User talk:Sdmuni108

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How to verify copyright permission for article Richard L. Thompson
Hello, Sdmuni108.

Thank you for your interest in donating material from https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ABfYvDxWe8UJ:www.dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads/1-spd-biographical-essay-dandavats-take2-2.doc+Goel+and+Thompson+also+presented+two+papers+for+the+International+Symposium+on+Organizational+Constraints+on+the+Dynamics+of+Evolution,+sponsored+by+the+Hungarian+Academy+of+Sciences+in+1987+in+Budapest&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgbvWT8wECuH899xnkrK4bOlqB02TOxmydt32N-VB9XFF-dO5sY1NQLj5lxMR5ZZL1l6q3sa_VyXIkRKGESxcFcQ0wemsau8GfCEu008IHjzd8ZQVVEtLzN6MycnNeK-8xwfc3K&sig=AHIEtbQsMKjo7Nv7023KcaiTqBId9UcLxQ&pli=1 to Wikipedia. Since we do not currently have a method in place to verify the identity of account holders at account creation, we must verify such donations through external processes. The content has been removed until the verification process is complete.

The simplest way to verify is to place a release on that external website putting the material into public domain or co-licensing it under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which permit modification and reuse, even commercially, as long as authorship credit is given. This release is irrevocable and must continue to be displayed, or the material may need to be removed. A statement such as the following would be sufficient: "The contents of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License, unversioned with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts." If you decide to take this route, please put a link to that release on Talk:Richard L. Thompson so we can restore the contents.

Alternatively, you may choose to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. There is a boilerplate release form at Declaration of consent for all enquiries which can be helpful. Please provide a clear link to the website in your e-mail and specify by name the articles on Wikipedia in which the material is being used. Once your e-mail is received and processed by a member of the Communications Committee, the article's contents will be restored if your release is legally sufficient.

We apologize for the additional steps necessary, but as copyright is a matter of legal concern, we must ensure that we not only protect the rights of copyright holders, but also guard the Wikipedia project against inadvertent infringement.

Before verifying permission, please first review the material to ensure that is compliant with Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and neutrality and does not contain "original research". (If you are closely related to the subject matter, you may also want to read our conflict of interest guidelines; if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, you should review Starting an article or Your first article.) Even if permission is verified, material may be modified or removed if it is otherwise inconsistent with our policies and guidelines.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know at my talk page. We also have a help desk which is typically manned around the clock by volunteers.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you, it would be easiest to get them to post a statement on the website. For text, a good statement of release might read:


 * The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).


 * As long as it is visible, it doesn't matter where they place it. :)


 * The bibliography should be completely clear of copyright, as long as it is a complete rather than a "select" bibliography, but you may wish to go ahead and clear permission for the other content first, just to make sure that your new content is not overwritten when the earlier text is restored. On the other hand, if it is overwritten, a bibliography should be easy enough to pull back in.


 * Please let me know when the statement is placed on the website, and I'll make sure that the content is swiftly restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The content has been restored. I see now from the talk page of the article that it may have been published on that talk page prior to the external site, though, so I have not put a typical "attribution template" on the article face.


 * In terms of the article itself, this is out of my field, so I'll leave that to the interested contributor discussing it at the article's talk page, but I may be able to help you with talk page markup. :) Help:Introduction to talk pages gives a simple overview of technical procedures. There's a whole wall of text you can read, if you're interested, about the protocols of using the pages here, but the basic recommended practices: (1) keep your replies as brief as you can without sacrificing clarity (people lose patience quickly on Wikipedia, and your audience won't read a long note); (2) remain cordial even when others disagree with you or become rude themselves (see Dispute resolution if disagreements become intractable); (3) don't change other people's comments; if anyone else has already responded to you, you should avoid changing your own. I think if you review the technical introduction I linked above and remember those basic practices, you should be fine. It might help to review WP:5P, which is a brief overview of policies and guidelines that can help you. Disagreements on Wikipedia are settled by consensus, which is not a head count here exactly but a weighted consideration of opinions within policies. That's important to remember in contrast to a lot of other forums, where numbers hold the day. A minority can be "consensus" if they are backed by policy or guideline, which represents a prior consensus of many. :)


 * If I can clarify any of this, please feel free to let me know, and I appreciate your swift resolution of the copyright donation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do from here
Since copyright issues are resolved, now it comes down to talking to other interested contributors about development of the page. As I am an involved administrator on the page, it's not appropriate for me to involve myself in content issues, but I can make some suggestions for proceeding.

First, what I would do in your position is work on your proposed content in a "sandbox" space--a special subpage in your user space where you can take all the time you need to add sourcing to the content before proposing it as alternative text for the article. While our "sandboxes" are not free from all policies (copyright policy and biographies of living persons constraints, for example, apply to every space on Wikipedia, as does the prohibition against promotion), you generally will have much more latitude for working there and are unlikely to encounter any difficulties. If you'd like a "sandbox" space to work in, please let me know; I'll set one up for you with the text that had been removed from the article.

In terms of the bibliography, I can restore this in courtesy to you, but I can't guarantee that other contributors will accept it. Development of the article is entirely a matter of "consensus", as explained above, and consensus can sometimes be a rocky road.

Please let me know if you'd like a "sandbox" set up and also (if so) if you'd like the bibliography in it or in the article itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Other issues
I've raised these on the talk page. These aren't minor problems and if the material is simply restored and you don't fix the, you need to understand that other editors are likely to either remove material or make major changes. A list of references isn't appropriate, we need inline citations (with page numbers for books). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Forbidden archeology
I cannot understand why you claim "hundreds of thousands" of years when the book says millions. Sure, maybe billions is incorrect, but so is hundreds of thousands. It appears that you haven't read any of the book or even Michael Cremo's web page(I haven't read it all but I have read quite a bit). Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would then suggest "many hundreds of thousands of years" - but billions is a concern that does not appear in the book. Nor does it appear mentioned by Wade Tarzia, and others, who are often cited for the "billions" figure. Perhaps Cremo mentions the number in some later writing, but I'm not familiar. In any event, its not in the book. But you are certainly correct, the work does consider anomalous evidence that is dated in the millions of years. Most prominently, the Preface in the first revised edition (written by Cremo in 1995), considers the Laetoli footprints as follows: "Perhaps, as suggested in the illustration on the opposite page, [modern forms] coexisted with more apelike creatures." The qualifying word "perhaps" describes the extent of the millions claim, based on what I'm reading here. Further, the footprints appear to be an extreme example of anomalous artifacts, with the majority in the book considered in the hundreds of thousands of years.Sdmuni108 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Billions is suggested in fact, although only once.. And you can't dismiss what Cremo says about a book he co-authored, eg "presence going That far back in time. In our book 'Forbidden Archeology,' my coauthor Rchard L Thompson (Sadaputa Dasa) and I documented extensive evidence. In the form of human skeletons, human footprints and human artifacts, showng that humans Hke ourselves have inhabited the earth for hundreds of mllions of years, just as the Puranas tell us. This evidence is not very well known because of a process of knowledge filtration that operates in the scientific world. Evidence that contradicts the Darwinian theory of human evolution is set aside, ignored, and eventually forgotten."|billions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c91fUrvWNOaD4ATN6YGwBA&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22forbidden%20archeology%22%20billion|billions&f=false. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct - the sphere in question is attributed to a geographic layer that is in the billions. But as you said, the term "billion" is considered in light of this one artifact. It would appear unbalanced to argue that only one artifact, out of hundreds otherwise discussed, encapsulate's the main argument of a 750 page book. For sure, Cremo has mentioned many things while marketing the work. Thompson was only directly involved with co-authoring the first edition. I would suggest that also needs to be considered - what is published in the the actual book, at least when considering Thompson as co-author. Otherwise, quotations perhaps best be attributed to the person who actually spoke them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 17 October 2013


 * The book says millions of years, all the sources say millions of years. Do not re-instate your edits without consensus, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

For sure, the book says many many things. Its a long book. The thesis argument in the Preface is what states the main argument. 174.131.76.175 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing logged out & misleading edit.
Please try not to do this. It makes it confusing when you do this on your talk page, and although I have no reason to think you are doing any of this deliberately you need to know it will count with there is an issue over WP:3RR (which you should probably read). I'm not going to edit war but your recent edit as an IP is very misleading. That 'marketing website' is a website owned by one of the authors and we should simply have something that attributes the statement to him without denigrating the particular website we are quoting. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I'm logged in now. For better or worse, Wiki editing is not a primary activity of mine. The site in question appears to be a marketing effort for selling the book, as per the links on the page. As you mention, it is part of a promotional website. Why would someone consider it denigrating to market a book? In any event, that is the source of the quotation. Sdmuni108 (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't denigrating to market, but attributing it to a marketing website instead of to the author denigrates the comment. The source is Michael Cremo. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not denigrating for an author to market a book, assuming that is what you are saying. Whatever the case, I opened the link, and what I found was a site that that featured a link for purchasing the book. Sdmuni108 (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Your recent editing history at Forbidden Archeology 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. ''I already told you about 3RR - you've ignored me and I would be within my rights to report you and ask for a block. Please, you must stop edit warring.'' Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the helpful advice. I was making minor changes to a phrase based on the feedback provided by yourself and others. Sdmuni108 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Attempt
Hi - I just posted a short edit that could well more accurately describe what Wade Tarzia actually said - in fact its a quote. I figure that is the safest way to go when citing a source on a topic that appears sensitive. For example, Tarzia does not use the word "billions" in his review, nor does he use phrases such as "central point." But more important to to me, how would you see this sort of contribution in light of the policy concerns you are describing above? Admittedly, I am nowhere near as clear on the various legal on some of the guidelines as you are, based on your long experience working with these issues. I appreciate any advice you may wish to share, and I would like to thank you for this in advance. Sdmuni108 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No. you are attributing what every source says, which in fact violates WP:NPOV. Please discuss things rather than continually makng edits, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern involves the two main descriptive phrases proposing what the entire book is about. If we wish to use these specific phrases, then in these two specific instances, best to attribute them to who actually said them. They are not described in the book as the **main** argument. Perhaps if such information is insisted upon, perhaps best to use a quotation from the book, and ideally the introduction where the authors present their thesis statement for the work. Sdmuni108 (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the one sole 5-paragraph description of an artifact that includes the word "billion" (found on pp. 813-14), the allegedly Precambrian report culled from a 1982 edition of the National Geographic is not accompanied with an argument for human beings living on Earth. Perhaps that is why it is not mentioned as such in the reviews.

Rather, the book states, "Even if it is conceded that the sphere itself is a limonite concretion, one still must account for the three parallel grooves. In the absence of a satisfactory natural explanation, the evidence is somewhat mysterious, leaving open the possibility that the South African grooved sphere--found in a mineral deposit 2.8 billion years old--was made by an intelligent being." This sounds like a broad argument for intelligent design, and not specifically human life. But again, it is but one example, and in this case culled from a main stream publication. It could mean anything, or it could mean nothing--either way, the presence of human beings on earth is not discussed in the book in this context. Neither is it discussed in the reviews in this context. Sdmuni108 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)