Doug Weller

User:Doug Weller	User talk:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Workshop	Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Userboxes	Special:Contributions/Doug Weller	Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Talk archives can be seen here
You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Sodom and Gomorrah

The reason I posted the change, I wanted to see how long conservative truth lasts on the Wikipedia page of a controversial subject and what kind of PC police force Wikipedia has, if any at all. Unbelievable! That revision lasted only minutes!

What I'd said was truth exposed, and that cannot be bigotry.

When you'd said that I'd removed "existing text." So, what's your point? That's what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia encourages people on this site to add, subtract and edit content with wreckless abandon, and you have to know that already. You've made it sound like nobody can touch this page, because it's set in stone. Well, let me give you the same advice that was given to me on this site. You don't own the "Sodom and Gomorrah" page. But, obviously, the page has people watching the site so closely that it not only doesn't pay to try to edit this page, it's shown itself to be of no value to anyone seeking conservative scholarship, if I'd have chosen to include some of that on that page.

However, I have to add that in order for me to have been really legit, I did need to cite sources. If I would've added sources to my comment, then what you did would've been really wrong, because all you seem to be about is slandering, marginalizing and eventually silencing the conservative voice. Canihaveacookie (talk)

Olsson "Editors"

Hey Doug, I would like your help again. Paul Smith and another editor 'Loremaster' have repeatedly harrassed Olsson at Wikipedia. Time after time they have removed all positive references and sources from her Wiki page. I cannot continue to deal with these people. Is there someone I can turn to for mediation? Thank You. Alexis

COI at Sollog biography

You have been reported for possible COI at the Sollog biography. Go to WP:COIN to comment.Arnold1 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply about redirects

Sorry about the lack of edit summaries. Since some needed a slight wording tweak, or other misc stuff as I was removing the redirects, many of the edit summaries would have needed extra/different info. I figured it was obvious to anyone checking that I was just removing redirects, so I took the lazy option. I apologise :) All done now though. 58.165.171.92 (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem. I just found a few more, so I'll tidy them with an edit summary since there are only a few. Take care. 58.165.171.92 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Davenport Tablets

Sorry that you oppose the source about the Davenport Relics so vehemently. Your opinion against this source as "Fringe" is simply unjustified and unscientific, despite the careful and complete research that the author did for this significant work. As a contribution to the understanding of the Davenport Tablets, it is unmatched. I have added the Source to the Wikipedia Article as a contribution to the group, despite your strange objections. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not being vehement to point out that Guthrie's article fails the criteria "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." You haven't been able to find any reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, all you can tell me is that it's been discussed by email, etc. That isn't bias, that is just fact, whereas your statement that 'it is unmatched' is clearly your personal opinion. My objections are not strange, but the idea that this is a 'group' is simply wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You choose to ignore any and all materials including scholarly articles that are relavent that I have referenced. Your personal opinion about Guthries work failing to be a reliable source needs to be verified. As long as your going to run with the source not being reliable, what source did you use for that viewpoint? Once again, wikipedia Sources should present a neutral point of view. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page for the Davenport tablets. Wikipedia articles need all significant views from reliable sources, and there are guidelines about what is a reliable source. I'll add this there: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources."

Re: post on my talk page

RE: reversion page. Thanks! I like it too. :) To answer your question, a lot of times, after a vandal is warned for the first time, it annoys them that Wikipedia is not as easy to mess around with as they thought. Not believing that it was possible for the good guys to revert them so fast, they go to another page, and, being too lazy to actually type out gibberish by banging on the keyboard like this:

asipht['asog'[ shtew[0ht]-u]NQ\R4=Q]V2U[U;OIUHTPWEHT[ VUEPH[v j[OJ KGJ'goja 'gja'sjg'asjv asopr

they start clicking on the buttons above the edit window, like so:

Italic text == File:Headline text--J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[[Media: == Example.ogg ==#REDIRECT [[
Insert text Small Text<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math><br /> <gallery> Image:Example.jpg|Caption1 Image:Example.jpg|Caption2</small><sub><blockquote> Subscript text<small>Small Text</small> </blockquote><br /><blockquote> {| class="wikitable" |- Block quote |}<br /><!-- [Comment]<math><nowiki>Insert formula here--J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[[Media: == Example.ogg ==]]</math> -->

</gallery></nowiki>]]]] ==

(sorry, I've always wanted to have a good reason for doing that :D )

Re: Cahokia page You can use ref tags. Ref tags, <ref></ref> simply make it so that any text between the tags appears in the list of references when <references/> or {{reflist}} is used. I fixed one of your refs to (what I assume) is the correct format. Here is the diff so you can see what I did. Just be sure to include a bibliography near the reflist on the page so that people can find your books if they wanted to verify the article. Hope that helps. If not, feel free to ask again. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never seen that format before. Let me look at it and see if I can figure out what is going on. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

New header cause something is broken above

I figured it out. Here is your problem. You accidentally included a ">" where it shouldn't have been. Don't feel too bad for doing that. One time, I was working on an XML document, and I spent the entire afternoon trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. I forgot a closing quotation mark. :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly how you feel. I do that all. the. time. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Worth Hamilton Weller

I note your recent addition of Worth Hamilton Weller to the list of prominent alumni of Walnut Hills High School and your listing him as having graduated in 1932. Have you good documentaiton of that? The reason I ask is that he is NOT listed in the 1932 Remembrancer (the school's yearbook) but is listed in the 1931 edition. This suggests that he actually graduated in 1931. Because of the connection between this alumni listing and your larger article on him, I am not changing the year before checking with you.

By the way, the photo you placed of him appears to be the photo taken for the yearbook. Pzavon (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the yearbook is correct, I don't know what I was thinking. Interesting about the photo. My dad (his brother) gave it to me. Thanks very much for pointing this out, I'll change it now. Doug Weller (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hadrian the head

Wait, did I add a note of thanks to the wrong editor's talkpage? If so, I'm a dunce. Anyway, it looks like someone else has already taken care of the image's talkpage on commons. Ford MF (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that editor had simply reverted some vandalism to my edit, which was the image one. They'll be confused. :-) Thanks for letting me know about the image's talkpage. Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neferneferuaten

Thanks Doug for the notification. The Neferneferuaten Tasherit comment was not referenced. I have now provided the exact reference for this claim by James P. Allen himself on page 15 of his paper on The Amarna Succession. Neferneferuaten Tasherit or (Neferneferuaten Junior) was the fourth daugher of Akhenaten and intriguingly has the exact same nomen as this female king: Neferneferuaten. I added the edit back to the Neferneferuaten article and provided the references in this edit: [1] I also notified the anon IP on his/her talk page on the exact source for this suggestion. I hope this clarifies things. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes...there already was an existing article on Qaa. I'm suprised some people miss it. Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Walam Olum

Hi Doug. Your reasoning seems very sound on the direction the Walam Olum article should take. It's not a topic I am familiar with, which is why I haven't been contributing to the editing or talk page discussion. However, it appears clear that the scholarly consensus is that the account in no way represents a Delaware narrative, and that it is not a product of any Native culture, and that it is rather a blatant forgery. I'd say you (or any editor, really) should feel free to rewrite the article as needed to reflect this. Keep up the good work, by the way. ClovisPt (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Our" copyvio

When I see language like that I look for a copyvio - sure enough, it came from http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5646/. Thanks for pointing it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re JBS editor

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Voyagerfan5761's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 12:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ping Dougweller.en.wikipedia.org Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Qaa

Thanks. I looked up Qaa and found nothing but a Lebanese village, of dubious location. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

reversion at Talk:John Birch Society

If you want to include subjective terms, create a subtitle of "Criticisms" of the John Birch Society and post your viewpoints there. --PubliusOhio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Dougweller!

I wanted to let you know that I recently reverted an edit you made on this page. Specifically, you altered a section heading Liberal smear and bias to Accusations of bias, that you did not create. While I fully agree that your edit is more neutral in tone, it may or may not reflect what the original editor wanted. If I may suggest, and you are inclined to keep the edit, contact the original author, and ask them to consider changing what they wrote. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nectanebo II

You are kindly invited to change the strange paragraph title 'Legendary father of Alexander the Great' in the article for Nectanebo II...if you know of something more appropriate? Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The Egyptians did believeAlexander was the son of Nectanebo.Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Two pages make an article

Since the article takes up two pages, it cannot factually be called a "page." Your sharply hostile POV is quite inappropriate. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't 'take up' two pages, it is a page long but that overlaps 2 pages as I understand it. And what you call my POV is a quote from a scholar, not me. Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about something like this:

Urrutia wrote a very short article (barely a page of content, plus a page of footnotes), in which he pointed out something that had escaped the notice of Egyptologists and Bible scholars alike: That Psalm 51 and the Egyptian Opening of the Mouth contain some common themes: 1) Opening of the mouth (or lips, in Psalms); 2) Healing of broken bones; 3)Washing of inward parts with purifying herbs.

Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC) The discovery (or idea) of these three themes in common between the Israeli and Egyptian texts is Urrutia's own, and does not come from Nibley. It would be unfair and misleading to create the impression that it does. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Kashmiri

I'll have a look tomorrow, but I'll be away most of today. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Padan/Rajivlal

hey doug, I responded to his ANI here. I also tried to consolidate the discussion of his fringe theory in one place on the fringe theories noticeboard here (where User:Padan's activities were already being discussed). Jak68 (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I grew up in school with BC and I'm just not used to BCE yet. I'm not doing this for religious reasons. But sorry for the edit. AaronPaige (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (EST)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact reversions

I don't understand your problem regarding the changes I've made to the article in trying to clean up POV wording and using the new GM book concerning the 1434. I've sourced it and it has not been implied to be 100% correct per its location within the article. Since the article starts with the word "alleged" in the lead section, it's quite clear to me that the whole article is not considered fact. Technically, the whole article is a POV fork of Age of Discovery, and should not exist anyway. I'm acting under good faith here...I'm going to assume you are as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That didn't explain why you reverted. If you want me to put the secondary reference in there, I will. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Selective references

Thanks for noting the lack of English references. I responded to your comments with the history of the Russian reference and suggested you to restore the one or more in English. Perhaps you can also find those about dendrochronology. Jclerman (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE!

PLEASE READ EVERYTHING THOROUGHLY!!! I am amazed how hard this is becoming, or I think a lack of respect, and starting a edit wars is occuring, when you read all of my replies, and every letter of it, you will not have any doubts. Its so obvious I CAN BARELY FIND IT ANYWHERE, THE SCHOLARS JUST IMPLY IT! And Persian kings while THEY WERE ALIVE WERE CALLED BASILEUS READ THE BASILEUS ARTICLE UNDER USE IN CLASSICAL TIMES! Cyrus was called king of Media after his death, for babylon we have his accidently discovered tablet. For Lydia he was called its RULER, which can mean king, which in greek is basileus, and a babylonian tablet, which I referenced says he killed the king of lydia, and or the son died, even if Croesus lived, he was deported far away to became satrap, and his title as basileus WOULD AUTOMATICALLY PASS ON TO CYRUS, even with another Persian satrap of Lydia! I gave a detailed account with historical evidence, and if you read Cyrus's article and do a little research, what I say is commonly known, before your edits, no one told me I have to cite TITLES, for some reason Lydia is a problem? AGAIN WHAT ABOUT MEDIA, HISTORIANS SAY HE IS KING OF MEDIA, BUT THE HISTORIANS WHO SAID THIS LIVED less than HUNDRED YEARS AFTER HIM, and Xenophon and Ctesias had acces to the official Persian archives! According to YOU then, he is NOT KING OF MEDIA, there is no evidence at the time when he was alive, that he was called that. For Alexander the Great, the last half of the titles you see in his article were not referenced, and were talked about hundreds of years after his death. I'm giving you examples, sources in the talk page, and extra information. But you'll never understand. Please stop giving me the same to meet with Wikipedia's standards notice, its ridiculus for this subject, and people never read it all, notice I'm always saying READ EVERY WORD OF WHAT IS SAID IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE, AND BEFORE REVERTING MY EDITS, READ THE HISTORY SECTION OF THE CYRUS THE GREAT ARTICLE, now recap what I said, read it over, and I finally hope you can understand, F O R T H E L A S T T I M E!--Ariobarza (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

There is no reason for Cyrus not to have the title, all the evidence is in place, but no sources DENY IT, AND IT'S NOT ONLY MY OPINION, AS OTHER AUTHORS HAVE STUDIED THIS SUBJECT, AS SAID IN MY OWN BOOKS, but scholars are afraid to venture this far, because they are scared it might cause controversy. It actually helps it by implying he was ruler of Lydia in various books I cited in the talk page, I UPDATED IT READ IT AGAIN! Ariobarza (talk)

No sources deny it, and it's so obvious you can barely find it because the scholars don't say it, they imply it. That's your problem in a nutshell. You need to read WP:OR and {{WP:SYN]]. And please don't say 'other articles are bad' because that is definitely not a good argument. And while we are on the subject of sources, I hope you have stopped creating articles with no reliable sources. I've got some good sources for a couple of articles you've created that way, but I can't find any for your Battle of the Median Border -- there is no battle of that name I can find. So,I'll help where I can, but if between the two of us we can't find reliable sources, it'll have to go to AfD. It's not as though other people have said the same thing to you. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

what is AfD?, does it mean I'm in big trouble, go to cyrus talk page, if you have not already, and read my most recent additions.--Ariobarza (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Arioabarza talk

Exopolitics

Thank you for your concern, but I don't think that people ranting on their blogs about Wikipedia is actionable here. We don't forbid criticism of us or our administrators. I deleted the self-promotional userpage, though.  Sandstein  05:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Revaluation

Well Doug, I am sorry if I gave you any pain during this weak, but sometimes I'm extremely busy, but at the same time want to make article that I CAN SOURCE, AND I HAVE THE SOURCES, but never get time to list them, I'm a little in a hurry most of the time, but should be okay in the next one-two weeks, so don't delete or change anything in that time. I humbly ask of you to keep this promise for me. But, just so you know I NEVER DISAGREED with taking the titles you put for Cyrus out, I mean the king of king, king of the four corners one. I am not sure why Amizzoni took it. But just know that I am modeling Cyrus' article after Alexanders, AGAIN even half of Alexanders titles are talked about hundereds of years after his death, its on no coin or anything. But from a historians stand put know that we construct history from very scant details left for us. And we hope everday that things that prove ours or ancient historians assertians are found to solve the greatest of mysteries, for example Cyrus' titles. But, at the moment please give me time to come up with more sources for the Lydia title. And please don't change the battles. thank you, goodbye!

YO

Hi again, thanks for your message, actually there is a fine book on ancient history that is on google books, and is based on the fragments of Nicolas of Damascus. First thing, Herodotus, though one of the best ancient historians, was a commener, and compared to Ctesias of Cnidas was a nobody. Ctesias as I think you might know, if you read my older comments on Cyrus' talk page was a personal physician to Artaxerxes. And Xenophon and Herodotus say that to know of Cyrus' less popular battles, the reader should read his. Ctesias had access to the official persian archives, that later historians of rome say that persians were good at keeping records like the babylonians. Anyways, if you read Ctesias persica his numbers and stories are a lot more REALISTIC in todays standards than Herodotus tales of large gold digging ants in India, and griffons in Scythia. Too bad only fragments remain, these reminders bring tears to historians knowing that we know only 10% of history! He wrote his Persica first then Phiotus and Nicolas copied and translated them in the Roman times. His Persica was written at the same time as Herodotus' Histories, so both are as valuable as each other. And Ctesias gives details to battles of Cyrus that Herodotus mentions Ctesias in his histories as the one to look to for Cyrus' other battles. Herodotus works were also translated and both accuse each other of pushing the truth or maybe copying wrong. But, even the death of cyrus is a combanation of Ctesias last versian of his fight and a fight with another Scythian tribe that he fought earlier, the similarities are astounding. SO, to know the truth and to cite, one must compare all sources. I am free to discuss two days from now, but please dont do anything JUST yet. So, for Gordium im not sure it was a siege, and again half of Alexanders titles there is only spoken evidence hundreds of years after his death. THE NEXT LINES ARE FOR EXPLANATIONS TO YOU, AND THEY ARE FROM WHAT I KNOW THAT I WILL CITE LATER, SO YOU KNOW NOW.

For battle of the median border, Nicolas says it was fought on the median-persian border on the mostly the median side, he mentions more than 20,000+? persians+even more persians, against the 20,000 gaurd of Astyages+100,000 other soldiers. ITs interesting as he explains and im not sure but he mentions they all rode around, RODE MEANS ON HORSES AND CHARIOTS thats why i included chariots, and in persian revolt originally there was 50,000 persian cavalry and 200,000 median cavalry that is why i put 120,000-200,000 median cavalry and just 50,000 for the persians as they chased each other around the town, So heavy casualties that Cyrus put and WON the first day, which is a TACTICAL VICTORY for the persians. And median STRATEGIC VICTORY for the medes that one on getting the area the second day, but it was not a total victory for the medes because they abandoned the area and still chased Cyrus, and Cambyses I got wounded and died after the battle!

For siege of pasargadae hill Ctesias through Nicolas says(and im only telling you this so you know for now, but later will cite verifiable sources when I have time 2 days to 2 weeks) so he says the persians were besieged (read the persian revolt, WHICH I WAS GOING TO CITE EACH SENTENCE BEFORE YOUR MAJOR EDIT TO IT) on a hill by a defile, and the hill was in junction of pasargadae, but DOES NOT SAY THE EXACT LOCATION WHICH ALSO BOTHERS ME AND FORCES ME JUST TO PUT PASARGADAE HILL. 100,000 medians go up against 10,000 persians, and are heavily killed as huge boulders of rock are hurled on them, and medians lose.

WHO KNOWS BUT IF THE MEDIAN ARMY WAS LARGE ENOUGH, WHICH IT WAS, IT COULD HAVE GOTTEN REPLENISHED IN EACH BATTLE! Next, the battle of pasargadae, he says 100,000 medians finally reach the hill, and a battle begins with 50,000 other median COMMONER MEN stationed to kill any medes that refuse to KEEP scaling the hill to defeat the persians, persians when mothers and children cry in shame, in desperation and courage, the persians drive the medes down the hill and slew 60,000 of them!(I KNOW IT ALMOST SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A HUGE LONG BATTLE, THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS WHICH I WILL VERIFY SOON).

In herodotus its two battles that harpagus joins the persians in the first one, which i also included that is the only difference between the two accounts. Then Nicolas hints that a fifth battle occurs that Astyages is totally defeated, and handed over to the persians, and that is the Battle of the Pasargaedae Plain. because i thought they fought in a huge plain that STILL sorounds the pasargadae area in Fars or Pars province of Iran. For the dates I equally divide them up, and based on the babylonian tablet Cyrus revolts in summer of 553 BC and his first battle of campgain season is 552 BC and last battle is in 550 BC. So that is why I divided the dates. Siege of Ecbatana is said by Ctesias as Cyrus captures it by force and killS Amytis' husband Spitamas and others for hiding Astyages, so it was a tiny siege or a raid!

Mostly in two days time I will happily discuss any thing that we have to discuss and I MIGHT ask you some citing questions. Anyways thank you for reading such a long ass reply, and now that im getting to be less in a hurry. We can now start on the right foot, and act as gentlemen(talking about myself here). Im in my 20s and have lots of books on persia and other ancient and modern mysteries, and sciences and the arts. I like to play sports to that is why i barely get time to do anything on my sis computer because mines they are fixing still. I like to solve mysteries that is why i just want to get it over with. SO know you have a better picture of me and my interests here that I like contributing to Wikipedia! Thank you! Best of luck to you, and goodbye, for now!--Ariobarza (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

reply

Hi, for gordium it has to do with alexander so im not that worried, so look at the recent changes i did to Siege of Ecbatana, and, based on the sources i know, i can put allot of info, even for a small battle or siege, there is allot of info out there, but as you know i just need to source it, bye for now.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

reply

Thanks for the note about Filquarian. Interesting stuff! I think the article should have a "see also" for Jimmy Wales' publishing venture, but I can't think of the name of that right now... -Pete (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Race of Ancient Egyptians

An RfC has begun for this article and I noticed that you may have some interest in this topic so I thought that I'd let you know. Thanks.--Woland (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Know-it-all book

Hi Doug, good observation. Your conclusions are right: I wrote that stuff after getting my MA degree, and I have to admit that I made some major changes but they were all my words. The publisher must have taken their text from Wikipedia fairly soon after I made those edits. I guess that means... I'm a partially published author? brandon cohen (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Kashmiri people

I absolutely agree. There needs to be a well-sourced lead with consistent and concise information. However, the sources that the anonymous editor we've been contending with cited were laughable. Hopefully an expert on the subject will show up soon :).

TheSuave (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

At least it must count as something, a raid maybe?

Where do you get a source for Ctesias saying it was taken by force?(Force is suggested by me as explain the tone of Ctesias) It sounds more like he used blackmail. As I've said, this belongs in the Ecbatana and Persion revolt articles, not as a separate article. Doug Weller (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read this!

As the creator of this article, I have gathered information from this page and from other notable sources which is presented here. This user is also open to the idea of renaming it as RAID or CAPTURE, raid might be better. And from the Babylonian tablets pertaining to Ecbatana, notice it says the words MARCHED AGAINST, SEIZED, CAPTURED, TOOK. Babylonians, because they have an archaic language, and middle English is used for most translations, never use the words Siege of Ecbatana, they use seize though, as SEIZE in military terms basically means SIEGE. Ctesias says he took it, and by force as provided by this user, simply means Cyrus must have gone to some length to successfully control the city. When Ctesias says it, he may have meant the inner walls, and this is not speculation, as Ecbatana has inner walls to the main city, just like Babylon, it was multilayered. Now, he had threatened to kill the daughter, because he could not find Astyages, and Spitamas lied or gave Astyages up, as one may know, Spitamas was a Median noblemen married to Amytis, the daughter of Astyages. So Cyrus executed Spitamas and others. And on the Persian side it is unknown how many died in this minor siege, if not a RAID. But, this might not have been a siege parse, more like a raid, which there WAS CASUALTIES, by very, very few in number, maybe only a couple of people. So as most historians say Ecbatana was not besieged, they are only referring to Herodotus' version of events, so the best I can give this article PERSONALLY is a RAID, but the ONLY reason I call it a siege is for it to have a normal title. Ecbatana is similar to Siege of the Sogdian Rock, in Alexander’s battles, Alexander had 300 men, and only lost 30 men on the climbing, and the city was BARELY besieged, it immediately surrendered, almost like Ecbatana, but its still called a SIEGE! Please someone explain it to me, as you know I model the Cyrus articles on Alexander’s, because Alexander’s article is much more complete than Cyrus'. Anyways, if one checks out Alexander’s siege, they will see what I mean. For now, please read these three sources and more sources are to come.

[[[1. http://www.lastgen.net/articles/biblecharacter-cyrus.html Excerpt: Unable to carry out the inhuman act, Harpugus secretly turns the child over to a Persian herdsman and his wife. And the boy, Cyrus, grows from a helpless infant into a fearless hunter. Gaining the confidence and respect of all Persia, he leads a revolt and storms the city of Ecbatana.

2. http://books.google.com/books?id=0c_fbw5RaCkC&pg=PA591&lpg=PA591&dq=cyrus+siege+of+ecbatana&source=web&ots=jl83Cbq_Co&sig=DCDnVkg-TcBB8c5tYEXfXBEurnI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result Excerpt: Says on page 591, Cyrus had to take Ecbatana to be called the ‘Great King’.

3. http://www.parstimes.com/library/brief_history_of_persian_empire.html Excerpt: Faced with the Persian revolt and the betrayal of the aristocracy, Astyages was captured, and the royal city of Ecbatana had to SUBMIT to Cyrus, according to Ctesias because Cyrus threatened to torture his daughter Amytis, whom Cyrus later married.]]]

Now these are common sense comments from most users that responded on this page;

Keep. Very weakly. This is an ancient battle for which sources are sparse, but it appears to be at least alluded to in the Chronicle of Nabonidus. The text of Nabonidus says “Cyrus marched against the country Ecbatana; the royal residence he seized; silver, gold, other valuables of the country Ecbatana he took as booty and brought to Anšan." *Comment - WE HAVE A SHORT ARTICLE Ecbatana, WHICH DESCRIBES IT AS A WALLED CITY WHICH Cyrus the Great TOOK AND PLUNDERED. From what is stated above, it seems we have no details as to how he took it - whether by siege, storm, or plain surrender. (ACTUALLY, BASED ON SOURCES, STORMING AND SURRENDERING TOOK PLACE), accordingly, there is little known fact to write an article about. Accordingly, redirect to Ecbatana. Alternatively substitute "Capture of Ecbatana" for "Siege of Ecbatana" in the template and then delete. Certainly there is no place for this to survive as an article, though the campaign leading to its capture does legitimately appear in the Cyrus template, which is all we have on the page at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)*Comment So far I have not found any specific reference to a siege there, but I am still looking. Though some of the potential sources are online, I'd be happier with a proper print search, but that will have to wait for next week. The name seems to have been used for the city, the country around the site, and the palace. DGG (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Keep. It is small but as was said above, it is about an ancient battle that does have few sources out there. It can be expanded as more becomes available. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2008 Merge. To Ecbatana with use of Capture instead of Siege. Britannica mentions the fall of Ecbatana to the Persians (Cyrus) and Herodotus mentions the city surrounded by 7 walls. The idea of the city being sieged is PlAUSIBLE, however, the article is just too weak in its current format to justify anything more than a mention in Ecbatana. I'm somewhat partial to a rename to Capture of Ecbatana as mentioned above, but at this point without more sources and info I think this stub would find a nice home a section within Ecbatana, particularly because that article could use some expansion as well. Expand Siege/Capture article at a later point if required or general Ecbatana info becomes too cumbersome. Just keep it altogether at the moment. Interesting one though! Note for researchers, don't forget this city carries several names: the modern "Hamadan" and the Old Persian, "Hâgmatâna" ("meeting place"), so more may be found there. Ecbatana is the original name. Trippz (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Because sources are so sparse, and everyone copies each other, a mere imply or suggestion by the ancient historians must be taken somewhat seriously, and currently there are 7/11 replies that are in favor of either keeping or renaming the Siege of Ecbatana!.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siege_of_Ecbatana"

And for the date, its an excerpt from the Ecbatana article, {Ecbatana (Old Persian: Haŋgmatana, written Agbatana in Aeschylus, Agámtanu by Nabonidos, and Agamatanu at Behistun) (literally: the place of gathering) is supposed to be the capital of Astyages (Istuvegü), which was taken by the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great in the sixth year of Nabonidos (549 BC).}

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siege_of_Ecbatana"

The Israelite conquest

The Israelite conquest of Canaan is no more disputed than the wandering. Why didn't you change the subtitle to "Alleged wandering years and the alleged conquest of Canaan"? Why not change section 9 to "Alleged origins of the alleged United Monarchy"?

The fact is, if you want to dispute the historicity of these things, you can do so in the article, giving sources. But adding "alleged" in the title like that is what Wikipedia calls using "weasel words". -LisaLiel (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, 'alleged' is specifically not a weasel word if you have a source, in this case the Bible.--Doug Weller (talk) 09

19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Israelite" conquest of Canaan is just as disputed as the wandering. Archaeologists have combed the Sinai and the Negev thoroughly searching for signs of 400,000+ people wandering around that area, including use of radar photographs taken from space such as the kind that revealed the Arabian peninsula to have once been a lush paradise with huge flowing rivers, and have found nothing. The earliest mention of Israel, as "Ishri", show them to be a nomadic Canaanite tribe among the cities in Canaan (Canaan, by the way, the is name of the Phoenicians for themselves) in the north; between 1200 and 722 BCE, archaeological evidence demonstrates that the southern part of Palestine was virtually deserted, except for that area later known as Philistia. Nor is there evidence of any "conquest"; for example, archaeological evidence demonstrates that at the time the Exodus and Conquest allegedly occured, Jericho was deserted. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 'just as'. I agree with you. Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Arent

I apologize for the addition of my sitelinks to your website, I've just hired someone to market my site to get a better ranking, it seems he abused my Wikipedia account priveleges. I was told today about all these backlinks i had from Wiki, but just found your messages posted in my account, so i've asked him not to touch my Wiki account in future. I request that my post on the Basil Valentine page be restored as it was a genuine article that deserves a mention. If you do not still have it here it is...

"The Valentine/Paracelsus connection Hermetic student Joshua Arent suggests that Basil Valentine was merely a nom de plume of German physician and alchemist Paracelsus, their works having a very close correspondence in philosophy, methodology and demeanor. Neither Valentine nor Paracelsus mentioned the other even though they shared exactly the same perspective on Alchemical and Spagyric philosophy. Both alchemists lived in roughly the same time frame, were native to Germany, shared the same religious preference (Benedictine Christianity) and shared an extreme disapproval of the medical establishment which they vocalized in their writings. It should be noted that early in his life Paracelsus was getting used to the monastic life whilst living with his father in a Benedictine cloister studying Alchemy and Latin.[1] The name Paracelsus was also a self chosen nom de plume of his real name Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim. Although there is controversy over when Basil Valentine existed, Waite points out that it can only be between the invention of printing and the time his works were published, i.e. from late 15th Century to the very beginning of the 1600’s. This is because of Valentine’s line in the ‘Triumphal Chariot’, “You should know that Antimony is used for a good many purposes besides those of the typographer.”

This possible double identity allows for a clearer contextual understanding between both Paracelsus' and Valentine's works."

I apologise for the inconvenience, Joshua Arent (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem about the links now. As for the Valentine thing, we need a reliable published source for it. Have you read WP:Verifable for instance? It can't be a personal web page. Specifically, on that page, see WP:Sources. Doug Weller (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, as its original unpublished research i guess Wiki isnt the place to put it. Oh well.

Frustrating and I sympathise, and very much appreciate your attitude. Others sometimes say 'but it's the truth, I saw it/heard it etc.'. There's a very funny essay (which does not apply to you clearly) at WP:TRUTH. Doug Weller (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

HOLD ON

Hi, last time I made a big statement on why not to delete Siege of Ecbatana, go on the page where people discuss if it should be deleted or not, and I wrote and gave some sources and other info to how it nearly resembles the Siege of the Sogdian Rock in Alexanders battles, which the Sogdians just surrendered to him, and no actual fighting to place, I think the issue of how some users pay less attention or ignore the issues I raise on Wikipedia should be addressed to the administraters. More and more users are flip flopping, or deleting or merging articles when other articles are worse, and not paying attention to the other articles(like siege of the sogdian rock) that need more attention than the Persian Revolt. Like I said to Pepperkingiron, I need almost 2 weeks of sourcing and expanding my articles. But it seems that no one cares. There was 7/11 people that were in favor of either KEEPING OR RENAMING the Siege of Ecbatana. But it got deleted. AND IT DID HAVE SOME TEXT, AND PROMISED TO BE EXPANDED UPON WHEN DELETED! And the other articles that I have created in the Persian Revolt have allot of info I can get on the net. So I pray you and other users give a little bit more thought before DESTROYING or MERGING my work!--Ariobarza (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

John Birch Society

From time to time right-wing fanatics discover the JBS entry and try to turn it into a sanitized propaganda page. Feel free to attempt to establish sanity. The current page is a disaster because left-wing and right-wing fanatics are constantly battling over it. As for the JBS blog: 1) if the blog is not controlled from the main office in Appleton, Wisconsin, it does not represent offical JBS reality. 2) This Iowa blog appears to be totally lunatic drivel that does not represent official JBS national policy (and I have read their publications for 30 years. 3) the posting on the Iowa blog is so ignorant that it does not realize that the paramilitary Minutemen of the 1960s has no connection with the anti-immigrant Minutemen of 2008. Best wishes with mud wrestling.--Cberlet (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Thanks for the help! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's irritating, but user talk pages are the least disruptive places to vandalize so I don't mind too much. A different user (hard banned long ago by Wales himself) recently did the same thing (reverting a string of my edits). I think some folks feel locked-out of the process and so resort to lashing out in any way possible. I'd asked this recent IP to engage in discussion over his beefs, but I suppose it's easier to be mad than cooperative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Marburg72

I'm unable to find evidence that the website is in fact his own. Has he admitted it? Discussion started at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#user:_Marburg72. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Read Copyright 2008 Vincent Barrows at the bottom of the website. All information is copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Midewiwin

I see now that that was an unproductive edit. My apologies. ClovisPt (talk)

Peace, peace have no fear

Thanks for dropping me a note. I'll fact check first, but I'm sure I'll be able to vouch for you if necessary.

I doubt very much that you've done anything wrong. And I'm certain you haven't done anything that can't be fixed—by definition of a Wiki.

Apologies are wonderful things. That's the only place real damage can happen—if they're not offered when appropriate. Wiki editors are real people and real contributions have real psychological effects. Apologies are normally more powerfully positive (if sincere) than any ripples that required them were ever negative.

You can trust mediation. It's not perfect but mediators stick with the issues until they're resolved. Join the mediation team! Or maybe not (LOL). Contributing at low volatility pages at Wiki is tons of fun. Some pages are for tough-nuts.

Say what you said to me (more or less) to a mediator and you're sweet.

Just take this as a pretty clear signal that Taiwan boi is seriously interested in settling the text of that article. This mediation thing is more about him than you, and good for him!

I sincerely doubt you'll need me, but if you do, give a holler, I'll check facts and be creative about suggesting a warm fuzzy way forward. I'll have your peace of mind firmly on my agenda.

I respect Taiwan boi, I'm probably as fiercesome as he is when I'm crossed, but that's not the role I like to play. It's probably the same with him.

LOL I'm glad I've not been in an argument against Taiwan, or against PiCo, I think they'd both outlast me several times over. ;)

Anyway, I've said plenty. Thanks heaps for sharing this with me, I'll be there if you need, but you won't, you'll be fine.

Just keep on enjoying Wiki-ing! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, the mediation to which I was referring is informal mediation, which comes before formal mediation. I have also sought third party advice and editorial assistance. The abuse of that article is an absolute disgrace, and while vandals like PiCo have people like you as their cheerleaders, then nothing will ever be done about it. You were one of the editors who identified PiCo's material in the Documentary Hypothesis section as WP:COAT, and you were one of the editors who contributed to building the consensus as to what should be in that section, so your support of PiCo's removal of the material which was agreed on by consensus is incomprehensible. I am now going after every editor who assists PiCo's vandalism, and will seek to hold you all to the policies of Wikipedia. That is not an unreasonable expectation. If you intend to keep supporting PiCo's edits, then I will keep pursuing the conflict resolution process. If you don't, we can leave it here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I take it the you above is Dougweller, Taiwan boi. Regarding edits I've seen, I've commented I support those Taiwan supports. Regarding people, I've commented I respect and like everyone, and don't want to back any person over another. I have, however, conceeded that it does seem PiCo is editing "robustly". I've talked with him, and he has his reasons for being willing to argue his case for that at mediation.

From what Doug's said to me, I think you'd get a genuine apology from Doug, Taiwan. I think it would be good for you and Doug to "settle out of court" for that. It clears things so the main issue can be addressed, which is between PiCo and Taiwan.

Given that it would seem PiCo and Taiwan are irreconcilably opposed at this point, focussing discussion between just those two, and perhaps two mediators would seem the best way forward. You two could be a handful for any single mediator! ;)

I wish I could help diffuse the conflict, but I can't without jeapordizing my relationship with one or both of two men I respect and like. Both relationships are valuable to me. Part of the value of a mediator can be placing discussion out of reach of injuring positive relationships (as well as avoiding personal biases).

Finally, I'll note I think mediation is inevitable in certain circumstances, like the current one. That's why a process exists for it. It's not the end of the world, it's a healthy way forward. It allows editors with strongly differing opinions to retain integrity with regard to those, while ensuring Wiki process is followed or refined.

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am no longer watching or planning to be involved in the article. I am not happy with the characterisation of anyone as a vandal or assisting vandals and feel that such language does not help in moving forward. Doug Weller (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at my page Doug. I've heard strong language from both Taiwan and PiCo, it's within the bounds of what I would consider fair to express their mutual exasperation. While I can understand Taiwan boi extending something of that to those who support PiCo, I agree that's not entirely fair and certainly doesn't make it easier for people to make concessions.

I think your expression of a willingness to offer a general kind of apology made at my talk page was a noble gesture of good faith. I think it's sad that you've since been confronted at your own page with a suggestion that comes across as too strong to "back down" to.

Withdrawing from watching the page seems wise but sad.

I'm not specifically wanting to criticise Taiwan boi here, I actually understand his frustration. I just hope he can see how confronting someone who is willing to apologise can actually "crowd out" that apology.

May I request you retain this little discussion on your talk page for a while, Doug? I hope in time you may like to remove it, since you're moving on from the whole mess.

Sorry I've been so useless in the current case. I hope you and I will find ourselves interacting together at the same page again some time. Please feel free to drop me a note if ever you think I may be of service. It's good to know you're still enjoying Wiki. It's a remarkably engaging hobby isn't it? And 99% of the time it's fun and enlightening. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and/or edit wars

I'm entirely agree, it's a real problem and I think it's getting worse. If you notice, a lots of the conflicts that arrive at AN/I that have either a cultural and/or ethnic aspects get no response at all from administrators - the issues are increasingly fine-detailed and baffling to people from *outside* that culture or ethnic grouping. I think there is a fair (and growing) percentage of articles that have simply being abandoned to the POV pushers, virtual ghettos, because most of us just don't have the time or understanding to get involved at the level required. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vents frustration

I'm really getting sick to death of this place. 99% of the admin corps are useless and won't go near any problems involving WP:RS, WP:V or WP:NPOV. Their chief obsessions are policing "civility" (as if this were a ladies' finishing school, not an encyclopaedia), hanging out on IRC with their 13-year old buddies and making the world safe from the monster Giano. I don't know whether the problem is lack of brains, lack of balls or both. You can see what I was dealing with at Chechen people by looking at that user's first edit there this week [2]. As I said on ANI at 8.46 this morning: "KK arrived and slapped a 'citation needed' tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources". The later edits were even worse. In spite of this, not one single admin took any action against this guy, they just allowed the thread to degenerate into the usual obfuscation, sidetracking and insults (the guy even claimed it was my fault he kept adding the dubious content: "Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached?"). Still no admin response. I presented clear evidence the guy had being playing fast and loose with his alleged sources (which, it turned out, he hadn't even read). Still no admin response. Next the guy started arguing with the reliable sources I had provided, questioning credentialed academics who have published English-language books with Routledge. His reason: "I don't like it". His National Bolshevik supporting friend even libelled these academics as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Still no admin response. The guy kept trying to add the dubious stuff back to the article again, I reverted and added sourced material. Then I was blocked for 3RR (without having received a warning) by some novice admin who couldn't be bothered to do me the courtesy of reading up on the dispute. Just unbelievable. --Folantin (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a rough (and, no doubt, imperfect) translation of the Russian source Kuban Kazak claimed backed his additions with some commentary by me [3]. He didn't even realise it was by a pro-Chechen author who accuses the Soviets of genocide! (BTW Check out the quotation from the 1930s Soviet press release at the top. What amazing prose). The serious point I have to make is this: "I've always had the impression that some editors have been playing fast and loose with foreign-language sources. Throw in some references on a controversial to books or articles in a language few anglophones understand and who's going to be the wiser? It doesn't matter in the least that the general drift of the source you cited is completely the opposite to the POV you espouse and the "facts" you claim are there aren't to be found ". --Folantin (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of possible changes in the guidelines about foreign language sources? I'm unhappy about the Russain sources used on the Fomenko article[4], Doug Weller (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. The proposed new policy looks promising. I'll have a more detailed look later. BTW Are those Russian Fomenko sources online? --Folantin (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky). Some seem to be online, but what is annoying is that there are English language translations, so why cite the Russian ones? Doug Weller (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Crazy! It seems like a running theme with Russian editors in particular. I remember some of them pushing pretty hard to use 19th century Russian-language sources for major historical articles (like History of Russia) where there are obviously solid, up-to-date English equivalents available (e.g. here Talk:History of Russia :Why_is_data_from_1891_used_to_reference_claims_about_1772 ). Hmm, I wonder why that might be...--Folantin (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And note that this is another nationalist claim. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to edit that page was a complete nightmare as you can tell by the talk page. I gave up in the end. Nationalist editors and incompetent ones all helped to make fixing the problems like wading through treacle. I was using sources like my copy of Riasonovsky's History of Russia, published by Yale University Press in the 1990s. They wanted to use 19th Russian stuff. Imagine the fun we could have sourcing British history pages from Victorian textbooks. --Folantin (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant

Thanks for that. He seems to be hopping IPs, so I don't know how much good the warning will do. Could you also check out a budding revert war between me and another user at Religious antisemitism? He seems to think that an antisemitic image should simply be called "vivid" and is insisting on a specific page number being cited in a quotation in the image caption. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to begin with that article. It seems to me that it is sourced in the sense that the Seder Olam Rabbah is mentioned in the text. But how to incorporate all the conflicting views? I wouldn't know where to start. The one thing I did was edit the article so that it uses one consistent era style throughout. The guideline that deals with this can be found at WP:SEASON.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the work he keeps citing at Ark of the Covenant has its own article, Kebra Negast.

Personal web pages

Thx for the background. It looks like a flavour of dictionary-lawyering. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: what constitutes a personal webpage is defined by general perception, not the article Personal web page, and few editors would perceive a one-person show in free webspace as anything but. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just saw you on SV's page, and did this: [5]. Probably you wanted this to be done or did you mean something different? --Bhadani (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks. I'm not sure about the 'listas', I followed the link and it said it shouldn't be added any more until it is sorted out. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Multi-revised

What is 'multi-revised' mean when you use the term? Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Additions to existing messages that make the replies below those messages nonsensical. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug, Thank you!

I appreciate your words more than anything else said in a long time.

I have indeed been trying very hard to be civil.

This is an exceedingly hard thing to do when almost alone.

Patience under pressure is almost impossible to prove.

I keep being put in a situation where I am supposed to admit to being uncivil,

or end up being called uncivil for denying it!

I wish it would all go away, but how can it?

Again, for your words. Thank you, thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing about attacks... once you stop defending yourself people start to get bored attacking. :-)

As I've said, it ultimately doesn't matter who's right here. I think that only the truly innocent have the good will necessary to apologise first. And when the other side refuses to apologise, don't point out the incivility! We'll get back into it again!Tim (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I like what you say about who has the good will to apologise first. Doug Weller (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! For what it's worth I just now had to take my own advice and bow out of a pointless spat in the Gender of God talk page.[6]

If this is what Alastair has been dealing with, it's best to play nice and walk away. There are too many other articles out there that need real work!Tim (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Wall of China links to the Great Wall Forum

Hello,

I added a link to www.greatwallforum.com to some Great Wall of China pages as follows:

• Great Wall Forum Great Wall of China discussion forum, maps, photos

You objected to these links as promotional links. I disagree. The Great Wall Forum is non-profit, non-commercial, and advertising-free. It has more information on the Great Wall of China than any other site on the Internet. It has information, maps, and other material that is not available anywhere else. It's a very useful resource and I think it's a disservice to Wikipedia visitors to not allow a link to this site just because it happens to be in a forum format. The purpose of the forum format is to allow other Great Wall of China experts to make contributions. Thanks, Bryan Feldman Bryanfeldman (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a forum/personal website, and is a 'link to avoid', see WP:EL. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links. Doug Weller (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So what about all the other personal websites that are linked? Many of them are just photos that are often labeled incorrectly. Why did you retain them and delete mine? If Wikipedia is not a collection of links then why do pages have link sections? Bryanfeldman (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Others should probably be deleted, I agree. Read WP:EL I said. Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I read WP:EL. The topic Links normally to be avoided begins with "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article..." I think you are interpreting the guideline incorrectly. Bryanfeldman (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Then promotional links would be ok. I've been through this all before. Mailing lists, forums, etc even when about the subject of the article are not ok. But go to WP:RSN where you can ask if it is ok. Doug Weller (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug, in what capacity do you represent Wikipedia? Thanks, Bryanfeldman (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am just an editor doing what editors do. I gather you are new? Are you going to take up my suggestion? Doug Weller (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, not much point. I noted your interpretation of the guidelines and raised it here [7] which I suggest you read. Doug Weller (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did take your suggestion, and I also read your note on guidelines, which I appreciate your clarifying. I still feel the same way: Wikipedia readers should have the opportunity to view a website that has the best available information on the topic in which they are interested. I sense that a desire to follow rules is getting in the way of common sense here. By the way, the links we're discussing were in place for over five months before they were removed...and the links to poor-quality, personal sites with photo collections remain now. I don't understand this. Bryanfeldman (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines and policies are there for a reason, and you are welcome to discuss them and suggest changes (for guidelines) or ask why they are what they are. As for the other personal sites, you are as free as anyone else to remove them. Standards are a lot higher now than they were even two years ago, but it takes a long time for over 2 million articles to have editors who are interested and want to keep the standards do something about them. Doug Weller (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Help Editing The New Page is Requested

Hello Doug, After a chat with Gwen Gail, we have reinstated my revised page at the 'sandbox' here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox

We require editors such as yourself to make the page perfect so it can be reinstated...Would you be so kind as to visit the page and offer suggestions? Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)

Hi, Yes, you are quite right. I am having trouble finding good, solid sources online. Jack1956 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reply (some editors hate having stuff removed). It's often difficult with biblical stuff, sorting out what is reliable and what isn't. One other concern is about the Babylonian captivity, I thought it was normally dated from 587? Doug Weller (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi again, I think the sources say there were actually three deportations from Judah to Babylon. Jack1956 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce

I just put together a page here for the taskforce. I didn't have time to make it very sophisticated, so now it pretty much amounts to an article and participant's list. ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 02:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On Cyrus

Hi

I will go to my local library and get the full page soon. Hope that helps. Heja Helweda (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hadrian and J

Mr. Weller: I am grateful to you very much for your kind message, your warm welcome and the advices and pages that you indicated to me. I understand perfectly the reversion and that you explain to me on the use of the J; the truth is that I did not think about the effects on the links, I can see now the problem for english readers and wikiarticles. In any case, I will bear all it in mind. Thanks again, and regards. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

yo doug

your recent edit to 'cunningly' in the battle section, you removed that word, i honestly dont remember putting that word, it may be part of the sentence i got from one of the books, next time ask me if not sure, its hard to tell whats from book or what is that i wrote. anyways, tell me were the word cunningly was when you deleted it, so i can check if it was from the books or not. and i dont put LOADS of OR, it may apear like that. but i try my best to put LOADS of references.So i just want it you to know that on your talk page.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The point is that words like that are going to look like OR unless they are actually part of a quotation. Doug Weller (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

yoyo doug

After reading the battle again, the only part that i wrote was the 'In Herodotus histories, which was almost the last sentence, and everything before that was from Dunckers book, so i think you removed a word from the sentence in the book.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Might have, which is why I've said you need some real quotations for things like that. Even with a quote it bothers me, the author seems to be novelizing the sources. Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus

Hi,

I am glad that you found the info. Anyway I went to my local library and made a copy of p.661 of Amelie Kuhrt's book (The Ancient Near East, vol.II, 1997). Here is the second paragraph on p.661: ( I also took a low quality picture of the page, though it is a bit hard to read, my cam not that good :)

Cyrus achievements can only be described as spectacular: in less than thirty years, he brought a vast territory under the control of a kingdom which, at the beginning of his reign, had been tiny. He was a brilliant tactician and strategist, able to move rapidly across enormous distances, take his opponents by surprise, and make calculated use of brutal and placatory gestures. The Persians celebrated his fame in song and story (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.2.1). His astonishing success led rapidly to the creation of innumerable popular stories, which obscured his true background: he was presented variously as the grandson of the Median king, Astyages, exposed by his jealous grandfather, brought up by humble herding folk, ultimately identified and eventually returned to his parents (Herodotus 1.107-108), and as the son of poverty-stricken parents who worked his way up at the Median court and eventually overthrew the Medes. Other stories abounded, according to Herodotus. They are typical of the tales told about culture-heroes and founders of great empires (e.g. Sargon of Agade, Moses, Romulus and Remus). They illustrate the cultural and political importance of the protagonist, but cannot be relied on as a guide to historical reality. In the case of Cyrus, we have his own testimony, which flatly contradicts the later romances created by his countrymen; we know that he was preceded as king of Persia by his father, grandfather and great-grandfather.Heja Helweda (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

yoyoyo Doug

I totally agree he novelizes some parts, But im AFRAID it might have been a 'cunningly' he got from the original work of Nicolas, thats what i mean. if you could just tell me were it was in the sentence that you deleted, i appreciate it, i will not put it back in if it was just OR, so dont worry, i would put it back in if it comes directly from the book. DONT FORGET TO TELL ME. by me checking were the word came from we can once and for solve this mystery, then almost nothing will be wrong with this article.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

and secondly tell me how i can nominate or an admin nominate this article to at least a start class, i think the battle of hyrba article already looks intricate, referenced, and highly detailed enough.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ten Lost Tribes article

hi. I appreciate your cordial approach, as evidenced in the edit summary. however, could you please tell me why you removed my sourced reference and information on the tribe of Dan? My sourced were well-known published works, not fringe in any way. Sorry, but I don't see any basis for excluding them. it doesn't matter if the theory is unusual, as long as it is well-sourced. I don;t see what basis there is for removing that material. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I thought Allen's stuff was just a website, but I see where I went wrong there. Yair Davidiy is obviously a suitable source for Brit-Am, no problem there. But I don't see how Capt can qualify as a reliable source for this. I'm sure you know his ideas about the pyramids, for instance. And his claim " Phonetically "Khumri", "Omri", and "Gimiri" are similar." is not only put as though it is fact, he is not qualified to make that statement, as it requires knowing not how we pronounce the words, but how they were originally pronounces. If this is a significant view that needs to be represented, surely there must be a more reliable source, and if it is just Capt, it doesn't appear to be a significant view. Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I really appreciate your reply, and your open approach to this. thanks so much. No problem, re the first item you mentioned. thanks. what you say is helpful. re Capt, i will have to try to take another look at this, and try to give it some thought. i hope it's ok if i get back to you a little later? thanks so much. (duplicate of comments at my talk page, for covenience.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ya doug

Guess what, I found it, here it is, the word cunningly apears in the part that Duncker is writing the account of nicolas word for word, and in the account of nicolas the word 'cunningly' apears! [8] So now i have put the word cunningly back in. And im going to check if in fixing errors, antria the user might have deleted some words from the original account on acident like you did.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Spherical Earth

Hello, I've noticed (after our encounter at Dendera light) that you edit/improve articles including pseudoscientific or fringe positions. While I'm not claiming that this is such a case (I simply don't know), in Spherical Earth, the Indian section uses some rather spurious sources (with no page numbers mentioned either, it'd be a bit difficult trying to browse a 19th century 400-page work to find that one citation supporting the argument). Would you care to take a look at it? Regards. 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've edited both it and Flat Earth, see the talk pages of both also. Thanks for telling me about them. Doug Weller (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Things over at Heliocentrism are in a (kinda) similar state (as far as Ancient India is concerned; the Medieval India part takes an NPOV approach) but I believe the current wording (ie "according to theosophists") was adopted by a few, top-notch editors who settled on that after removing the really, really fringy stuff that was plaguing pretty much every India-related scientific/mathematical article (a good while ago). Cheers! 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I have cracked that claim also, see my edits and my comments on the talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jat people

Hi Doug, pleased to meet you. I am having real problems with this internet troll User talk:24.185.128.31 on the Jat people article. Please get him blocked also please put the Jat people article in your wikipedia watchlist and revert if he strikes again. Thank you.--James smith2 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, this is basically what is going on, on the article. Basically the strategy of these internet trolls is to put up negative uncited information, about this good and respectable Jat ethnic people, with hope everyone starts fighting on the article so then they can sit back and enjoy the show & fighting. The article is good now and stable but they want to mess it up so everyone starts fighting on the article, by adding uncited negative statements, that is their strategy. Please read up about internet trolls. Best regards.--James smith2 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it except to remove a reference which didn't seem to add anything and was by a racist author, and ask on the Fringe board for people to look at it. I'll say right now that anything that talks about 'Aryan' as a race needs attention as for decades it has been used only as a linguistic term. I have only read the lead. I've been dealing with trolls for well over a decade, I know quite a bit about them. :-) Oh, I'm not an administrator so can't block anyone. Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is ok at the moment and does not require any major changes. Me and many editors have spent many months getting it to this good standard. I'm just worried that these anons are going to just come along destroy all the hard work and turn is into a mess. For reference most scholar view the Jat people as Indo-Scythians not Indo-Aryans.--James smith2 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Favor(s)

Dear Mr. Weller: I would be grateful to you if you could check my additions in the article about "Corocotta", both of Wiki policies and probable faults of my English draft (;-). Thank you very much. Best regards --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you very much! I finish of doing several complements in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I (quote of the year 380 catholicism decree and her footnotes now 9-10). I hope not to bother you very much if... And after I (and you) will rest some days. Best regards. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

-I have read again the pages that you was indicating, but I do not find to what type of problems you refer, or in what article (Corocotta or Theodosius?). Might you be more concrete of what problem/s it would treat? Thank you.--Alicia M. Canto (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

- I see, thanks for your opinion. To that I can say that an article of mine exists already in Internet, of February, 2005, which I linked in the note 1 (there from: "Text and context they will make easier value the nickname that follows to Grunnius, "Corocotta", that is the same of the thief -lestés in Greek - mentioned by Cassius Dio 56, 43, 3... "). On the other hand, as I say in the same note, the corresponding article is going to appear in a scientific accredited journal, since it is my custom (reflecting only approx. the half). In the meanwhile, I added the principal arguments of my revision, brief summarized, with his verifiable quote. It might be analyzed as a warning rather than a "conflict of interests", since my principal interest would not be that my proposal was known among the English-speaker, but among the Spanish-speaker. I believe that in cases as this one it would be more important to call the attention of the reader on the possible mistake that can contain that in the wikiarticle is exposed as certain. That, besides, I respected. Another thing would be if I had erased the previous text, but only I have added the alternative. Regards. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

1434 and colourfulglobe

I think he is a troll given the way he has spelt coulourful in his username. Regards --Matilda ^talk 20:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian fractions

Doug, thank you for the generalized comments. Concerning the body of Wikipedia articles, your stated ban on self-publishing is clear, and I fully agree. My point discusses Wikipedia links, an area filled with personal blogs, and unscholarly clap-trap.

In passing, Egyptian fractions is a topic that you know nothing, a point that means nothing, since few may be expert in one or two fields. My issue tends to be, you may have a friendship with David Eppstein, a wonderful modern mathematician, who knows a great deal about modern Egyptian fractions, but almost nothing of the ancient texts that had not used algorithms. An introduction to the topic is provided by http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Arithmetics.html, a math Encyclopedia that David tends to approve.

The problem to Wikipedia is that David has improperly acted as a Wikipedia "Egyptian fractions" gate-keeper for several years, overly protecting his 1992 "Intelligencer" journal article on 10 Egyptian fraction algorithms, and 15 + years of subsequent research. Initially, when David published his 1992 views on the internet, Kevin Brown and I engaged David in a positive debate, adding several modern algorithms to his review. A few years ago, I came across well documented proof that medievals, Greeks, and others had used zero algorithm when 3,500 years of Egyptian fractions (rational numbers) were discussed. This is the point that angers David to the point of being uncivil, time after time, to myself.

Civility should be a prime concern to Wikipedia. I would appreciate you passing along that point to David, as you have appropriately passed on Wikipedia's self-publishing ban to myself.

Best Regards,

Milo Gardner

Hi Milo So far as I know, I've never had any contact with Eppstein. You've obviously had an unhappy experience with him, and I regret it if I have made life more difficult for you. As you say, my knowledge here is not about the subject but about how Wikipedia works, and I am well aware that at times it means that very interesting and sometimes excellent sources simply can't be used. Doug Weller (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug,

Thank you for the note. In certain respects, I find your position odd. Wikipedia 'gatekeepers' do censor personal blogs, maintaining their own blogs/papers, while censoring those with which they disagree. The Wikipedia 'gatekeeper' problem exists in many areas. I ran into a committee of 'editors' when documenting my great-grandfather's life, using several books, and newspaper articles, written by others. Persistent 'gatekeepers' do great hard to academic speech. How can that Wikipedia problem be minimized?

Thanks,

Milo

Any examples? Doug Weller (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug:

It appears to me that Eppstein certainly considers himself a gatekeeper. Even though you may not 'know' Eppstein, he acted in a manner that brought the personal blog issue to your attention. How else would you have known of our mini-'wiki-war'? If you look at that the history of Egyptian fraction entry for yesterday, you'll see that I first edited one of two of my blogs/encyclopedia articles, replacing one with two new blogs, thereby bringing about Eppstein's wrath. Read Eppstein's uncivil note, "Previous edit munged a valid planetmath link in an attempt to stamp out all traces of vile evil blogistan from Wikipedia. Fix lossage but remove the blog" and try not to smile. I did not.

A second example is provided by a 2/07 entry for my Utah elected-politician great grandfather. The wiki page was attacked by Utah PC-types, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Archibald_Gardner. Read its discussion page. You may see that Californian views of late 1800 Utahans began a 'wiki-war'. I was out-numbered, so a bare-bones entry was completed, excising much of Archie's achievements. Only blog links provided by one of my nephews, and a couple of others, provided a fair portrait of state infrastructure-builder's life.

Thanks,

Milo

I see virtually all changed to Wikipedia related articles via Wikiproject Ancient Egypt. I had no idea there was any edit-warring going on. Doug Weller (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

book

Hiya,

Unfortunately, I don't know about release dates specifically -- but it won't be in the next few days, sadly! I'd give it about a month to delivery. The U.S. edition will be released first, but I don't know if it will be substantially delayed in the U.K. -- hopefully not. Thanks for your interest! cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 13:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s. you reminded me -- I'm starting a small announcements list for release information and general news about the book; feel free to email me if you're interested. cheers, phoebe / (talk to me) 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Indiana

User:Baseball Bugs just edited the article to delete most instances of CE entirely. I reverted. I'm going to talk to him on his talk page. I hope this settles things. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug, with all due respect, "Archaeologist and historians often use BCE/CE now" is a matter of opinion and up for debate. If there is one good reason to use the BC/AD format is that at least one of the sources cited, the author uses BC/AD as the format, thus the reason My sons paper was dinged. I am just suggesting that since the authors of the article have stated that they have no preference, lets use the BC/AD system. I do not wish to become involved in an edit war, and since you are far more experienced in wikipedia editing than I, could you please point me in the right direction so that I may make a case for the change in a proper way. Thank you--Rob carmack (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyrba

Let me guess, I have to reference, Nearest place to the unknown location of Hyrba today. Just joking, I went on Google Images, and typed in ancient median cities, and as you know, Medes are the Kurds of today. So I also typed in Hyrba, and believe it or not I got the picture, from what I know, it looks like an ancient Iranian settlement in Media. So that is the closest picture you can get for an ancient median city in ruins. Don't worry, I'll take the word unknown out so the reader won't get confused, or I might change the whole sentence, thanks.--153.18.19.109 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Kanawha Madonna

Hi Doug, I came across this rather odd article: Kanawha Madonna. It clearly needs some major work, and knowing your interest in pseudoarchaeology, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Article sweeps: Great Pyramid of Giza

Hello, I am reviewing Archaeology articles as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force GA sweeps. I reviewed Great Pyramid of Giza today and placed the article on hold for a week to allow for my concerns to be addressed. I am contacting you because you have been a major contributor to the article and may be able to help. The reassessment can be found at Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1. Please get in touch or comment on the reassessment page if you have any questions. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have extended the hold because you said you wouldn't be available for a week. Not much remains to be done, but it would be great if you could take a look at the review (I have summarized the remaining issues at the bottom). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotr Michelowski re: Sitchin

Mr. Weller, Glad to see how fast you picked up on Michelowski's critiques of Sitchin's ideas on Usenet 13 years ago. At the time M. did not favor their being formalized or permanently archived, but the archiving happened anyway--and glad for that! I cannot believe Sitchin has such staying power with the New Agers and Atlantis Rising readers considering how patently absurd the notion that the Nefilim evolved on Nibiru sooner than we did on Earth when Nibiru spends 99% of its time beyond the orbit of Pluto where it is very cold and dark, unlike conditions on Earth. And when The Twelfth Planet was first published, on p. 209 S. mentioned our seasons as due to our changing distance from the Sun instead of caused by the tilt of Earth's axis--how scientifically illiterate does that sound? And to think that in Jan. 1997 when S. spoke at Dave Talbott's neo-Velikovskian conference in Portland, Oregon, S. was getting a $12,000 appearance fee, while Richard Hoagland cancelled his participation because he does not share the program with S. And so it goes. BTW: Did you post to talk.origins in the mid-90s during the Velikovsky-Saturnist threads initiated by Dave Talbott, Ev Cochrane, Ian Tresman, Ted Holden, et al.? Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually kept M's posts and reposted them a couple of times. Yes, I was a bit involved in the V-S discussions. What ever happened to Ted Holden? His mind finally waste away? :-) I recall a number of exchanges I had with him. Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought your name sounded familiar. Talk.origins has really changed and hardly anyone from the "Great Debate" posts there recently. Ted Holden is still around being obnoxious on Velikovsky and related pages such as Worlds in Collision editing as an IP address or as IceBear and still pushing the same old discredited notions, esp. the 15% heat excess on Venus reported by Fred Taylor in 1980, but later shown to be the result of instrument failure. Last November or thereabouts he was banned (or whatever the sanction is) from editing Wikipedia. Feline1 has been a good monitor/editor in neutralizing IceBear's nonsense, among other editors. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell

My removal of content from the Talk:John Michell (writer) page was wrong-headed, and I apologise for it. There have just been so many instances of dishonest alteration of my contributions by SageMab, and removals of my contributions, including when he has repeatedly tried to remove an RFC that I posted, that in exasperation I reverted to the state of the article before about six of his edits. I should not have done this, but so far I have been the only person trying to counter this guy's attempt to turn the article into a piece of hero-worship in which any mention of John Michell's relationship to the fascist ideology of Julius Evola is wiped clean off the slate.

I have now added back (to the Talk page) my original section on this, and also the RFC that I posted (to which I have also appended comments, but making it crystal clear what is the neutrally phrased RFC and what are my comments). If these - or indeed any other bits - get removed, as they are very likely to at the hands of SageMab, please could you carry out your threat and issue a temp block - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I will try to keep an eye on it. I don't agree with SageMab's actions. I wish I could find a reliable source on Michell and Evola, all I can find is blogs. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug, this fellow is not telling the truth about my edits. Other editors on his talk page (he blanked it) and on the discussion page of John Michell edited out his edits and warned him against vandalism and flame warring. I did not. After reading other editors edits of him I did edit out his name calling. I did tell him his conclusions were not based on fact and I was not convinced of the verifiability of his statements. he used imflammaory words about this author like follower and colleague and fascist without having Wiki facts to back it up. I have read the two books he is referring to and he is incorrect. I neuralized some of his inflammatory words about this author. read HIstory of the John Michell Talk page. This user is the one threatening me and the one tring to start a flame war. he posted threats that he had no authority to do so on my user page. Clearly, he does not know Wiki policy and is attempting to strong arm this article to reflect his opinion. Note the word opinion please. This user does not sign his name and often does not sign is anon ISP in an attempted to circumvent "undo". His entire account is the John Michell pages. I will assume good faith on your part and I thank you for your comments. By no stretch of the imagination is John Michell a fascist. On the contrary. His lenthy career is telling. I have no vested interest in this author nor "hero-worship" which is a nasty term the previous editor is throwing out. I do enjoy reading this author and I have read many of his books. It is a fact that if a author receives many laudatory notices about his work from reliable and scholarly sources it does not make the Wikipedia editor who includes those facts a fan. SageMab (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller, in all good faith I'd like to remind you of no personal attacks. I don't agree with DougWeller's actions, to paraphrase your non specific comment to me above. SageMab (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this an echo of my comment to you warning you that by virtually calling another editor a liar, and calling yet another editor's summary venomous, plus a few other comments on editors, you were breaching WP:CIVIL? Doug Weller (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment to Dieter Bachmann was between him and me. He is quite capable of defending himself. You have no idea what this referred to in the past when you jumped and slung the word "liar" around. This did not concern you; mind your own business and you have been breaching WIKI:CIVIL to me for some time time now as well as following me all over Wiki I am sure you do not want to be seen as stirring things up. SageMab (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's getting to the point where we ask an admin to look at SageMab's behaviour. What do you think, as you are more experienced than I. All the best.Verbal chat 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ps: your achieve archive link at the top is red; Quelle horreur!

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the archive link. As for SageMab, there we have an editor who seems to lack insight and seems to think that all of the problems he/she is experiencing are the fault of others. I made a genuine offer of help on his talk page about explaining NPOV, which he doesn't understand, and was rebuked for it. He's already made a reference to a cabal, and I think any Admin action would be seen as part of some cabal/plot. And of course he's engaging with a couple of Admins already. I almost wish he would make a formal complaint instead of allegations,etc, although from my experience complaints with no real basis are often just ignored instead of rejected. You have to admit he's enthusiastic -- who knows, he claims to be an academic (maybe in a field such as engineering which would explain his problems with references and reliable sources in such a different field), maybe if he was willing to be adopted by a mentor he might even become a good editor. At the moment though, he's only going to frustrate himself and others with his behaviour and his editing problems. Something to think about though. Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me going to Sage over your head, but I thought he might think we were conspiring if I discussed it further, and that as I had only recently become involved it might be taken as intended. I hope everyone can get along :) but then I have edited the constantly NPOV (apparently) homeopathy, so I know that's unlikely :) Verbal chat 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The deuce, I've been de-deuced! It's a fair cop, I'm a sucker for debunking fringecruft. I'll postpone my defence to such a time as when I'll be accused of something more grievous than dedication to upholding Wikipedia policy :op --dab (𒁳) 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

You may be interested in the discussion going on here. The DMOZ links in some articles have been reverted, while others have not. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know whether to wait for other editors or act now. Doug Weller (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not going to revert. I do have the feeling that certain users are perhaps... feeling proprietary over that particular guideline, though. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Long time no talk, so my first question is how come Dougy is the first one that reverts my edits when I edit something, (BIGBROTHER)! Just kidding, my truce with you lasts to this day, but if you CLICK on the notes section, where I put the link to the CNN site that I got the info from it is not a hoax, there is even a pipes of china article on Wikipedia, which I found. Baigong Pipes. So I might just put the info there next time, so check out my link to know the truth, bye. Personally, I'm not going to revert. I do have the feeling that certain users are perhaps... feeling proprietary over that particular guideline, though.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist and I've done quite a bit of work on it. The 2002 'expedition' never took place or at least wasn't reported it seems. As for a pyramid, although there is a mention of a 50 foot pyramid shaped structure with 3 caves in it, I've never heard of a cave in a pyramid. Other stories talk about the pipes being at the foot of the mountain and the caves being in the mountain, so I don't think this belongs in the Chinese pyramids article at all. Doug Weller (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you undid edits by someone on my network. He sourced his edits and seems to know he's talking about. Please fix this so it's not deemed an edit war. (Hindu evolution) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He wrote "he gives the logic and science as to why followers of Darwin's theory are rascals who talk nonsense". That's not at all acceptable in an encyclopedia. If he continues to post that, he'll get blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IF you're edit was an honest one you would have edited that one line, though sourced, and not deleted the other ok parts. I'll fix it so everyone's happy, though I shouldn't have to because...

PLUS that IS what the ISKCON founder was quoting said, and it was sourced. I checked, did you? The issue isn't science or religion, but elaborating on what a founder of an org said. If I say Bill Orielly attempted to explain why LudaChris is child like and a negative influence, if I source it with a clip from Bill's website, it must remain. I don't like Bill, heck I've always believed in natural selection and half-life dating methods as true, but you can't delete those sourced edits now can you, that's and edit war.

By the way if you're that bias to not allow any evidence against Darwinian evolution, be it Vedic evolution or not, I understand why you didn't read the talk in the sourced link. It said logical things that I can't deny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Temple in Jerusalem"

The article treats Biblical accounts as if they are hard fact and contains statements on other matters of questionable veracity. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I can see it says 'according to the Bible' several times, including the first three sentences. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddy request

Please if you could look at the Battle of Hyrba, and Battle of the Median Border, and see if they are well written, the Motives and Battle section CANNOT be changed they come directly from the book, but other sections could be reworded better, its mixed up in the other sections, varying direct words and made up words by me, I only do this to shorten something LONG FROM THE BOOK, but I keep the idea a certian book is trying to say without putting in my original research in it. So, if you could Mostly look at median border one not Hyrba, Hyrba was almost nominated as a GA article so JUst watchlist median border, I deeply appreciate and THANK YA!--Ariobarza (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ok, may take a couple of days or a bit more, real life gets in the way at times! Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlil

Okay, So! Under "origins" a recent editor placed a controversial theory about how the word "En" in "enlil" became various semetic deities. Controversial because actual links between a couple of the deities isn't directly supported by evidence.

However, this is irrelevant to the article; it is not a section for the Origins OF LATER SEMETIC DEITIES, it is a section on the Origin of the diety "Enlil", which appeared in Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian mythology. Why, exactly, a section for the origins of the subject of the article has been made into something completely different, I do not know. Why it's mentioned in the Enlil article at all? I don't know. Why are details about those deities are present- such as the bit on Jesus's sayings, necessary to the article? Should I add in several more paragraphs on how pickaxes were used because it's mentioned in the article.

The Enlil story was changed and details such as Ninlil's rape (rape being defined as "an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent" were changed to "slept with" completely distorting the truth of the story to seem more, perhaps, PG.

However, in the ETCSL database, the occurance was clearly rape:

"The king said to her, "I want to have sex with you!", but he could not make her let him. Enlil said to her, "I want to kiss you!", but he could not make her let him. "My vagina is small, it does not know pregnancy. My lips are young, they do not know kissing. If my mother learns of it, she will slap my hand! If my father learns of it, he will lay hands on me! But right now, no one will stop me from telling this to my girl friend!"

35-53. Enlil spoke to his minister Nuska: "Nuska, my minister!" "At your service! What do you wish?" "Master builder of the E-kur!" "At your service, my lord!" "Has anyone had intercourse with, has anyone kissed a maiden so beautiful, so radiant -- Ninlil, so beautiful, so radiant?" The minister brought his master across by boat, bringing him over with the rope of a small boat, bringing him over in a big boat. The lord, floating downstream to ...... -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- Father Enlil, floating downstream to ...... -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- he grasped hold of her whom he was seeking -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- so as to lie with her on a small bank ....... He actually had intercourse with her, he actually kissed her. At this one intercourse, at this one kissing he poured the seed of Suen-Acimbabbar into her womb."

And the story is later distorted to cast Enlil's descent to the underworld as a choice, rather than a punishment by the Anunna gods. It completely fudges the meaning of the original document.

So if it's alright with you, I'll revert some of it in a few days. Thanks for your time!

NJMauthor (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for yours! I've reverted my revert. Doug Weller (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments about your editing of the Bryant Wood page

Greetings from Chronic2 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On my user page, you have placed a warning about not entering unreferenced comments. The first "unreferenced" comment you deleted was the following footnote:

"This is of course the point that Bietak makes and which is succintly expressed in the Science article cited above. The argument is just as germane to Jericho and Levantine sites as it is to the sites that Bietak has investigated in Egypt. Bietak, of course, is not willing to make such and adjustment."

I hope you understand that I thought that referring to the Science article already quoted was a suitable reference to an internationally recognized scientific journal. I have read the Wikipedia policies on this matter, and perhaps this is just a matter of interpretation in the present case. If so, I am perfectly willing to abide by your decision that this footnote should be left out. If, however, you have some more explanation so that I won't make the same mistake in the future, I would be glad for you to supply it. The Science journal was, I thought, a respected source to cite.

In your next edit, you deleted everything that was said about C-14 dating. This was, I believe, properly cited. It was my opinion that it was very relevant to the question of whether Wood's dates for Jericho are to be preferred; see the reasons for this on the Discussion page for the Bryant Wood article. Even PiCo thought so, and his entries have all been slanted against Wood's credibility.

What seems strange to me is that you then went back to PiCo's entries of September 2007, even including his erroneous statement, "In the early 1930s John Garstang found a destruction layer at Jericho corresponding to the termination of City IV which he identified with the biblical story of Joshua and accordingly dated to c. 1400 BC." This was an undocumented statement, to which I supplied with a fairly succint, documented statement, from the writings of Garstang himself, showing it was not true. You have, of course, erased my properly documented statement, replacing it with PiCo's undocumented and erroneous statement that was rather obviously designed to bias the reader against Garstang's scholarship (and hence, by inference, against Wood's).

You have further put in place PiCo's initial entry which was pasted in from the website of Gerald Aardsma, and which, without giving any proper citation, said that "not one of [Wood's] arguments can stand up to scrutiny." Not only is there no proper citation for this, thus violating Wikipeda standards (or is there something I need to read between the lines to understand why this is not such a violation?), but it also does not tell why none of Wood's four arguments stand up to scrutiny. You have therefore approved this entry, using it to replace comments that were properly documented, just as you did with the properly cited correction to PiCo's attempt to bias the reader against Garstang.

I understand that you have not finished your editing, and so I'm waiting to see if I can expect a level playing field in making changes. I have tried to offer citations; the only exception was when I stated in a closing paragraph that it would seem best to leave the C-14 question alone, given the unsettled state of the controversy, and refer instead just to the stratigraphic and pottery concerns. I thought this was pretty much in keeping with what is obviously the policy in all the Wikipedia pages dealing with the many pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom, and so should not have been controversial. If you look at the pages for these kings, you will find that those who make entries there do not even consider the C-14 arguments. That was what I was contending for, and so you can perhaps see that, although this can with validity be ruled out as an OR, it nevertheless was not meant to offer anything controversial, but just to state a fact that was obvious from a multitude of Wikipedia entries regarding all the Egyptian pharaohs.

I currently stand rebuked as offering a biased viewpoint. Have you read my statements in the discussions that everything PiCo entered was biased against Wood, and against Garstang whose dates are the same as Wood? And that these statements have been shown to have never had a proper citation? Yet the way you leave it now, we have reverted to PiCo's original text, with the (proper) exception of deleting his "devastating" clause. And regarding PiCo's treatment of anyone who tried to correct his biased views, including his last statement in the Discussion page that once again tries to slur the character of Bryant Wood? As of the present, PiCo has not responded to the charge that none of his entires had a proper citation, including this last slur in the Discussion page against Wood.

Thanks for explaining that you're not finished with your editing of the Bryant Wood page. Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see if Wikipedia stacks the cards against honest scholarship and in favor of the PiCo style,

Chronic2 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that the article should be about Wood, not Jericho, and it looks as though you've missed that. Your footnote "This is of course the point that Bietak makes and which is succintly expressed in the Science article cited above. The argument is just as germane to Jericho and Levantine sites as it is to the sites that Bietak has investigated in Egypt. Bietak, of course, is not willing to make such and adjustment." is your own comment, not a quote from Bietak, and as editors we aren't entitled to make such comments, it's called Original Research (also see WP:Synthesis. I haven't finished looking at that bit of the article, as you say above, and hopefully will get around to it after dinner, but I'm busy with other things as well. I'm not interested in your argument with Pico, only the article, and I realy don't see your edit to the talk page as appropriate -- far too much detail about another editor, there are better ways to handle such things. Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

THANKS

hi, thanks doug, for checking how good my articles are, I WILL, IN TWO DAYS, fix the TWO things in the Background OF Battle of Hyrba, so thank you again! Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Controversy over the Race of the Ancient Egyptians

Obviously, I never expressed, nor did my edits suggest, that the article in question is intended to discuss any matter other than the Controversy over the Race of the Ancient Egyptians. I offered "critique" as a less derogatory and concise stand-in for the skewed "attempted rewriting" and "splintered" as a less Point-of-View term for "devolved"; finally, I sought to correct what I read as a misapplication of the positions of George G.M. James, Martin Bernal, Cheikh Diop and the like by replacing James' bombastic, and out of context, "stole" with some variant of "appropriated via commerce and conquest".

In no way shape or form do the chronicled edits alter the subject matter at hand -- instead they afford a more encyclopedic tone to the entry. If that is the collective objective here, we can continue to discuss. If instead, the objective is to impose some adherence to a static perception of a particular proposition via the imposition of majority rules, then I have no argument for this conclave -- other than to wonder the very purpose of the encyclopedia entry itself.

Thanks for the reminder re: Edit Summaries. Duly noted.

sewot_fred (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European Religion

Just giving you a heads-up: you had listed a possible copyvio of Quiles' A Grammar of Modern Indo-European. The work itself is actually under the GFDL, so technically, there's no copyvio. I acted a little to hastily and put up a {{copypaste}} template, but later took it down. While it does need attribution (which I'm taking care of), it's not as bad of a copyvio as it could have been.

Thanks for catching it.--Limetom 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Exception to the rule

Hi Doug, firstly of course there are exception to every rule, even in law. A quick answer to your question on the Wandsworth Parks Police Service's discussion page. There are 40 odd Bye-laws applicable in certain parks and openspaces in Wandsworth. There are only certain Bye-laws we have full Police Powers to search a person or vehicle under section 1 of PACE 1984. We have of course the Police Power of search upon arrest, section 32 of PACE. Everybody can search under certain circumstances, under common law when making an any person arrest section 24a. We are and continue doing this and as we take our prisoners to a designated police station. I will copy this answer to the discussion page for the record. Please take time to look back at questions and answers on the discussion page as we have a lot of duplicated questions, thanks TopCat666 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet disruption

Adam233 has already been identified as a single purpose sock created for the purposes of trolling and general disruption. Akc2114 is clearly another sock created by the same puppetmaster. Now that they have explicitly violated policy by voting together on an AfD, we need to wait until the AfD is closed, then open an enquiry at WP:SSP, and follow up with WP:RFCU. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to know that we now making progress towards the resolution of this matter. Feel free to comment if you think it appropriate. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop

• I am not going to undo your edit to the article about me, because that would be a COI and promoting myself. However you should note that whoever put the 'influential' there was citing an article from a Trinity Mirror newspaper --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, still doesn't belong in the lead. You aren't as influential than a lot of much more prominent people who don't have that in the lead. Frankly, I think it made the article look silly. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thermopylae numbers

Hi Doug, I was just wondering if you think that the numbers I put for the Persians who FOUGHT, not thoughs who INVADED are VALID for the Battle of Thermopylae. Which I mean are referenced, and accurate according to what Ctesias tells us, which he is the only historian who gives us the numbers. And other them him, Herodotus says there where 2.5+ - 5.0+ million that INVADED, but he never says how many FOUGHT for Thermopylae, Ctesias says there were 800,000 who INVADED, but 80,000 FOUGHT in Thermopylae, which he breaks down the 80,000 of what it was composed of. So some users bug me about why the numbers are so low, because its surprising to them, but the users who edit Marathon and Artemisium, theorize the numbers by dividing them by 10, saying Herodotus may have plagirized, and for the naval battle ADD all the numbers of ships up to see what it was in total for a paticular side, so WHY do some users think that if I add up the numbers 10k, 20k, 50k, which are the numbers of Ctesias' breakdown, to equal 80k is violation of Wikipedia? When it is a normal thing to do for battles, and most, if not all users are doing them for other battles. I personally think 'they' are over protective of Thermopylae, and want to preserve the Spartans glory, so they have an agenda, though I admit this is just a theory. So, if you could just tell me if your FOR or AGAINST what I am doing, and if you could theorize on what these small number of ELITE users want from me, I would exceptionally appreciated.--Ariobarza (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Hi, sorry to take so long. I'm afraid I wouldn't trust anyone for sure about the numbers, and certainly not Ctesias. I've posted a quote from Bigwood on the article's talk page. Herodotus's numbers of course are ridiculous. They just don't make sense. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

King Tut

I removed inaccurate pictures because ...well they are inacurate. The arcticle itself says that it is impossible to determind King Tuts Skin color. But they have provided a picture of his skinn color. They posted JUST research did by National Geographics which is just bias & one opinion. Like I said before, THE ARTICLE ITSELF SAYS THAY ITs IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE SKIN COLOR!! SO WHY DO YOU ALLOW A PICTURE THAY IS NOT A FACTUAL PHOTO. kevarrisb —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you know from your recent edit, there are various attempt to reconstruct the face. If we only had in the article things that were 100% certain it would be only a couple of sentences long. The important thing is to have reliable, verifiable sources. What you removed was one of them, even if it is only educated speculation. Could you try to find a better source with more information for your Discovery Channel edit? Doug Weller (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As you know, there was a team of three independent researchers who reconstructed the face of Tut. The US researchers were not told whose skull it was, precisely because of concerns that they would be biassed by fear that they would be vilified by Afrocentrists if they made him look too "Caucasian". They all came to the conclusion, based on the shape of the nasal ridge, that he had a narrow nose. This is unsurprising, since East Africans of the area, including dark skinned Sudanese and Ethiopians to the south, typically have narrow noses. The Discovery Channel, which has a commercial rather than purely scholarly interest in the matter, then chose to wholly ignore these findings by generating a "reconstruction" the face with a wide nose, while also choosing darkish skin. This has little scientific value because it is heavily influenced by commercial and ideological pressure. Paul B (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I've created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dougweller. It's not live yet, so spend as long as you want answering the questions. Moreschi (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Aram (Biblical region)

Hi thanks for the message, I've responded on User talk:Til Eulenspiegel. Brando130 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adam's Bridge

No, keep reverting. The 3rr does not apply when you are reverting vandalism. If he does it again, file a report at WP:AIV. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WPP

Hi Doug, you edit the article to remove UNISON has warned me (a member of UNISON) not to use my Baton. Which is a threat and I will not have to report 91. Which is a fact and is less then what he done to me to as many Wikipedians he can get to. Thanks TopCat666 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA. Have a nice day -- Tinu Cherian - 08:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)