI.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And at your suggestion I've now posted at Anthropology and Archaeology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Crystal Lake Recreation Area
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Crystal Lake Recreation Area. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=566762285 your edit] to Chitragupta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "'' Brahma then enjoined him to dispense justice and punish those who violated the dharma

RfC !vote
Hi, Doug. In the Visual Editor RfC, you used a * instead of a #, which was impeding the numbering. In boldly fixing that, I noticed you dated but didn't sign your post. . . probably one too many tildes. . . or were you using Visual Editor? ;) Rivertorch (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, still struggling with editing on an iPad!
 * My sympathies. I still haven't gotten over the trauma of editing by phone recently. Btw, I didn't sign your post for you. I didn't want to use the unsigned template, since you sort of signed. I guess I could have done it manually but I wasn't feeling quite that adventurous. If you (or a less klutzy TPS than I am) want to give it a shot, it's !vote 136 in this section. Rivertorch (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:History of Armenia
Hi Dougweller, I propose to change the image in the template, because this symbol is not the Armenian (that fact has not been proven by reliable sources). I also wrote about this in WikiProject History.--46.241.237.63 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.241.227.5 (talk)

Dates on Upper Paleolithic article
Most of the source dates actually ARE in 'years ago'. The conversion to calendar dates was not done by me, but by someone else, a long time ago (see the talk page of the article). Besides that the article is in a pretty bad state: most dates of the 'events' do not correspond to the dates mentioned in their respective articles. Nevertheless, all I could find are in BP, not BCE. It seems that whoever did the conversion just replaced 'BCE' with 'BP'. If you want to discuss this further, please do so, but do not revert my edit unless you can provide where the BCE dates come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonCelery (talk • contribs) 09:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * that 2009 was about someone changing dates to BC not BCE. your changes include changing a date range to BP for which I can see no justification or discussion as required by WP:ERA. There is no way I can think of to justify all dates being in BP. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize, the change I mentioned was in 2008 from BP to BC. All the sources have dates in either 'years ago' or BP, that would be plenty justification per WP:ERA. DragonCelery (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 04:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Luigi di Bella
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Luigi di Bella. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug

I'm a complete novice to editing articles on Wiki - I need to complete ten edits before I can upload an article onto Wiki so, if you have any advice you can share with me as to how to get started, I would be most grateful and would appreciate any helpful hints, tips etc. you can provide in order to get me started on here.

Thank you for your time and hope to hear from you.

Kind regards DiCR44 (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Jingnan Campaign
Hi. As I mentioned in the article talk page, the article is currently being expanded. The text are to be translated from the corresponding page in Chinese Wikipedia, as indicated by the tag placed on the top of the article page. If you click the link provided by the tag, you will see a machine translation of the sources. The tag was placed for editors concerned with WP:RS for articles of translation in progress.

The sources will be manually translated to English after the translation is completed, and a Translated page tag will be placed on the article talk page. This is the standard translation procedure. Thanks for the concern. Alex ShihTalk 15:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- "claimed" vs "viewed"
If you think it's less contentious that way, I understand. JayHubie (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment
I followed a link that went back to a discussion on your Talk Page from earlier in 2013 and read through the entire archive and was struck at the wide variety of problems people bring here for your attention. Sure, there are tools and power that come with the position but it also seemed like quite a barrage of editors needing things, asking for your opinion or for you to take action about a problem user.

It's easy to stereotype Admins because of a few individuals one has crossed paths with (for good or bad) but, frankly, what struck me was how much work it seems to involve. Plus all of these subcommittees and work groups and Projects and your own interest you might want to pursue. I applaud you for taking on the Admin mantle for 5 years now! I'm glad you still find some enjoyment and satisfaction here. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's very kind of you to come here and tell me that, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited End of Roman rule in Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote question
You reverted my edit of the episode summary. If I were to add quotes around it and add the reference, would that be sufficient. Only a few sentences are used. Look forward to the clarification. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that won't work either. 3 problems - one is that it is too much detail. Secondly, if we did that for every episode there would still be a copyright violation - a rule of thumb is no more than 220 words from a 'work'. Thirdly, the wording. Take a look at some of the other summaries and compare them with the original. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

August 13, 2013
Your recent editing history at Book of Exekiel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Maxximiliann (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Maxximiliann (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

American Renaissance (magazine)
The source uses the word "Klansmen", but it doesn't say that they were at the conference. They may well have been, of course, but that doesn't concern us. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Maxximiliann
Thanks for letting me know about Maxximiliann's recent antics. Given his single-minded religious agenda of altering historical articles to fit his religion's the numerology of Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm fairly sure that his behaviour is not going to improve. I'm also not convinced that the user is really 'new' to Wikipedia. I'm leaning towards thinking he might be another guise of, but not 100% certain of that yet.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

He's really becoming quite irritating.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Small note
Hi, at User_talk:Kimen027 where you say "without discussion at the fringe noticeboard, WP:FRINGE", it should read "without discussion at the fringe noticeboard, WP:FTN". Otherwise this might confuse the new editor, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. It doesn't look as though she wants to discuss it anyway. We'll see if she comes back. I'm not convinced Mertz should even get a mention, but maybe she should. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Roman "polytheistic reconstructionism"
Hello Dougweller, I don't undestand the point of your reversal of the improvements I made to Italo-Roman Traditionalism. I wrote the reason why the title "Italo-Roman Traditionalism" is better than "Roman polytheistic reconstructionism", which is used nowhere outside of Wikipedia. Academic research on the subject use that label, and Roman religion was not simply "polytheist". Actually, I had the intention to expand the article using the data available from the CESNUR.--Schwert von Feuer (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be correct, it still needs discussion and consensus. Someone may suggest a better name that meets WP:COMMONNAME. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could I open a WP:RM?--Schwert von Feuer (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No legal threats
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Language?
I don't see anything in my comments remotely approaching, "vitriolic ravings of a renowned bigot". Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(Thanks for clearing that up.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hapgood claims at Piri Reis map
...seem a bit overstated with regard to their being supported. The Air Force involvement also seems somewhat misrepresented. Could you review it when you have a chance? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I simply trashed everything in the old analysis section and started over. There's no need for a detailed analysis of all these people's misunderstandings and fictions. I'm sorry to have stepped on your latest edits but I couldn't see how to quickly incorporate them. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. It's a much better article now. I might tinker with it a bit, but the major work is done. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It could use a Harvardization given that I've never used that citation system here. I also don't have McIntosh's book at hand so the only references to it were already there. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got McIntosh, I'd like to get the Turkish book by Afetinan but it's hard to get. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Gregorian calendar
Regarding your edit to Gregorian calendar, according to WP:MOS "Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." Style should not vary from one section to another based on the content of the particular section. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: needs sourcing, eg " considering the employment of a concept in various " - who considers this?
no one in particular considers it but what I was saying is if you consider the employment of Mater Lectionis then the two Hay Hebrew letter consonants in יהוה Yod Hay Waw Hay become 'a'/'aw' vowel sounds and you get the pronunciation of יהוה Yod Hay Waw Hay as JAUA/YAUA/Yaua as I said before the pronunciation of יהוה Yod Hay Waw Hay is hotly contested in the Biblical Hebrew language is a dead language like Latin is a dead language too as well the personally I think meaning of names/words is far more important than how they are accurately pronounced especially since words/names cogante over time into different pronunciation and then into entirely completely different words I ddid not reference or source it because no one cna say for sure whether or not that is the actual pronunciation as I stated in the content I posted but rather it seemed the most sound if you consider employing the concept of Mater Lectionis please revert it back if you could revert it I will expand on it a little bit more but I will only need to use other Wikipedia links as hyperlinks to demonstrate what I mean if you do then thanks in advance

Best Wishes, Editguy111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your welcome
Hello Dougweller, I appreciate the kind welcome you just extended to me. Apologies are unnecessary regarding your recent activity which altered my edits. You efficiently addressed what I saw as a problem on the page and had tried to rectify. I will definitely look at the Wikipedia sections you suggest. I am new to this, not a techno-geek, and on occasion, a bit ham-handed with what I do on Wikipedia. It is not my intention to fumble as I have, and I am improving. My activity is, and will remain, limited. Now it mainly addresses Sir Francis Drake and Brazilian jujitsu. Thanks for your assistance.Horst59 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet
Hi, Dougweller. Can you help me? I dont understand what Obitauri's want. Divot (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What should I do with this? He doesn't understand what the the consensus and reliable sources, using the edit warring. In addition, he falsify sources links. Divot (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

One more source falsify. I'm not an expert in English Wikipedia's rules. What must to do in such cases? Divot (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible. What do I do with it? He breaks all the rules as possible. Divot (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish I'd read his talk page earlier. Two blocks in the last month for edit warring, so I've blocked him for 2 weeks now. It may be that he needs to be taken to WP:AN for a topic ban on Georgian related articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Who should to remove his defective sources? Divot (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Divot (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Question
Is this User_talk:Ignocrates some kind of admin harassment? I was pulling together diffs on a talk sub-page in my user space for arbitration and the page was deleted within hours. Ignocrates (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It was deleted because its name indicated that it was an article. You generally must create such a page as a user page. I do not warrant that you cause has any merit in these instructions. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I have decided to prepare the case off-line where it can't be deleted again. Ignocrates (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Google snippet
Hi Doug, this is regarding on Babylonian captivity 09:50, 21 August 2013, with edit comment: " ‎Archaeological and other extra-biblical evidence: please do not change the url into a snippet, this is my edit and I can see the entire page, it is not a snippet"
 * For the record, I did not add the snippet parameter, I clicked on the chain icon for a link, and that is the way Google formatted it. Your version of the URL did not work for me – it went to page view but only loaded the Front Cover page and no more, so I tried some search terms and eventually ended up with the workable link I put in the page. I can see the "entire page" after clicking on the page 355 snippet – what do you see? I pasted the URL into a fresh browser window, deleted the #v=snippet part and pressed Enter. When it connected, the Google server auto-magically added the snippet thing to the end of the URL in the address bar, followed by a 2nd copy of other parameters. My URL - your URL. Where do we go from here?
 * Also, in your next edit you added in a word I left out of a quote. Thanks. —Telpardec TALK  06:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had no idea what you were doing and thought that perhaps wherever you were you could only see a snippet. But my url shows the entire page, so that seems better. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced Content
Hi, I've just noticed a user is being somewhat disruptive in regards to the Katy Sian article on alleged Sikh forced conversion? The user keeps removing well referenced sourced content repeatedly in other articles mentioning her and her study. My guess is that he's a Sikh given his edit history, and understandably it seems quite an emotive issue for the him/her. However I don't think it warrants removal of sourced content. It just seems like his/her actions are a poor form of censorship. I've noticed you've dealt with him/her today revising his "twitter" edits on the Love Jihad article and generally biased editing in others, but is there anything you can do to stop him/her from using the same claims of NPOV again and again, particularly for a source that is known to be an academic study, as justification to remove the sourced content? NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Reporting Users
This is just for future reference but where can I report users who deliberately remove reliable sources and are generally disruptive? Surely ANI can't be the route, as it not for such trivial issues. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can ask at WP:RSN if the source is reliable - if you do that, put a link on the article's talk page saying you've done this (and it's usually a good idea to discuss it on the talk page first). Actually you should read WP:DISPUTE to see the various channels that are available. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ma'ad Ibn Adnan
Hi....

the Ma'ad Ibn Adnan article was written by me myself, I rephrased the expression because i was afraid that some people will understand it the other way around, so I made it more simple

you can go and check Adnan article to see that he was also mentioned in Pre-Islamic poetry but less than his son Ma'ad   Omar amross (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uriel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Ward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Do you believe this can be used as sourcing as a historical document? User:HistoryofIran is using it and Farrokh as sources in a historical context within articles

I am concerned about the primary source "Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan", since it sounds extremely poetic, "One night Babag saw in a dream....".

I will be raising this issue with User:HistoryofIran, but since we have clashed in the past I felt it would be prudent to have a neutral opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The primary source is clearly not a RS for history - as your link says, ""This is a short prose work, simple in style, probably written in Pars towards the end of the Sasanian period. It too was the work of priests, and a comparison of it with Firdausi's rendering shows how effectively Zoroastrian elements were obliterated in the Muslim redaction. The Kârnâmag contains some historical details; but its generally romantic character has been explained as due to contamination with legends of Cyrus the Great, still current then in Pars." Mary Boyce, 'Middle Persian Literature' (in Handbuch Der Orientalistik --I. Abt., IV. Band 2., p. 60)."
 * Kaveh turns out to be a really nice guy, but I'd really prefer academic historians and as you know he isn't a historian by training. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan is kinda like the Shahnameh, some things are historical and some are fiction, if you ask me the only thing that is fiction in the book is about when Ardashir slays the worm. Take a look on my talk page and see what i have written. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I found something: '''The last part of the Kār-nāmag (as described above) narrates the birth and feats of Šābuhr. The relative brevity of Šābuhr’s book in the Šāh-nāma, surprising for one of the greatest Sasanian sovereigns, may be due to the fact that a significant part of his life is told in the book of Ardašīr. To a certain extent this reflects factual history, since Ferdowsi’s book preserves the memory of Šābuhr’s co-regency with his father.''' - http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/karnamag-i-ardasir --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep this on your talk page unless you take it to RSN - right now it's getting broken between two pages. Copy the above there but explain please what you think it implies. "Reflects factual history" to a "certain extent" is clearly not an endorsement of its accuracy. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Constructive comments
Thank you for your constructive comments and capitalizing the V in Vedas. I will be civil and mindful of others' sentiments in the future. Sorry about the unkind language. Regarding the discussion on Ved and Veda, I have added information on the Talk page. Regarding the article on "God in Hinduism", I agree that it needs some serious work. I will be working on it over the next month. Samenewguy (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Road (2009 film)
you wrongly changed the add-on I did to the road film page, as it couldn't be 'completely unsourced' as the film itself was the source! + it had no 'apparentlly original research' as the info came from other Wikipedia pages which I just linked to as technical references for viewers. an you spelt apparently with 2 L's when it has 1. VC 14:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs)
 * I replied here. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  14:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As have I. I've never edited that article. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee Nation of Mexico
Dear Dougweller, another contributor changed it from Indigenous People of Mexico, to "state recognized," pointing to USA State recognized Tribes wiki article, which I think you might agree is a non sequitur and doesn't apply to a foreign country... like Mexico.

Here is Dr. Rogers bio:

Bio and Curriculum Vita of Cherokee Nation of Mexico Principal Chief Charles L. "Jahtlohi (Kingfisher) Rogers Charles L. Rogers M.D. Contact Information: 9250 McGregor Lane Dripping Springs, TX 78620 doctorcherokee@aol.com Personal Information: DOB 10/11/1947 Corpus Christi, TX US citizen with completed Mexican immigration status Male Married

Employment History: Private consultation 1970 to present

1976-1977 Founder and owner of homeopathic medication laboratory; manufacturing and sales; including the compounding of FDA approved Homoeopathic substances laboratory 1976-1977 Homoeopathic/Psychotherapy private practice 1977-1979 Founder and Director of non-profit rehabilitation center for U.S. veterans with Chronic alcoholism 1980-1982 Cherokee natural medicine private practice in Homeopathy in Nampa, Idaho 1989-1990 Private practice alternative/orthodox oncology in Matamoros, Mexico. 1990-2005 Built clinic in Acapulco, Mexico; private oncology practice; alternated between two Mexican clinics 2005-2011 Private consultation to physicans worldwide; Opened clinic in Scottsdale, AZ; private oncology practice; alternated between Mexican clinic and Arizona clinic. Licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Dominica. 2011- 2013 THE ROGERS CANCER INSTITUTE, Brownsville/Matamoros, Mexico 1-213-261-0622 http://www.doctorofhope.com MEDICAL EDUCATION ALLOPATHIC- 1987 Graduated Grace University School of Medicine, M.D. degree (Grace University, Nevis registered in the World Health Organization (WHO) directory of accredited medical schools ALLOPATHIC- 1988 Provisionally licensed to practice medicine in Mexico during the period of government re-validation of studies ALLOPATHIC- 1990 Completed and was awarded Fellowship in Oncology from Grace University School of Medicine. Received from the Ministry of Public Education, Office of Professions, certification of this Specialization in Oncology was awarded in Mexico in 1996 ALLOPATHIC- 1991 Licensed to practice medicine in Mexico as General Practitioner License #1535285 ALLOPATHIC- 1997 Completed and was awarded a Fellowship in Psychiatry from Grace University School of Medicine Received from the Ministry of Public Education, Office of Professions, certification of this Specialization in Psychiatry in Mexico in 1998 Professional Qualifications: 1975-1977 Medical missionary work to Port-au-Prince, Haiti each summer 1976 Graduated University of Homeopathic Medicine South Africa, Doctor of Homeopathic Medicine (MDhom) 1976-1977 Wrote three self-help psychology books 1977 Masters in Homeopathic Pharmaceutical Pharmacology, University of Homeopathic Medicine South Africa 1979 Fellowship in Psychotherapy, University of Homeopathic Medicine South Africa 1988 Recognition for advances in Metabolic Medicine from the Instituto de Historia Universal de Las Ciencias de la Salud 1990 Diploma de Participacion en el IV Congreso Internacional de Medicina Tradicional y Folklorica 1990 Recognition of specialty in Botanical Medicine 1990 Recognition for assistance in compiling III Jornadas Medicas for the Institute of Security and Social Services 1990 Recognition at IV International Congress of Traditional Medicine in Chiapas 1991 Recognition at V International Congress of Traditional Medicine in Mexico City 1992 Texas A&I University, Kingsville, TX Certificate of Recognition VI International Congress Mexico City Fifth International Folk Medicine 1992 Recognition for participation in "La Medicina Tradicional Cuestionada" 1st Edicion Expo Natura Internacional 1993 Recognition at VII International Congress of Traditional Medicine in Yucatan 1995-2011 Directed Therapeutic Hyperthermia Therapy of the BSD 2000, state of the art hyperthermia 1994 Certificate of Gratitude in Research on Herbal Medicine-AMMT 1994 Member of La Academia Mexicana de Medicina Tradicional, A.C. 1994 Memorial University of Newfoundland Certificate of Recognition VIII International Congress of Traditional Medicine 1994 Guest Speaker at the First Congress of the Academy of Traditional Medicine in Xalapa, Veracruz 1994 Recognition for course on the Scientific Natural Method for Academia Mexicana de Medicina Tradicional 1994 Commendation for assistance in Scientific Validation, Regulation and Legislation of Alternative Therapy Courses Under the General Laws of Health -AMMT 1994 Recognition for studies in La Capacidad Bactericida de Las Plantas Medicinales-AMMT 1995 Recognition for participation in II Congress of the Academy of Traditional Medicine in Colima 1996 Founder Member of World Federation of Traditional Medicine (W.F.T.M.) Corpus Christi, TX 1996 Diploma in Integral en Medicina Tradicional y Alternativas Terapeuticas from the Academia Mexicana de Medicina Tradicional 1996 Citation for Philanthropic grant to help create a new culture of integrated health treatment 1996 Recognition for participation in III Congress of the Academy of Traditional Medicine Oaxtepec 1998 Received the Palmas Academicas Badaines Medallion for Traditional Medicine from the Mexican Academy of Traditional Medicine. I was the 4th recipient, after the President of Mexico, the Director of Social Security Mexicanos, and the Director of the National Health System. 1998 Received the title of First Physician in Chinese Medicine from the family of Cal Du, the physician to Chaing Kai Shek, who had practiced this traditional medicine which emerged in 1644 when the Buddhist monk Fung Do-Duk first entered China with this most ancient of Eastern Indian treatment systems. 2000 Myself and my tribe, the Cherokee Nation of Mexico, were recognized by the State of Coahuila, Mexico by Gobernador Martinez y Martinez, the 4th recognition of the tribe since 1825, 1845, and 1858. I practice traditional medicine within Cherokee teaching to the Cherokees who wish such. See http://www.cherokeediscovery.com. 2001 Entered into 107th Congressional Record by Sen. James Inhofe for contributions to the Cherokee people. 2001 Certificate of Appreciation from the Texas Cherokee for Service and Support 2002 Named "The Individual of the Year" by American Indian Chamber of Commerce in Dallas, Texas 2004 A report was presented to the United Nations on the Commission for Indigenous Rights by the Mexican delegate Sr. Marcos Matias commending our work in Mexico. 2005 Certificate of Appreciation for Service to the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Echota Fire

Actively donated and participated in numerous charities for years, including the DIF (organization helping families in need) for the states of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and the National DIF in Mexico City, the flood victims in Coahuila, Mexico, the U.S. Border Patrol, Brownsville Police Department, Oklahoma Nation Cherokee Children's Angle Tree Fund, the Mexico Institute of Dallas, local Mexican hospitals, and several schools and colleges. Languages: English and Spanish Interests: My goal for the people of The Earth is not only the best treatments possible by using the most effective orthodox allopathic chemotherapeutic protocols as the mandatory foundation of a complementary approach to treatment, but to help and encourage the patient to change their health habits, and if possible their exercise capability, and more importantly, to change any negative in perceiving that they can overcome their illness. Each patient must really know, understand and actually believe that I am there as their Physician and that we are together in our fight and struggle to overcome their crisis. We must become a team, and both Physician and patient must exhibit courage and action in the treatments without hesitation or pause, as these are the early lessons taught to me by my patients, the ones who survived the longest and achieved recovery most often and had these qualities in common. References: Ronald F. Ederer Esq., former United States Assistant Attorney General for the Western District of Texas 210.573.3566 Antonio Garcia Amor, Notario #2 of Acapulco, Guerrero, former Mexican Senator 210.545.9136  San Antonio; 52.744.482.2134 or 52.744.482.2594

Aniyunwiya (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Aniyunwiya


 * Thanks, that confirms what I thought might be the case about his degrees, I'll reply on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What is your problem??!
Why do you remove the whole thing? What's wrong?--Setenlyacc (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page - I've already made it quite clear there what your problems are. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a article on Wikipedia and add that source. I do not think I violated any laws--Setenlyacc (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Ghaznavid article
Would you care to explain plagiarism to User:HistoryofIran? His copying of 33 words from Iranica is according to him only "a few words". --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not just that article. And the editor above has been copying, it's endemic. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

'Parachute' revisionists
Since my talk page has been flooded by Dr Blofeld, I'm posting this here. I've clarified my comment in the Paris talk page regarding the use of the word "revisionist" by The Promenader, and I've asked him to withdraw that word. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask your advice on Jesus articles
Hello - I don't want to go to a "drama board" like AN/I or AN again, at least not yet, so can I ask your advice on how to deal with constant "fringe-theory" pushers on the following articles - Historicity of Jesus,Jesus,Christ myth theory,Tacitus on Christ,Josephus on Jesus. As far as I am concerned, there is a very basic thing that these articles must get across to maintain neutral point of view - virtually all relevant authorities agree that there was such a person who was crucified under the orders of the Roman authority Pontius Pilate, and one of the reasons that they all agree is that Tacitus says so, and so does Josephus, although the Josephus reference is slightly more questionable than the Tacitus. That is it, quite simple, really, but we face constant disruption by "mythicists" who think that if you try to keep this neutral POV in the articles you are a fundamentalist Christian who thinks Jesus walked on water. History2007 got these articles into very good, very neutral shape, he patiently explained WP:RS to the POV pushers, he seemed happy to repeat the same things over and over, but then he got fed up and vanished. Pico also used to help,he re-wrote the Christ myth theory to a neutral standard, then he too retired.I don't have the time or the patience to do what History2007 did, we need more watchers at these articles, probably I will get into trouble if I am one of the very few trying to keep such things from appearing in the articles as happened today, when a user tried to put ideas of Acharya S, a blogger who thinks Jesus was a zodiac sign, or something, into two different articles [], is one, and changed "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" in the Historicty of Jesus article lead  to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend".. They have been changed back but the user is promising to continue his campaign, and this is only the latest in a long line of such users, it is like a full-time job protecting the articles from this sort of thing, we need help. I don't know if talking to an admin like this on his talk page is considered some sort of breach of etiquette or something, I will let the user know I have mentioned his name, but really the problem is larger than this one person, this area is now very vulnerable to constant disruption due to the retirement of History2007 and PiCo, I would appreciate any advice. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (I noticed this because Dougweller's User Talk page was auto-added to my Watch List recently.) The thing here is that the two statements, Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend are not mutually exclusive. The Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is not exactly the same as the Jesus confirmed by history. Articles certainly should indicate that scholars agree that there most likely was some guy 'named' (i.e. Anglicised as) 'Jesus' who was killed by the Romans for challenging their authority, but such articles must not imply that those views give support to the other stories about Jesus in the Bible. There is some support for various views that stories of the biblical Jesus may be in large part based on older beliefs, including astrological beliefs, and those are not incompatible with the actual existence of a much less fanciful person who actually lived in Palestine in the 1st century. Nor does it mean that biblical accounts that may have some historical basis have not been 'embellished'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement put into the article today "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend" is not supported by the sources cited. I would not even go so far as " killed by the Romans for challenging their authority" as neither Tacitus nor Josephus say why Pontius Pilate had him put to death, just that he did. However I don't want to get into content arguments here on Doug's talk page, I would appreciate help in watching those articles.Smeat75 (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the statement as given certainly isn't neutral, but the import is correct; the 'of the Bible' aspect is central to the statement, and should be explained much more clearly. I'll look over the articles in question later.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570501948 your edit] to Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * of Cyrus the Great, still current then in Pars." Boyce, Mary "Middle Persian Literature" in Handbuch Der Orientalistik --I. Abt., IV. Band 2., p. 60 [http://archive.org/stream/

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570502140 your edit] to Ardashir I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * of Cyrus the Great, still current then in Pars." Boyce, Mary "Middle Persian Literature" in Handbuch Der Orientalistik --I. Abt., IV. Band 2., p. 60 [http://archive.org/stream/

cwmsymlog
Dear Dougweller, It concerns the article "Cwmsymlog". My late wife made a drawing in 2001 of the standing stone in front of the house of friends in Cwmsymlog. If you want so I can produce their phonenumber. They know that Anneke Koerts, my wife, made the drawing. I wrote the article. My son Allan helped me with placing the photo I made, on Wikipedia. The name of the stone: Pant y Garreg Hir. Wikipedia removed the drawing. I am the owner of the drawing and made the photo. Anyone can use the picture with my permission. Permission granted. Meaning rights of the owner and copyrights. I hope that you can help me and will bring my wife's drawing back in the article. One of your moderators called it "a nice drawing". I already sent two e-mails to Wikipedia (One address with:... permissions...). I am not very good in the technical side of computers. I thank you on forehand. I would appreciate it when you make visible the drawing I own, in the article. The drawing is exactly the real standing stone in Cwmsymlog. I received the mail from Wikipedia too late, being in Wales near the same stone.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You really don't need a personal life, do you?
As per User:Drmies's comments at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I really think that we probably would be better off if you decided to just completely and utterly forego any attempt to have a life outside of editing. God knows that there's probably enough weirdness happening around here on a daily basis that you wouldn't find yourself short of things to do, right? John Carter (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All kidding aside, wouldn't it be helpful to have content people on payroll? (Yeah, "anyone can edit", no authority, crowd sourcing, sure...) Drmies (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that!
<b style="color:#32B430;">Omirocksthisworld</b>( Drop a line ) 23:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs.
As it states in the bird article Phylogenetic taxonomy places Aves in the dinosaur clade Theropoda. That is only one sentence regarding this fact, there are more! The Mummy (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank u for protecting Cinema of Andhra Pradesh, The article demands a permanent protection and special status for monitoring on wikipedia.

strict vigilance on the content by an admin is the need of the hour, to avoid frequent content disputes and agenda driven vandalism of editors belonging to other native film industries, like Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam. It is physically and mentally very cumbersome to deal with this article, the Cinema of India is highly dynamic industry, where the south Indian film industry, share huge roots of bias, point of view, stigma among the four cinematic cultures on who is great and who wins most National Film Awards.

It is better for an editor to die than to deal with the breathtaking editing experience gained through this article. Vgnome (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cwmsymlog
Dear Dougweller, I foud your talk page because of your welcome, already some time ago. I am very happy that the drawing of my late wife is in the article "Cwmsymlog" again. You know that I can proof that I am the owner of the drawing. I use it for the first time on internet. I made the photograph. I told you about the phonenumber of my friends in Wales. The stone is in front of their house. Of course I have the rights and give permission to publish the photo of the drawing. I have hopes that the photo of the drawing will stay now. I was very disappointed that is was deleted. P.S. I sent emails to: info-en@wikipedia.org and to: permissions-en@wikipedia.org. I was in Wales, etc. when the problem started and couldn't do anything about it than.Thank you for your help.195.169.52.70 (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC) I read my email. As far as I can see everything is okay now. Reply by: Brian Cox. Thank you again.195.169.52.70 (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Romeinsekeizer (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your emails went to the right addresses, but we are all volunteers and it can take a bit of time. Glad it's all sorted. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleting entire discussions from Talk Pages
This is a new low which has no place on Wikipedia. I can understand that some edits need to be debated but when someone such as yourself prevents those edits even being discussed on Talk Pages that is just a blatant censorship and suppression of information (wrt F-22 article). I would submit that this is a valid source of information from a well-known news channel.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52880310. The information is also backed up by this source.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-07-10/politics/36781432_1_f-22-plane-pentagonZ07x10 (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, the link was a copyright violation - no debate about that. And it was on the wrong talk page and I told you where it should go. AND it turns out you have other sources, so I see no problem. Preventing copyright violations is not censorship or suppression. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh
Hi, Dougweller. I don't see much point in keeping Cinema of Andhra Pradesh fullprotected, especially now that the disruptive Murallli account, which was alone in disputing Qwyrxian's improvements, has been blocked as a sock. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Unprotected, thanks for letting me know. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Need for opinion about Kurdish-Iranian conflict
Hi Dough, I'm writing this since you're an administrator who has been active on articles related to Iranian history - can you please check this issue about month long dispute between me and Greyshark09 at Talk:Kurdish separatism in Iran? Short review: I don't know what to do any more because this person is avoiding conversation, even accused me of being "sock" or for "disruptive editing". There are similar issues on few other related articles, like Kurdish nationalism or Iranian Kurdistan - every time when I found some POV, I put explanation on talkpages refering to WP:RS and then remove or correct biased content, but Greyshark09 never discuss and simply undo my edits. Our dispute has been taken on talkpage of two admins (see it here: JHunterJ and BDD), but these two guys aren't much familiar about theme so they didn't participate in finding any solution. If you have any idea personally or you know someone, please help. Cheers, --HistorNE (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) User Greyshark09 has started writing article about Kurdish revolts in Iran, firstly it was named as "Kurdish-Iranian conflict".
 * 2) Few months later, he has proposed renaming to "Kurdish separatism in Iran", and by one vote (his own) he redirected article to new name.
 * 3) In early August I come to talkpage and explained not all of listed conflicts were "separatism" (see Table) so either name or content should be changed.
 * 4) However, Greyshark09 disagreed and insisted on various foreign-backed or tribal revolts as "separatism", he was mostly engaged in edit war not conversation.
 * 5) Since no serious editor or administrator participated at talkpage and POV-template stood for almost a year, I completely rewrited article according to it's name (during rename proposal).
 * 6) You can see rewriten version here: everything is based on most reliable academic sources, comparing to completely different and biased Greyshark09's version which misused sources and violated OR & SYNTH.
 * 7) Administrator BDD has reviewed article at 18:26, 19 August 2013 when 'mine' version was present, and voted for "no".
 * 8) Greyshark09 interpreted voting as sign of approval for keeping his own version, so he restored it once again, and he was persistent in forcing it during past 10 days.
 * 9) In meanwhile, I created new article for general conflict named as Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan so I transfered content about all revolts there. Still, on two places I saw Greyshark09 disagrees with it and still insists all conflicts are "separatism".
 * Greyshark seems to be suggesting WP:DRN, if he is willing that's the best idea. I don't really know enough about the issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw, I replied there also, but unfortunately no one got involved about issue so that's why I asked you if you know someone who is capable to review. Perhaps Dbachmann or someone like Kansas Bear? I'll try to reach them. --HistorNE (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have thought of them, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Cwmsymlog
Dear Dougweller, The problems with the drawing in the article "Cmsymlog" are solved. Thank you and Brian Cox.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello from Keeby!
Hello Dougweller! My name is Keeby! I saw that you blocked HistoryofIran, a user that I was having a discussion with about reaching a consensus on regards to a new map of the Sasanian Empire being made by the cartographers on the map workshop. He agreed to it, but he was also the only user that responded. Now keep in mind that I am NOT Canvassing when I say this, but I would like to know your thoughts on this matter. You can either agree or disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sasanian_Empire#Recommendations_to_Map_workshop_team

Regards Keeby101 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... thanks
Greetings Dougweller. Just seen your copyvio removal over at the Mutiny of Aranjuez and instead of simply clicking that "Thank" button, thought I'd pop in and do it "personally". I'm afraid you'll find a large amount of copyvio on a large number of Peninsular War-related articles – apart from the ones I've been creating myself recently, of course :) – not to mention ones that may not actually be copyvio, but are pure fiction, like Antoine Charles Louis de Lasalle which, until WQUlrich got to work on it last month, paring it down from 50,000 bytes to 31,000, was a joke... one of those bad ones that nobody laughs at. We'll get there in the end. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the personal post. I'm dying here with copyvio. This sock farm Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis and other editors this last few days. Spent several hours today just removing it. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't let it get you down! There's lots of folks out here who appreciate y'all being there :) BTW, the name of the "sock farm" you mention rang a bell, and on checking, it turns out that I gave him/her a friendly warning precisely for this just a couple of weeks back. And here I was, complacent in my illusion of my powers of persuasion. Turns out that the only ones you can really count on are the out-and-out vandals... Sigh! --Technopat (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Europa Universalis government types applied in real world
Hi Doug (or Substitute Doug),

Something extraordinary is happening to Wikipedia! I have noticed that over the past week or two, government categories from the Europa Universalis III/IV strategy games have started being used for real world articles in Wikipedia.

Articles defining the terms, such as Noble republic, Merchant republic, Administrative republic, Despotic monarchy etc. have been expanded or created (with, it must be acknowledged, relevant references showing that they have, at least to a limited extent, already been used in real world contexts), and these categories are beginning to appear in infoboxes (e.g. Corsican Republic has been changed from Constitutional Republic to Administrative Republic; the Republic of Venice from Oligarchic Republic to Merchant Republic).

While the new designations tend to be quite appropriate, I am concerned that Europa Universalis, well-thought-out though it is, is not what most people would consider a Reliable Source- and is indeed not being credited as the source anyway.

Even more intriguing, the person who seems to have started this, User:Turgeis (named after a character in the Myth II game) ceased activity and blanked his user page at 22:54 on 26 August. At 23:01, User:Ceiscoran (also named after a character in Myth II) appeared and is continuing the work at a rapid pace.

I have no idea what the procedure is for reviewing and responding to such an ambitious and audacious effort.

David Trochos (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Must get to bed, but... not SPI at the moment as no overlapping edits, although they seem to be the same person. I'm concerned about which is copyvio from .  looks like copyvio also, see . I'd warn both accounts - ah, Turgeis was warned and continued copyvio (the link above), so I think an SPI is in order to link the two. Ceiscoran needs a warning - can you raise the SPI (not really hard, similar user pages (show Turgeis's old one), similar edits, times, and copyvio from both) and warn Ceiscoran? And maybe post this to User talk:Moonriddengirl? Bad sources need to go to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Woo- that got quite dramatic. I posted my message just before bedtime and got back this evening to see your response and, well, everything else. I'll try taking a netbook to work and doing some reverts tomorrow- please let me know if there's an allocation system in place. David Trochos (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I've dealt with most of the copyvio, feel free to revert anything else you want, no system in place. Thanks very much for the tip, although I think I hate you for putting me through hours of looking for copyvio. :-) Nice to get all the socks. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I 'm working through the Ceiscoran edits in chronological order David Trochos (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The cynic in me speculates that their requests for copy-edits by the GOCE were done in the hope of masking copyvios by getting someone else to paraphrase some of their copy-paste.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a possible explanation, certainly I was unable to think of one and it puzzled me. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say this was the most intriguing section title I've seen in a while :D  Snowolf How can I help? 05:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How is the file of the human displacement map of the world not reliable?
Hi, i've noticed that you've said that the file of the human displacement map of the world isn't reliable, however, you might have decided that based only on tobus claims without having considered my point of view in this discussion: the image is reliable because it is done by an stablished expert on the field: Jonatahan Hagos, you can verify it here on the website if the Oxford Brookes University:


 * Research Interest and consultancy expertise:
 * My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions.

I gave a look to the section that tobus made in the reliable sources noticeboard and i found out that he uses a reasoning similar to the one he used in the talk page before: That it can't be valid because the site allows to mention both things "consultancy expertise and research interest" so it can be only one because the site doesn't specify on a implicit way which is which, however, that's false, because at the beginning of the quote the phrase "My work and research" is used, leaving clear that it's both, the only thing he does in that part of his post is to make assumptions based only on the bio found on his site, however the sections don't match at all, they aren't identical. what tobus does is to put in doubt the credibility of an institution such as the Oxford Brookes University without any real back up. He also ignores that researchers backed up by prestigiousuniversities are well reliable.

In another part of his post he mentions that Hagos isn't reliable despite being working as a production designer on a film called Simshar, whose main topic is migration, it's causes and it's impacts (he conveniently didn't mentioned this), with he quoting this from the production designer article: (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" however he didn't mention that accord to the same article, the production designer isn't considered an art director anymore (he conveniently only says that is another name for art director) and that has multiple responsabilities on different fields in the production of a film. Another con on this part of his argument is that accord to [] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, (hagos is backe up on this part by the Oxford Brookes University) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The second criteria is meet for him directly designing a film whose main topic is migration (thing that again, tobus conveniently left out of his post in the reliale sources noticeboard) with that film actually receiving coverage from another third parties ), Again the assumptions he is doing aren't supported by any source, and he have admited to not be able to found sources or cite policies that agreed with the assumptions he is using in our discussion before.

Another of his arguments is that the map isn't situable because census data does not collect skin color information, however that's false because the census do consider ancestry and country of origin (whit that information you can determinate what would by the approximate color based on a map that states which are the distributions of color for native popullations, and Hagos happens to cite exactly that map it's at the left side, in the bottom), he also says that biasuttis map is obsolete  However it is used on multiple articles (see file usage section) and have an article dedicated to it's methodology, and in fact, Hagos uses that map as a source and attemps at modernize it. He finally says that is impossible to get an exact representation of what skin color would be for each country, however the map doesn't attemp to be exact, the map strictly works with averages, and by the logic he is using the "completely accuracy" thing would be an issue on dozens of maps being used on wikipedia, icluding the ones already up on the human skin color article, isn't sensate neither objetive to ask so much to a particular map but let the other ones pass without any problem. He complains about the map being heavily based on personal interpretations and previous assumptions, not on accurate scientific data when the map bases itself only on scientific and governamental information, there is nothing that he is making up by himself, unlike tobus who uses oly baseless assumptions and intentionally half writes my arguments. And he have accepted his assumptions to be baseless before

In short while his post on the reliable sources noticeboard might have looked convincing, he only wrote half of the discussion (the elements that were on it's side) while leaving out, half-writing and misinterpreting all my arguments (he also wrote the section at an hour he already knows i'm not up on wikipedia, so i couldn't defend myself, he also used the same technique yesterday to attemp to get me blocked but failed, this makes very clear that he is in no way a fair player). I understand that you might have though that he was right for how he write it and what he write, but he intentionally ommited and misinterpreted all the things on which i'm basing my posture of this map being reliable and i ask you to reconsider your decision after reading the full problematique, not only what tobus conveniently wrote to make me and my map look bad. thanks for your time. Czixhc (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Now, besides tobus writing incomplete information and intentionally misinterpreting my posture another problem that i've found while discussing with him is that he bases his postures almost totally on assumptions, his own post on the reliable sources noticeboard contains various examples of this, like the second part of this one: A Production Designer (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" (from Production_designer#Responsibilities) meaning it's Hagos's artistic, design and creative work that has been published, not his knowledge in migration (if indeed he even has any). - There is no policy that states that what he is saying about "only artistic knoledge being published" is correct, what the policy on verifiable sources say is that the expert in question must have work on the relevant field, and the movie's topic on which he is the production designer is on the relevant field on this case (migration and issues related to it). Here is another blatant example: Firstly, there is no evidence that Hagos is in fact an expert in migration - he has zero education in migration, zero qualifications in migration, zero experience in migration, zero reputation among other experts in migration and zero publications in migration. - This makes clear that he deliberately ignored my source (the Oxford Brookes University) that actually considers him a researcher and a consultancy expertise on the topic, another blatant lie: I'm not sure that migration is a field "in the subject matter" for this case - while migration might be related, the map is clearly saying "country X has an average skin color of "Y" not that it has Y amount of migration. - Apparently he forgot that the name of the map is Human displacement map of the world" and that on it's description is stated that it wants to highlight the effects of migratory trends , finally, here is another one: I would expect the maker of such claims to be an expert in Anthropology or Genetics, not in Migration (and certainly not in Architecture) - The main topic of the map is migration and it's effects, and for the other factors included he uses information that is already accepted and included on wikipedia (like Biasutti's map and national census data) he is not "making up everything by himself" as tobus claims. In fact Hagos isn't doing anything for which he isn't qualified for. What tobus is doing is the old technique of "saying a lie as much times as possible, enough to make it pass as a truth" Here in the talk page are more examples of him making baseless assumptions again and again if you are interested on seeing more of his ways . Czixhc (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Won't you give me an answer? Czixhc (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied at RSN, this shouldn't be taking place here. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Turgeis socks
I'm getting caught up by RL again and don't have time to follow the rest, but given the copyvio concerns and the positive SPI results, I'd venture you could block the rest yourself without this causing even an appearance of impropriety. Otherwise leave me a note where I can see it of anything else that comes up and I'll block tomorrow. MLauba (Talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's done now, I've been dealing with the copyvio, a thankless job (except I've been thanked below!). Thanks for your help. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I remember that :) I had a look at the listed IPs, but I think both moth recent contribs are too far away in the past to justify IP blocking them. I have to say, though, that the video game aspect of Turgeis' contributions certainly qualify as some of the more bizarre things I've seen here. MLauba (Talk) 08:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I saw your comments on the GOCE requests page. I spent a fortnight copy-editing Peninsular War in July/August, and while I suspected a copyvio I couldn't prove it, but I did rewrite and remove substantial portions of text that I considered waffle. Turgeis was editing concurrently to me; quite what was added I don't know. The copyvio was spotted in February here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Feudal monarchy
I just replied on my page, but I noticed you reverted the copyvio tag. Normally when an entire article is copyvio the whole thing has to be deleted from the record, history and all. Do you mind if I restore the copyvio tag so that someone can take care of that? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, or I could rev/del. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah if you have the power to clear the whole thing go for it, then recreate the redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * TY! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Greco-Italian war
Hi Doug. I've removed that article from the GOCE requests because now that Turgeis is indeffed, I don't see that it any longer has someone to champion it to GA. It's tagged, so it will get copy edited eventually. If you disagree with me (e.g if you want to take it forward yourself) please don't hesitate to revert me. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No mistake by you.
Someone vandalized a page that you had edited. It is the article about Çatalhöyük. I'm not sure of the extent of the vandalizing - I just noticed the words "monkey butt " were inserted into the religion section. There may be more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwenz68 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... "rolling way back"
Greetings again. Just seen the edit summary in which you refer to the possibility of rolling back to pre-sock version of Peninsular War. I personally think it's the best solution (copyvio is copyvio), and have no objection whatsoever, but maybe you'd like to mention it first to, a user who has done an amazing job on copyediting that particular article (although it's likely that much of that copyediting has had to be done on the content added by sock/socks...). Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pat, my head's swelling up now! ;-) .I've commented above in the section 'Turgeis socks'. I'm not sure how much copyvio text remains in the article since I don't have the book it was copied from, and while I'll be disappointed by a rollback to March 2013, if that's what needs to be done, so be it. Anyway, good luck to you both with the article, I'm sure it'll be heaps better without the copyvio text. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What book do people believe the copy vios come form...as we can see copies of most of Charles J. Esdaile books. -- Moxy (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)




 * I think I got rid of most of it - as Moxy says, searching on the suspect text (anything from the socks) usually turned up the same text in Google books. I'm finished now, you might just take a look at what happens if you compare the current version with the February version before the socks. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneless
The passage you deleted talked about Imair as being described a leader of all the Norsemen in Britain and Ireland. The source cited as the Annals of Ulster. You removed the passage with the comment that the source did not seem to support the passage. I restored the passage with the comment "Annals of Ulster 873". The entry in the Annals for the year 873 clearly describes Imair as the leader of all the Norsemen in Britain and Ireland.Eroica (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the talk page - the bulk of that edit was about what historians think about Ivar, Imar and the location of Lochlann, none of which is in the source. And the source is a primary one so we should be citing what historians say about it, right? Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I hate bothering you, he said, clearly indicating that's what he's doing, but...
there is now a request for arbitration at Arbitration/Requests/Case which you might be able and/or willing to offer input, should you choose to do so. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a question!
Please respond to this thread. I need your advice on this, I created an article a few weeks ago titled: List of species rumored/believed to still be alive that was deleted by Administrator Future Perfect Sunrise. He and I are not exactly on good terms, although I do have his page on my watchlist. That is how I found you when you posted on his talk page that you blocked HistoryofIran from editing. I was planning to revive/recreate my first article, but under a different name. Is that allowed? Or will I be blocked if I attempt to do so? Just need confirmation. Regards. Keeby101 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jill Rappaport
I had no Idea that i did anything wrong on that article and how was it a violation? i changed the way another editor told me to, the change some of the material and I certainly don't want to be blocked from editing. ACase0000 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Douglas
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Prestigiouzman (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your help desk message

Help Desk Message reply to your inquiry (see below please)

Why did you write "we" and not "I"? We allow only one editor per account. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant "I". It is only me (one person) on the account. At present, I am married, so sometimes forgetful in my usage, which I apologize for the confusion. I am the only one using the account now and in the future. Thank you. Publico2020 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am a new user, getting started in the last several months, and trying to learn how to use and contribute, edit, and work in Wikipedia as a volunteer and hopeful graduate to a higher-level of understanding its many features. . (Publico2020 (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Some advice
I have been, perhaps unwisely, fixing references, rewriting and/or removing copy/paste violations of User:HistoryofIran. Would it be more economical time-wise to simply revert back before HistoryofIran's edits? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate your work with this editor. It sort of depends upon how many other editors you are going to revert - if there have been any substantial edits you might want to let them know. It's something I've had to do before. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone is trying is vandalize Olympus Mons
Doug, someone hiding behind an anonymous IP address is trying to vandalize Olympus Mons. He added a short section without sources which, for all purposes, is a brief sentence about mountain climbing in Mars. I reverted his edit, and then he reverted mine. I reverted it back. If he (or she - though that gender is unlikely) reverts it again, can you kindly look at the matter? Titus III (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, on my watch list now. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked from adding a newly released book on the list of science fiction novels and short stories.
Hi Doug,

I tried adding a newly released book to the list of science fiction novels and short stories but it was removed by you for copyright violations. I am the author of the book and I only added a one sentence blurb about the book on the Wikipedia page. Is it still possible for me to add the book to the list?

Sincerely,

Oliver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver9658 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dendrobieae
Can you tell me why Dendrobieae was deleted as part of a mass deletion of articles by user:Max Borin? I know nothing of the context surrounding these deletions. RJFJR (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's simply routine to delete edits and articles created by sock puppets. It can be recreated by anyone. I wasn't the only Admin who deleted articles by a number of related socks. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know if there were known problems I wasn't seeing.  RJFJR (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

New Article
Hi, I am looking into creating an article on a grocery store/supermarket chain, and my question is: since the store has two different names which name should i use to create the article: Price Less Foods or Price Less IGA or use just Price Less? I thought since you seem to be an experienced user/administrator i would ask you for help. ACase0000 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Always do a Google search with the 'site' command, eg "Price Less Foods" site:en.wikipedia.org" before you create an article. That will show you if we have a relevant article already. In this case we have Houchens Industries - what I would suggest is creating 2 redirects, one for each of those names (but not for "Price Less"). Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help it is much appreciated, would you suggest creating a new section in Houchens Industries article to tell about the chain or just create a different article? which would be better? ACase0000 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely a section. Only an article if it becomes so large it overwhelms the main article. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok Thanks. ACase0000 (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Yeah- it's frustrating because edit warring is not my thing. Thanks for helping out with this one. Wouldn't be great if everyone lived by BRD? Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Liberty Fund
Thanks. Just leave the PP as is. We will see what sort of article improvement proposals are developed. – S. Rich (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Dougweller, my name is Tomica. Since you are an administrator I would like if you could help me with something. Can you please transfer User:Tomica/Good Girl Gone Bad to the original article, Good Girl Gone Bad. I would be grateful. Cheers! — Tomíca (T2ME) 08:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help with something.
As you can see here, Future Perfect thinks that his taste is more important than others, and it is not the first time he does things like that, i would like to make a vote where people can choose, how do i do that? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh.. bump? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe WP:RfC if it really is copyright free, which it seems to be but I'm checking. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edited
I believe you messaged me when I replaced Christian Mythology with Christianity. Christian Mythology is quite offensive and not an unbiased term. You say we're not supposed to edit to fit viewpoints, but Mythology is the atheist viewpoint of it   -Dizzzer


 * First, we actually have an article on Christian mythology which was the link. Secondly, Christian theologians write about the subject. This has nothing to do with biased terms, it's a term used by Christians as well as non-Christians and we have plenty of sources for it. The link was meant to go to the article, you can't just change it because you don't like an academic subject. Read the article. eg "George Every claims that the existence of "myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone", including "probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants". Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dougweller, I would suggest you make an extra effort to be more neutral in your edits. Let me be clear that I agree with most of your reasonings most of the time. What I am saying is that - and perhaps you don't realize it - you have a lot more to give and contribute if you were not so adamant about confronting those who happen to hold views different from yours. Both views are necessary in the encyclopedia. What good would it be if it was a forum containing only those thoughts and ideas that only some editors believed, liked, or were comfortable with? Just some advise. Mercy11 (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but did you look a the user's talk page and his other edits? This was about an edit where he changed Christian mythology so that it read Christianity. If he'd simply changed the link so that it went to Christianity, that would have been probably ok, but see WP:EASTEREGG. No one would have known that the link wasn't to Christianity unless they clicked on it or hovered over it. Where I did err perhaps is in not giving him that link, which I'll do now. And the subject Christian mythology is of course not about Christianity being a myth, right? I did miss one piped link there and I'll change it. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, that link is ok as it is clear that it is Christian traditions that are being meant. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ask, are you talking about my reverting him being not neutral? And we do have an editor with a problem here, as User:Favonian made clear twice. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gwennan Gorn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bardsey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Shermer/Archive 1
You may wish to comment, since you revdeleted some material in that discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Leo Frank
Hello, Dougweller I just added additional information to a discussion on the Leo Frank Talk page, concerning the American Mercury and the source (author) of their 2013 (evidently reprinted) article 100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty. If it turns out that the article was originally written by a reputable author, during the period when the Mercury was a respected and reliable literary source, then the (original) article and the information contained therein may well be a reliable source for quotations and citations within the Leo Frank article. Your comments and insight would be mosy appreciated, if you would care to add to the discussion. Gulbenk (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Abraham tags
Hi. I noticed that you recently put two tags on the Abraham article. Can you please specify the reasoning behind them on the talk page so the problem can be addressed and resolved? --1ST7 (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You were in a bit of a rush - if you'd waited you'd have seen my reasoning. Basically you've rewritten some sections using Creationist authors. But see what I've posted. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits to NBC News
Hi, noticed recently that someone had been removing some "Correspondents" from the personal section and i went to view history of the article saw that someone using the name Nbcintern did it and i also recently saw that wikipedia was having some problems with sock puppet users and that a person using Nbcintern13 had been blocked from editing i think that this may be the same user, I came to you for help because you are an administrator. ACase0000 (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Patricia Cloherty / ANI
Hi Doug! A new editor has shown up trying to spam the same old "controversy" claims into Patricia Cloherty. We're back at ANI. While I didn't mention you personally, I did mention the 4 times it was edit-protected, the most recent of which was yours (and the spamming started not long after the protection ran out). So as a courtesy, I thought you should know. Cheers, Stalwart 111  10:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for taking a look at that. Would you mind having a look at Kirill Dmitriev as well? There's a content concern being used as justification for removing a different section sourced to the WSJ. Stalwart 111  12:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dinas Affaraon vs. Dinas Emrys
I undid your edit trying to redirect the Dinas Affaraon page to the Dinas Emrys one. The move was unneeded as the legend of "the ambrosial city", while little known and certainly subject to question, is a legend still and deserves a page to call its own. Your other edits were appreciated though as they made the article more professional, so I thank you for those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken it to WP:AfD as Spence is not reliable and seems to be simply wrong. You need to look at the original sources Spence uses (or often anyone uses). You will have a link to my AfD submission by now. I find that often new editors stop at the first sources they find and don't go back to the sources they use - it even happens to me sometimes and then I embarrass myself when I look at the other sources! Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be nothing more than an almost forgotten story associated with Dinas Emrys, but that does not warrant its deletion. Long before I made the page I saw it on the Mythological place page, but found that no article existed for it. If anything, it made the Mythological place more complete. A legend with little to no evidence is still a legend and deserves to be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why was Dinas Affaraon on the list of Mythological places, and not Dinas Emrys? "A magical Druid city hidden among the hills of Snowdonia" was written there long before I arrived. Why put it there if you did not want a page for it? The two are separate, one is a legend the other a place. Even if nothing solid can be found, a legend it is still, and is respected by modern Druids. Let it be. It does no harm nor takes away repute from the Dinas Emrys page. I would appreciate an answer to my above questions. Why was Dinas Affaraon on the list of Mythological places, and not Dinas Emrys? Why put it there if you did not want a page for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)