User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 34

What do you think about this edit? Hafspajen (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC) ^{(feels weird )}

talk

) 18:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't knew about standard poodles being used as retrievers. Hafspajen (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 18:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note the etymology at the beginning of the History section, the name comes from the breed’s use as retrievers in wetlands. The frivolous-looking “lion cut” on show poodles is an exaggeration of an earlier, practical style: long on the head and thorax, to preserve body heat in cold water, also around the joints where major blood-vessels are most exposed; short elsewhere for streamlining and drainage. Not to launch into lengthy personal anecdotes, but my father was a keen hunter, and our family dog from when I was two until I left home was a purebred “apricot” standard poodle. She had some conformational flaw for show purposes, so had little value to the breeders, but she had all the right instincts for duck-hunting and needed no training–indeed, would have none of it.—Odysseus1479 06:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, isn't it quite interesting? Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this is not interesting, this is trouble. [2]. And we had a lot of changes like this lately. Hafspajen (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I just received your message on my talk page. I apologize for my ignorance on era guidelines. I am very new to Wikipedia and don't really know how things are supposed to work here. It took me forever to figure out how to talk to you here. Thanks for your feedback!

Gabriel russ (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, how do I comment there any more? Would the RfC be raised at Talk:Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd raise it where you already commented, with a note at the other talk page linking to the discussion.

talk

) 10:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be useful to clarify on the Mirror Talk Page? I'm only an interested party, so I'll will await any move by the OP. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, the Talk Page seems to be protected, but the article page not? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the wrong re-direct from

Kozyrev Mirror to Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev. These pseudo-scientific devices bear his name but have nothing to do with him, apart from alleged use of some of the physical phenomena he studied as a proper scientist. His name was used for adding "justification" to them, after his death. Read the Russian article for details. Sergei Gutnikov (talk

) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently no consensus on the need for a separate article. You should raise an RfC to gather consensus. Meanwhile, and in any case, I'm sure everyone would agree that the main article should make clear any connection or mis-attribution. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've raised the RfC. Can we remove the re-direct and make a separate article now? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for the RfC to reach a conclusion. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is already another editor supporting re-creation. Please open it for editing, so it can be improved. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an opinion of an uninvolved person already. Why do we need to wait for 30 days? Why 30? I think you are just biased and don't want to take into account opinions if they differ from yours. Should I ask another administrator to open the article for editing? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

He/she recently added radio format as a genre including rhythmic, adult contemporary music etc. Most recent Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now) (though has been undid it), with its previous IPs Special:Contributions/71.166.109.46, Special:Contributions/71.179.121.23 and Special:Contributions/71.179.118.9, were the same edit pattern. 183.171.164.27 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't know enough about this area to help.

talk

) 15:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi; thanks for your message. Yes, I understand your concern. I don't think it has been brought up exactly as you asked, but people have asked about something similar on Wikipedia talk:People by year; that question was never answered tho; (it was from 2005).

I agree that with someone who was born so long ago, precise dates aren't very meaningful. Also see: Wikipedia:People_by_year. I was following the guidance there. I do think it needs to be addressed somehow. Although if you are talking about Julius Caesar, it's pretty certain he died in 44 BC (sources are pretty clear)... Let me know what you think.--FeanorStar7 16:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 19:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought I would draw your attention to your warning on the above page, issued at 20:00 on the 3rd July which appears to have been duplicated. Regards, Britmax (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you change the title to Battle of Arcole? Can you move the article to Battle of Arcole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Gellos (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(Talk page lurker) Done. Dougweller, hope you don't mind me doing this directly - I just stumbled on a series of page moves that needed fixing, and that led me here. Alexander, left some tips on your talkpage about how to do page moves or where to ask for help. Euryalus (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Barbara A. West, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, used as a source for Pharnavaz I of Iberia. Dr. West has a Phd. in social anthropology. Not sure this gives her specialization in Georgians, Pharnavaz or the time period in question. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And "A former associate professor of international studies and anthropology and managing editor of The Anthropology of East Europe Review" so probably yes.

talk

) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we consider this website[4] a reliable source? IP94.111.122.97 is using this as a source in the

talk

) 13:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Original conversation and permission copied from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim-Siduri#.22Siduri_Project.22_claims_1.0

I've blocked the 3 old accounts and moved some material to your new userpage. Please don't create any more accounts. Thanks.

talk

) 13:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Doug, thank you for moving the relevant content over. I'm sorry for the headache the extra accounts caused, each had a defined purpose, but until I have Wikipedia consensus approval to do so, I promise to use no account but Jim-Siduri.

I also wanted to thank you for suggesting the village pump as a formal location where the "Siduri Project" or whatever it ends up being called can be proposed. I told you I would leave if this project for change at Wikipedia fails to achieve consensus.

I'll admit, it is looking like a bit of a long shot, I'm not sure if I have the time, energy or even ability to make even the smallest change at Wikipedia currently.

I'll also admit that it hurts me to see the text stub article we now have for Siduri and I wanted to ask you a favor?

What? And I wouldn't call it a

talk

) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to, if possible, keep the Siduri-specific parts of this conversation separate for the more general Wikipedia improvement and protection Wiki-concepts, so I will post this request to your talk page, with your permission?Jim-Siduri (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok

talk

) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Doug, yes, of course. I agree, you are, as usual, correct. The current Siduri Wikipedia article is not technically a "stub" as per the Wiki-definition. Trust me, I'm genuinely very sorry to refer to the article as a "stub" as my many critics already have quite an impressive arsenal of permanent online mistakes I've made pointed at me regarding my competence to even be here at Wikipedia, let alone propose any form of solution to current or future problems, and I'm not doing myself any favors misusing Wiki-jargon.

The WP:Executions joke was just my poor effort to inject a little humor into what is otherwise, in general, quite often an unfriendly, humorless and hostile Wikipedia environment; not you, but some of the other Wikipedia editors might consider being just a little less, how can I put this politely... a touch less grumpy. It would go a LONG way in helping recruit and retain new editors, contributors and talent. Ideally, all new editors would be welcomed into our ranks as a brother or sister who shares our passion for Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia's mission is incredibly important and serious, but let's not forget to have a little fun too.

Having said all that, I am not a fool, I know I have many critics. This perhaps misplaced humor, the bot editing mistake and now the "stub" definition mistake, along with I'm sure countless other mistakes and "bizarre"/radical ideas, none of these things are helping me fit in. I did make you a pledge that would try to do better to fit into the Wikipedia community, and I can not help but feel that my actions over the past week, which have escalated beyond anything I originally imagined possible, should be regarded as a failure in that regard, and I wanted to apologize. I'm sorry.

I also wanted to try to clarify what I meant by a text "stub", and I fully admit I had not read the Wiki-definition before I used it. I meant "stub" more along the lines of an encyclopedic article about Siduri that does not include the quote for Siduri's advice, which is, at the end of the day, the majority of what we know about Siduri. That encyclopedia article is so close to useless as an educational tool, so uninformative to the Wikipedia visitor, that it felt, to me, like it was little more than a stub.

I don't know if this is possible under Wiki-regulations, but the use of quotes is probably the most basic form of multimedia there is. If Wiki-regulations prevent us from putting Siduri's only quote in Wikipedia's Siduri article, then perhaps we need to take a second look at our regulations, they may need some updating to reflect our increasing focus (hopefully) on integrating new multimedia. As you know, not including Siduri's advice in Wikipedia's Siduri article represents a serious loss to the Wikipedia visitor. I would propose that any useful encyclopedia entry on Siduri should include the quote for Siduri's advice, especially Wikipedia.

Here is the text I would suggest we consider somehow re-incorporating into Wikipedia's Siduri article:

Gilgamesh, whither are you wandering? Life, which you look for, you will never find. For when the gods created man, they let death be his share, and life withheld in their own hands. Gilgamesh, fill your belly. Day and night make merry. Let days be full of joy, dance and make music day and night. And wear fresh clothes. And wash your head and bathe. Look at the child that is holding your hand, and let your wife delight in your embrace. These things alone are the concern of men. (Before Philosophy; The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man - Frankfort, Wilson and Jacobsen, Penguin Books, Baltimore, Maryland, 1949).

I know you mentioned copyright concerns, but I think this quote of Siduri's advice, or indeed any Wikipedia text or multimedia, would technically fall under the blanket protection offered by the doctrine of "fair use" as codified in section 107 of copyright law (www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). I may be wrong, and I don't know yet if Wikipedia regulations reflect this (I am still buried in an enormous mountain of Wiki-regulations that need reviewing), but my current understanding of copyright law is that as long as the text and/or multimedia is solely being used for non-profit educational purposes, which is essentially the definition and function of Wikipedia, then we actually have, if my interpretation of copyright law is correct, an incredibly broad umbrella of legal protection for essentially all of the multimedia creation activities proposed in the Siduri Project, including the use of quotes, images, audio, video, software, or indeed any other data file would be protected under the same legal umbrella.

Doug, you are the principal administrator for Wikipedia's Gilgamesh/Siduri articles. Like me, you feel very strongly about ancient Mesopotamian literature. I've edited the Epic of Gilgamesh and Siduri page with you for years, this is our shared passion.

I want to bring change to Wikipedia. I want to improve the Wikipedia experience by making lots of multimedia, and the only subject I am sufficiently passionate about, to fight against the long odds, is the Wikipedia Siduri article. However, I am worried about this article turning into an ideological battleground, especially in light of the increasingly likely scenario that I will lose this virtual war and be forced out. The favor I wanted to ask you is, when disagreements inevitably occur, would you be willing to judge both sides of the argument and let me know your decision?

I can't speak for my critics, but you have the experience, expertise and support to make fully informed decisions about content additions and removals to the Siduri article that few others possess. You have the subject-specific knowledge, you know the field, you know the Epic, you know who Andrew George is. You have the authority, both as an administrator and someone who's opinion I respect. You have the experience, the long and impressive editorial contribution history, and you have significant support in the Wikipedia community. I of course understand when you are too busy to review the details of a disagreement, but in the cases where you are available, would you be willing to fill this role?

Ultimately, I trust your opinion, and I would appreciate it if you would be willing to provide your judgment on any future disagreements regarding content additions for Wikipedia's Siduri article. Your judgment would very likely be respected, if not by everyone, then at least by me and anyone who respects my position on the matter. I would also regard it as a personal favor. Is this something you would be willing to consider?

Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Hi Moonriddengirl, thank you, I really appreciate your input, expertise and primary focus on this copyright area. Would you give me permission to follow up on your talk page? Best, JimJim-Siduri (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to

talk

) 08:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

BETTER TO PUT Protestants AND Catholics INTO Ahmadiyya TEMPLATE... YOU ARE SO IGNORANT ON THE TOPIC YOU COULDNT GET THE POINT 68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please just drop this. They call themselves Muslim so Wikipedia does. We will not take sides in religious debates. Many Christians do not think Mormons (Latter Day Saints) are Christians, but they call themselves Christians so we accept that (just as many Protestants don't accept that Catholics are real Christians and vice versa). If you push this into article you will probably be blocked

I just said put AHMADISM into a proper place as they did in french vikipedia SEE THIS TEMPLATE... 'Template:Islam (FRENCH) and then go a prepare necassary corrections 68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We aren't the French Wikipedia, we follow our own policies and guidelines.

talk

) 09:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

GOT YOU BUT YOU SHOULD START LEARNING FROM SOMEWHERE

68.100.172.139 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

THE MAIN BRANCHES ARE

Khawarij

if you claim that it can NOT be put under one of these titles, then it is a new religion, but not islam.

Since you are able to put all the following groups like

• Aḥmadī movement,
• Din-e Ilahi
  ,
• Khojas
  ,
• Nation of Islam,
• Five-Percent Nation,
• Malcolm X,
• Mahdavia

68.100.172.139 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I just put "West African" (as an influence on Guyanese Creole) back in

You're right that the IP's edits added some improved language, but there were also a lot of sloppy additions. My original revert was too heavy-handed, so I've gone back with a more surgical approach and weeded out the broken images, links, and unsubstantiated additions of entries and origins, while maintaining the IP's improvements to wording of individual entries. I hope it meets with your approval Ibadibam (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Khawarij

IF YOU CANT PUT UNDER THESE GROUPS

THEN EITHER (1) IT'S NOT

ISLAM

OR (2) IS A NEWLY EMERGED TARIQA WHOSE PATH IS A SPECIAL WAY probably un

divine one i.e. it's divinity

is an open ended question..

YOU HAVE TO THEN RE-GROUPS THESE SPECIAL so-called TARIQA

what you have to do is to invent a new TITLE for these residual groups

WHO CLAIM THEMSELVES AS A PART OF THE

Dīn of Islam

A PROPER TITLE MAY THE unclassified

tariqah of islam

QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE RESIDUAL GROUPS

ANSWER: According to your template is the following ones

• Aḥmadī movement,
• Din-e Ilahi
  (add),
• Khojas
  (add),
• Nation of Islam,
• Five-Percent Nation,
• Malcolm X (add),
• Mahdavia

EVERYTHING IS RIDICULOUS ON THIS TEMPLATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned you at ANI, in regards to the IP spamming on your and Dougweller's talk pages, as well as a template talk page and general... confusion on his part. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not up-to-date on the formal terminology; was just going off of what I had seen on similar pages. Koncurrentkat (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller,

You sent me a message about editing Armenia page. I explained my removal of the image

by the fact that it has duplicates on Yerevan site (capital of Armenia) and Erivan fortress site (the old Yerevan). Note that no other picture repetitively appears in all those sites. It seems that it is intentionally inserted in multiple places about Armenia/Yerevan, and this is what I think the administrators should watch for and prevent.

Regards, Cyber-Policeman (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that WP:3RR rule overruns any content-related matter, including reversal of incorrect information? Thanks. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 18:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Army history on Stubby. A bit more moderate. Others, like Smokey, Rags and so on. Hafspajen (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You and I think @Maunus: have I think had some involvement with content related to the Jehovah's Witnesses in the past and I would welome input from bot of you regardin the discussion at Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard#Jehovah's Witnesses. Basically, it seems to me that @Jeffro77: found some sources calling into question whether the JWs can really be said to have been founded by Russell. Some other sources say Russell did found the JWs - others seem to avoid the issue. In any event, the question has started a dispute between Jeffro77 and @BlackCab:. The matter of the time and conditions of the foundation of the JWs has broad content implications, as does its possibe identity or lack of identity to the "Bible students" movement, and I have some question whether the parties involved can resolve the matter on their own. I would definitely welcome input from you and Maunus, now and, if you two think it might help, in some form of dispute resolution. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I don't see this issue as having broad content implications. Articles such as Jehovah's Witnesses and History of Jehovah's Witnesses already indicate the manner in which Russell founded the Bible Student movement and that a quite distinct group was later developed by Rutherford. It is only direct statements about the "founder" that need to be qualified. I am aware that most sources say Russell founded the group, however these are usually simply stating the 'official' history of Jehovah's Witnesses, which tend to whitewash the schism. The sources I 'found' have been present in the articles for some time, and I have previously raised this issue in 2011.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If the Bible Students do constitute a distinct group from the JWs, content relating to the BSs probably belongs in separate articles, or at least, not in aricles about the JWs. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The historical development of Jehovah's Witnesses remains inextricably linked to the Bible Student movement in either case. Articles such as Bible Student movement already exist--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

But the spinout content of "History of the BS," "Beliefs and Practices of the BS," etc., would also be required or at least in the interests of NPOV not be in articles apparently primarily about the JWs. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed the case that the spinout articles about JWs do not represent the beliefs and practices of the Bible Student movement, further demonstrating the distinction between the groups. Other Bible Student groups are very small, and the only concern about the necessity of additional spinout articles about the Bible Student movement would be notability. See the infobox {{Bible Students}} for current articles related to the Bible Student movement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is quite sufficiently clear already. Russelll founded the Bible study movement of which the JWs is today by far the largest and most significant group. Its a bit like saying that Jesus shouldnt be mentioned in articles about Lutherans because Lutheranism was founded by Luther.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

JWs aren't a group of the Bible Student movement. They don't even acknowledge the continued existence of the Bible Student movement. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are distinctly divergent from those of the Bible Student movement, which adhere to the teachings of Charles Taze Russell. The claim that it is like "Jesus shouldnt be mentioned in articles about Lutherans" is not analogous at all; the correct analogy would be that Jesus shouldn't be stated as the founder of Lutheranism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

JW consider Russelll to have founded their religion, the vast majority of scholars consider Russell to have founded their religion. The fact that spliter groups exist that think they are the true inheritors of Russells teachings is entirely to be expected and changes nothing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not merely the case that some more recent splinter groups have 'claimed' to be 'true inheritors' of Russell's teachings. Rather, at the time that Rutherford was making significant changes, those actions resulted in most of the original members of the group defecting from Rutherford's group specifically to maintain their acceptance of Russell's teachings. Bible Student movement groups adhering to Russell's teachings existed before, during and after Rutherford's departures from Russell's teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. The fact that a movment founded by X later deviates from Xs teachings does not mean that X is no longer the founder. It is simply invalid reasoning. Stick to the mainstream sources, and if there are any sources that mention that Rutherford could be considered a second founder because of the way he changed the doctrines then that view can be included as well. It cannot however replace the standard narrative of Russell as the founder and Rutherford as the reformer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bible Student movement didn't "deviate from Xs teachings". Rutherford's faction deviated from the Bible Student movement, which resulted in most of the original Bible Student members leaving Rutherford's faction. The Bible Student movement continued to conform to Russell's teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Jeffro found no sources, despite repeated requests for him to produce anything new. There are just two sources for the claim that JF Rutherford founded this religion in July 1931: Leo Chall in a 1978 issue of “Sociology of Religion” and an unidentified author in a 1953 book, “The Twentieth Century”. At Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Archive 5#Founder refs a Wikipedia editor in 2011 listed 60 sources naming CT Russell as the founder of the JWs. These include The New York Times Almanac, Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Academic American Encyclopedia, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The World Book dictionary, Webster's II New College Dictionary and Hutchinson's New 20th Century Encyclopedia. I won't bother to repeat myself here, but Jeffro is pushing a view that is basically synth. He has gained no support; he needs to stop now. BlackCab (TALK) 08:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed to have originally provided the other sources, and I already corrected that claim above.

A lie told often enough may come to be regarded as 'fact', which certainly plays into the aims of Rutherford's schism. However, even among the sources provided at the archive linked above are some which indicate that Russell started some other thing, from which Jehovah's Witnesses developed later.

3. "Jehovah's Witnesses...began as the International Bible Students Association, founded in 1872 by the adventist Charles Taze Russell" – A World of Ideas by Chris Rohmann, Random House, Inc., 2000, page 209

33. "Thousands [attended] a speech by the founder of the International Bible Students' Association (later Jehovah's Witnesses), Charles Taze Russell." – American Decades: 1910-1919 by Vincent Tompkins, Judith Baughman, Victor Bondi, Richard Layman, Gale Research, 1996, page 478

35. "Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) was the founder-leader of the organization that came to be called the Jehovah's Witnesses." – Exploring New Religions by George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001, page 94

38. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the official corporate name of what is popularly termed the Jehovah's Witnesses, was born..." – Religious leaders of America by J. Gordon Melton, Gale Research, 1999, page 482

I have never pretended that most sources don't re-report the JW claim that Bible Students—started by Russell—was simply a former name of JWs, with the resulting implication that Russell founded Jehovah's Witnesses, but the fact remains that Rutherford's group is distinctly different to the groups that continue to follow Russell's teachings. It is simply false to claim that Russell founded a group that teaches things that are fundamentally different to anything Russell ever taught, in view of the fact that other groups that are still called Bible Students still follow Russell's original teachings.

If the articles are to be factual, Russell should be indicated as the founder of the Bible Students, and a formative influence in the development of Jehovah's Witnesses, but that Jehovah's Witnesses was itself developed by Rutherford as a group that branched from the Bible Student movement. This is actually already stated in the main text of the relevant articles. Indeed even other Bible Student movement groups are regarded as having a founder other than Russell, as previously linked at Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard#Jehovah's Witnesses[7].--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that is an extremeley tendentious reading of those sources. The ones that state that Russell founded "something other" simply say that what he founded later changed its name. The argument that Russell taught something other than what the witnesses teach is a red herring, since all religions change their doctrines over time, yet do not acquire a new founder everytime they do that. Your argument looks to me as revisionism and Original Resarch.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the New Catholic Encyclopedia does identify the "Russelites" with the JWs, but both the Jones EoR and the second edition of Religions of the World fall well short of identifying Russell's group with the JWs. That apparent refusal to identify them in recent well-regarded independent religious reference sources seems to me to indicate that academia may not identify the two as being the same. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be rash to make this decision based on inferences. The many many sources that identify Russell as the founder of the JWs can only be countered by very explicit claims to the contrary in the literature, that would allow us to state both view, but it is only when that claim that JWs was founded by Rutherford and not Russell becomes the mainstream view that we can present that as the primary one. There is a logn way to go on that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Jeffro should probably start writing

It is not the case that the only options are to present either Russell or Rutherford as 'the founder'. As previously stated, the infobox could simply omit the founder, or it could note that Russell founded the Bible Student movement and that Rutherford transformed his faction into something substantially different.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

William Stephen Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstephenjackson (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see

I was reading a mild disagreement at User talk:Kwamikagami#Azerbaijani language article, so I decided to investigate. First, I read the language section in the article on Azerbaijan and made a few edits and left a question on the talk page. Then I read the article Languages of Azerbaijan. I made a number of copy-edits, but I also left several "clarification needed" tags with notes to editors, including one about dates given in the article as "AH". I said -- I hope I was correct -- that dates needed to be given as AD/BC or CE/BCE. But besides all that, a lot of the text quotes or paraphrases authors, but the texts are not given as references, and I wondered whether they should be or not.

I also wonder whether that editor was correct when she told Kwami that part of Azerbaijan is in Eastern Europe. I thought you might know that.

If you have time, do you want to read through this article?

talk

) 10:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgot, I don't know about its location. I see it called a crossroads, but where the boundary is I don't know offhand.

talk

) 10:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for your reply.

talk

) 15:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in explaining to User:ColeDryden[9] what plagiarism is? Perhaps I can avoid another "brick throwing" incident. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a

It's in the article already. We don't need another cite in the lead. See the talk page now please.

talk

) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Should those two new categories exist? Category:Advocates of population moderation and Category:People expressing concern about population size. I noticed that their creator keeps adding them to articles that do not clearly support their addition. Plus, those terms ("advocates of population moderation") are, in effect, too ambiguous to be useful. Should I nominate them for deletion? --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 16:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you are well, I was wondering if you could please offer some assistance. A sockpuppet from this investigation (one of whom, User:Newsameword, you have had previous dealings with) is now using throwaway IPs to edit war on List of British Muslims and List of British Bangladeshis.

I have tried to engage in a discussion on the talk page to resolve the matter (of which relates to both articles). However, after leaving one comment he is refusing to reply to the points I have raised on the matter and is just repeatedly reverting my edit, meaning that I cannot take the matter to WP:Third opinion to obtain a consensus as the discussion is not progressive. Is there anything you could do or keep an eye on the reverts? Thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I made a series of changes to the

Danielshenton (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Danielshenton

Hello, Thank you for all the information you have given me. I looked through them all, but all the explanations seem a little vague to me. In regards to giving a contribution to an existing article on Wikipedia, would it be appropriate to summarize a portion of an outside reference I am using, writing it in my own words, and only using a couple of direct quotes from the references with proper citation? I think it would be how I write a research essay or at least in a similar way would be considered appropriate? I would like to know as I would like to contribute to an article, but I would like to do so without violating any policy on editing/adding contributions especially on copyright and/or plagiarism, which was not my original intent the last time.

Thank you ColeDryden (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the latest edit to

Strangely, either is plausible, and possibly neither edit is vandalism. The rest of the article has it that his family was from Spain (not at all unusual for later emperors), but he was raised in Rome (the norm for a patrician) where they owned extensive property. So he could've been born in either, or even in between. --

talk

) 21:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Well, thank you for the explanation. Interesting.

talk

) 22:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Given his importance, I would hope there is a scholarly consensus somewhere on which is correct, though :) --

talk

) 22:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug. A new editor has been adding extensive material to the cave painting articles exclusively referencing his own work:[10]

I don't have time to look into it now. Would you? Such as whether his work has been published in acceptable venues. (I ask you, because I know you've kept an eye on those articles in the past.)

Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks dubious to me. Eapress has only one release... So, seem self-published. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and posted to his talk page.

talk

) 10:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Doug and Jonathan. And for the kind note on his Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been clicking around, seen various discussion and stuff, also discovered you are an admin. Has my newly discovered Bossy friend been given enough rope yet? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

-

talk

) 13:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you are involved, and I support your position!! I'll get more popcorn. Thanks -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there - i think your last edit of the LSBF page must have been made in error - you seem to first have reverted an unexplained deletion, but then deleted the very same passage again. I have now re-inserted and updated the deleted passage - I think it should be ok now, but please check - I may have missed the point of your edit.Arandomstring (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• .
  talk
  ) 21:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very new to this editing and still learning it. I removed the bizarre text of alledged muslim persecution of Palestinian Christians because it is unfounded and the only source to that being linked is from an israeli think tank with credibility issues. Wikipedia should be free of political iformation and merely informative. Claiming "other commentators" claiming persecution are infact from the above mentioned think tank. Most christians from bethlehem leave due to the hardship of the occupation, not any alledged travel restriction or persecution. I would know, I'm one of them now living in Sweden. Reading this dumbfounds us and is utterly inaccurate and politically drivem. Thus it should not be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphryne (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Following a GA, had to remove findagrave.com. I removed that link on a number of pages and one user restored 2 of them. For more understanding, I had viewed previous archives and found one[11] where you had asked for the blacklisting. You think that we can gain consensus for the blanket removal of this fansite? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Check WP:External links/Noticeboard#findagrave OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet another editor with a keen interest in switching citation templates and young earth creationism: They say they're new on their user page however they already knew how to use sfn templates expertly (not to mention archive bots). They seem to have undone your Dec 2012 DENY on Andrew A. Snelling so it might be worth reviewing the possibly Mortenson-related additions at Scriptural geologist.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ver-r-ry interesting. I will look into it when I get time. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you're busy, Doug, but perhaps someone who is watching your talk page could answer this. I've been involved in improving the language section in the article on Azerbaijan. See Talk:Azerbaijan#Language. It is still in process. Then I saw some edits by Cyber-Policeman to that and other sections. I'm just wondering about the change to these sentences (third parag. in lead):

"Azerbaijan proclaimed its independence in October 1991, before the official dissolution of the USSR. Earlier, in September 1991, the disputed Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh region affirmed its willingness to create a separate state as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic."

This editor changed "Shortly thereafter" to "Earlier, in September 1991," and added a source, with an edit summary saying that he was improving the chronological order of events. Now, perhaps the information is correct and it was earlier, but I think it is silly to put something that happened in October 1991 first, and then put something that happened in September 1991. Could someone check to be sure the date is correct, and then re-word the sentence so that it really is in chronological order? If for some reason this order is more desirable, then I think the information should be in parentheses.

Also, and this is tied in with a possible re-ordering of the languages in the Language section (see suggested revision by Mursel on the talk page) -- Cyber-Policeman added the information about Armenian back in (after I had deleted it because the sentence as worded seemed out of place) with a change, saying "Armenian is now spoken mainly in the de-facto independent Nagorno-Karabakh. ". I have no problem at all listing Armenian as one of the languages of Azerbaijan, but my question is: what is the best wording --- Cyber-Policeman's, Mursel's, or some other wording?

talk

) 18:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you support the repeated personal attacks by Paul Barlow? Also, there is a lot of blatant POV pushing in his edits regarding Ancient EgyptRod (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The recent Wikilove canvassing visible at here is sounding alarm bells. The various articles associated with that caste, including Kayastha itself, might prove troublesome again before too long. Much is already sanitised beyond believe there due to the involvement of COI contributors but it seems a least one wants to take it further! - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, particularly about the possibility of a glut of dubiously real or purely fictional massacres. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you have been watching this, but I though I'd point it out to you in case you'd like to take a look at it. It's part of a broader discussion. If you'll look at earlier comments, you'll see that a lot of editors, including some ornithologists and biologists, have left WP because of the way they were treated by MoS people in a discussion regarding the style of bird names in articles.

This one is a relatively short discussion -- so far. It is at

On my talk page you wrote: "Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to UK Independence Party. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Adding the word 'propaganda' to describe a film violates our NPOV policy." The citation for the sentence where I added the word propaganda, found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html , explicitly uses the word propaganda do describe the film, so my addition of the word propaganda directly fits and is accurate to the source in no way can this be described as "add[ing] commentary or [my] own personal analysis". I would appreciate it if you would remove the erroneous warning you gave me. Thanks. --Jacksoncw (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but either way, I was not adding my own commentary or personal analysis, but was reflecting the source. So whether I'm right or wrong on the word I believe the warning was erroneous because the reasoning is invalid. It was not a random injection of my own personal viewpoint, but a reflection of the source. --Jacksoncw (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 16:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

But again, whether or not I was right in adding the word, it was in no way my "commentary or your own personal analysis". So, while I concede that perhaps the addition was not correct, I believe your warning was erroneous and. A simple reversion of my edit with an explanation in the edit summary would have sufficed. As you can tell, the word is, indeed, in the citation. While it may not belong in the article, and that's my mistake, it was certainly not deserving of an NPOV warning. --Jacksoncw (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, so, seeing my reasoning, that I was using wording directly form the source, and not adding my own commentary or personal analysis, will you revert your warning? --Jacksoncw (talk

) 02:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you removed Richard Feynman from the collage on Ashkenazi Jews stating "per talk page". What did you see there? Please post your reply in the talkpage discussion there. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

David Criswell, The Rise and Fall the Holy Roman Empire. Is Criswell a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The dreadful reviews are a clue - it was "published" by

talk

) 14:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Can you please check the sock-puppet claims before protecting the page? I just opened an account so can't edit. Just because Khazar nicknames people sock-puppets doesn't mean it's true. Fact his he does controversial changes without discussion, and I already reverted him (from my IP) on Russian Jews, the guy obviously does it all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Sort It Out (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok so why not just block the relevant socks and allow the rest to edit? I mean I need to revert his edits, which were done without discussion or consensus. Right now he is getting away with doing controversial changes and having a discussion from a "position of power" where his edits are in the collage! Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Dennis Brown's talk page.
Message added 09:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sigh, I hate to be asking you for this, but could you talk some sense into Cyber-Policeman. Despite your 24-hour block, he keeps on pushing POV subjects in the Azerbaijan article. For a long time the Azerbaijan page maintained a good-article status, this kind of edit-war could endanger that status and decrease the quality of the page. Mursel (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten, just busy,

talk

) 18:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

J. Rickard is the author of this website;http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/people_clovis_I.html
Would you happen to know who J. Rickard is and if we can consider him and this website a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This page describes the three people who run the website. I'm a bit dubious. It's a personal website even if run by 3 people. It is used in some books as a source, eg[12] I can't find a use of that particular article. Sorry, maybe it's been discussed at RSN, have you searched there?

talk

) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you've crossed paths with

Thanks! --

talk

) 19:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So sorry but I've setup my Wiki email 7 years ago and have not used (rather surprisingly) since then. Just got a new email linked to my account and would be grateful if you resend your email!

Thanks! Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much kind sir for letting me know. I wasn't aware of that, so I appreciate the heads-up! That whole thing was a massive fiasco.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a message from you just now on my Talk page and think you may be confusing me with someone else. I would never discuss using email as a source; to me that is as bad as using Twitter or YouTube as a source. --

--

talk

) 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That was good sleuthing! I had forgotten all about that exchange. I didn't take his attempt to get the information very seriously. --

talk

) 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This editor has been rewriting many articles about ancient regions based on sources such as HistoryFiles and About.com (in most of the cases they change dates without providing any citations at all). The text they insert usually features bad grammar as well.[13][14] I reverted most of their recent edits and left them a message.[15]. Checking all their edits would require some considerable time. Could you take a look at the case? --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Is likely a sock of Aldota. Usually edits from the 109 range. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Thanks a lot for the link! actually at the beginning I was not 100% sure that his edit was not OK, but after taking a look at Republic of Macedonia and seeing that he replicated it at several places with misleading edit summaries, I reverted him. Actually, as Italian - Swiss I am totally uninvolved in the Macedonia matter (as for Armenia, Azerbaijan, and so on) but I try to bring some order in the mess that pours each day into these articles, although it is really a mine field, and doing some mistake sooner or later is unavoidable... Keep the good job, Alex2006 (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi There I edited the Wiki Page with Title: QADIANI, I did this while consulting thousands of south Asian Muslims ( I'm a community activist)-but you changed it back. The word is used by ALL south Asians Muslims NOT as a slur but just like the word PUNJABI ( a person from the Punjab). So accurately and factually you are wrong irrespective of what the Ahmadi community say-who also are 100% are less than 400,000 worldwide. You see in their literature they claim to be 200 million- as more Muslims are now complaining about this blatant fraud they have come to the figure of a couple million in Wikipedia-NOT TRUE ALSO-they do not have ANY evidence. Please see Youtube. I am now producing a 100,000 petition to complain about your editing to my local MP- as it is misleading and maligning the 400 million South Asian Muslims.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.188.182 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, Doug, for your ongoing efforts to control POV-pushing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boss_Reality&diff=prev&oldid=617820148#You_are_getting_tiresome

He has then quoted you, preserving that error:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boss_Reality&diff=next&oldid=617822919#You_are_getting_tiresome

Would you please fix both instances? Thanks. --

The purpose of the edit, which you quickly reverted, was merely to explain who the quoted Paula McNutt is, because, on the basis of two short quotes, the paragraph goes on to dismiss the entire contents of Genesis as a work of fiction. Readers of the article need to be aware of her illustrious pedigree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ivorjosephson (talk • contribs)

That simply confirms my guess that you were trying to discredit here by making it look as though she was just an administrator and ignoring her academic achievements.

talk

) 14:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I know I am probably gonna get spanked for this, but unfortunately due to the Tim Lambesis trying to hire a hitman to murder his wife case, The Full Armor of God Broadcast quote has gotten some notariaty. I thought that might help at least establish it as a known program? I hope I did not do anything too wrong. I thought I would bring it to you, please help if you can. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well that was quick.. Actually this was not simply a re-post, it had entirely new sources. But, no contestation from me. Thank you for your time, I will keep working on it and hopefully this program that is relevant genre will one day be notable enough. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 20:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Thank you. Hopefully sometime the program will get more press to source. Armorbearer777 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandi Hawbaker (4th nomination) appears as status "UNDETERMINED" at the AfD stats tool. I'm guessing that it's looking for a result of "delete" instead of "Close"? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,

talk

) 15:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw it – thanks. Is there a reason we don't have templates for closing and voting? I just got picked on in my RfA for using a vote word that the report didn't understand. I had to mention that others do this routinely (including this case as an example, though not specifically) because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute doesn't actually list the acceptable words :-| —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

John Carter (talk

Having a

Dougweller, you locked Acts 29 Network with the contentious edit left in rather than out. In this case I believe that the IP user has it right and User:Armorbearer777's edit cannot be justified by the source reference. -Sigeng (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigeng, I beg to differ on my edit (as you could have probably guessed). Though my contribution is very comparmentalized, it truly encapulates the essence of the authors point. The source clearly draws a correlation between Mars Hill Church and Acts 29 Network. Perhaps from a legal stand point the leadership and headquarters can be transfered in such a way as to maintain legal seperation from Mars Hill Church, but it is pretty obvious that the implication from the source is that the Acts 29 Network remains an extension of Mars Hill Church, therefore it continues to be a conduit of the churches "Freaky Ways" similar to a "Cult", thus the Acts 29 Network shares in the authors question through association; "Cult or Church"? This implication may just be based on conjecture, however it still is a notable source that demonstrates valid "reaction" as per the heading. The accuracy of the author's position is almost a mute point. Agree or not, it is a ligitimate "reaction" from a notable source, is it not? Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think you made the right call. I did the best that I could in this matter, however I clearly see the many opportunities for improvement with how I could have. I welcome your help as a mentor. Just sayin... - Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 07:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate any feedback, instructions or help. I recently created a page with my name, "Robert Clifton Robinson," which was fully verified with links to my published books. I believed that this was sufficient to verify my new page, according to Wikipedia's policy, but apparently I made a mistake. I do not know who to talk to or how to properly correct this issue. The page has been deleted and there were no instructions on how to correct the problem. I apologize for the removal of the speedy edit, on that page it said something to the effect that I could remove this tag if I corrected the problem, I must have misunderstood, I am sorry.

Would someone please help me so I can get this important page back up. I would be very grateful.

Robert Clifton Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblesavant (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my page Fatwa against Deobandi Scholars on the Copyright issue. The text I copied is free to use as you can see that the same text can be seen from millions of website.All these website authors copied it. click here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudahmed97 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I can find no evidence it is not copyright and until you can prove this you can't use it.

talk

) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not that interested in the topic. I was just cruising for vandalism with Huggle that night. BollyJeff | talk 17:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, do you believe the killing and bloodshed of 15 innocent lives (women and children) on an United Nations school on 24-07-2014 by Israel is not an act of terrorism ? Beit Hanoun in Gaza. 

talk

) 09:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If the theory of Evolution is in the article to have neutral point of view the theory Creationism should be in the article too as the theory Evolution is not a fact either. I'm sorry about the copyrighted material I will see if I can get permission. Also did you remove my sourced for Mokele-mbembe?

Thanks just trying to make wikipedia a better place— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwahl90 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Explained what a scientific theory is and Wikipedia's position on evolution on OP's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned you at ANI in regards to Hwahl90's continued copyright violations and soapboxing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James O'Higgins Norman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• was awarded a [[Institute of Education|Doctorate at the Institute of Education, London (2006)]].{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

I thought that the IP whom I templated for the personal attack was a sock. I didn't know that Mikemikev was in Seoul. In that case, he is probably an Asian racist rather a European racist. (In Washington, DC, Asian racists are even worse than European racists. In an African-American majority city, European racists know that being a racist is considered shameful.) If the IP is a sock and engaged in anti-Semitic attacks, will he be blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do if I see any similar IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

I have not made any comments on the Democratic Party page, my user contribution page will affirm this. I can't begin to imagine what you were referring to. I have made one edit to the page itself today, and it was merely cosmetic. Please can you clarify. Hayek79 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Dougweller, I will make a point of asking him if he objected to it, and apologise in the event that he was offended. Otherwise, I feel you ought to revise your understanding of the meaning of "personal attack", "personal attack" would involve the denigration of his character, something I did not come close to doing. Hayek79 (talk

) 12:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Doug, given that I know next to nothing about the content issues, your comment here in response to Aleko's statements would be helpful. I know this is a conduct issue, but still ... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd like to ask about this part. What to do now? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am providing three of many reliable sources: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/ http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/25/How-US-Allowed-ISIS-Form-Terrorist-Army http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1100423/DISTURBING-CONTENT-ISIS-terrorists-execute-soldiers-Syria.html Worldedixor (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi - i'm messaging you to query your deleting of my editing of the Cathy O'brien page. The reasons you gave for deleting my editing were

A) The quote wasn't contained within the supplied link.

B) The linked website was not an "official source".

C) The quote was about monarch, where as the Wiki article is about O'brien, therefore the quote was off-topic.

Let me address these objections in order.

A)I read the link. The quote was indeed supplied within the link.

B)The link was accepted by wikipedia. Also, the Greenbaum speech AKA “Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse,” by Prof. D. Corydon Hammond is cited 7 times on google scholar.

In fact “Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse,” now usually known as the “Greenbaum Speech,” was delivered at the Fourth Annual Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality, Thursday June 25, 1992, at the Radisson Plaza Hotel, Mark Center, Alexandria, Virginia. It was Sponsored by the Center for Abuse Recovery & Empowerment. The existence of the lecture is not in doubt. In fact it is quoted in dozens of different web pages.

It is also referenced in this scholarly book McNally, RJ (2003). Remembering Trauma. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press.

Could you please reconsider this edit? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogernome (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is kicking off again at India Against Corruption, an article that you semi'd until 1 July. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, decided to ignore by TP until after lunch. But I did see the problem and protected earlier.

talk

) 12:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No probs. I hope nothing spoils your digestion. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wondering if you might see any behavior problems worth addressing here.John Carter (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I took the cite which you had removed and moved it to "External Sources"

Is that permissible?

There is a plethora of media coverage on the reversals, some of it confused and some dead wrong. I thought posting the case syllabus on Jonathan's appellate decision might help clarify that.

I've noticed that there's a good deal of reader and viewer feedback attendant to the coverage, some even asking about whether it's possible to remove the deceased trial judge from the bench.

Please feel free to remove or substitute something more helpful that is within Wikipedia guidelines if my restoration/move is not appropriate, or to add more. I expect there may be a law journal discussion about the case in the near future.

Thanks for your diligence with regard to maintaining this article. Activist (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Page Numbers and sources given. See Talk Pages or the Revision Pages.Ghatus (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You Reverted my edit to the Olmec article. You said I was using fringe self published references. I disagree entirely. I used 3 references but could of applied dozens. The last paragraph prior to my addition appears quite biased to me and used outdated references in the subtopic of Alternate theories on Olmec origins. Please explain your thinking so that I, a brand new editor to Wikipedia may improve my contributions, which, btw, will likely be all over the subjects of global ancient history and relative modern day science. I will also be creating profiles of authors in this same genre but other genres too. In fact, that is why I am becoming involved with editing Wikipedia in the first place. I have come to Wikipedia looking for dozens of profiles that are not here, but in my thinking certainly should be. Thank you. Peggy Morin-Vilhauer (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Peg Morin-Vilhauer.

ref: Aztec Calendar Stone, sub: physical description & Olmec, sub: Alternative Origin Theories

talk

) 15:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we all have your input on this vexed question again, please? I made an edit that has caused much discussion on the Talk page. It seems I mistakenly assumed that the US State Department was an ideal source to support calling ISIS a terrorist organization in the Lead. I overlooked making it an in-text attribution, but even so, it seems too much for some, and I can in fact understand the arguments against it. I am familiar with the WP guidance on this, but I do think we now need to have the word "terrorist" somewhere in the Lead, however loaded it is, because the group is so commonly spoken of in this way now, and increasingly so with the latest atrocities. The word can always be heavily qualified, and DeCausa's suggested wording seems the best to me. --

talk

) 15:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 18:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how any normal person would consider that I made any threat to take legal action. I hope this closes this matter.Mansjelly (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In so far as the article is concerned, there is some doubt (which I am presently researching into) if (a) the India Against Corruption movement "is" or "was", and (b) If the Kejriwal-led IAC movement is/was different from the Roy-led IAC movement. I don't see how informing that I intended ((as a registered Indian voter) to get these important political controversies on Wikipedia directly clarified from the respective players can be construed as a legal threat, UNLESS Sitush is aware that his reinserted edits are false and which could result in legal action. I specifically clarify that I have not AND shall not suggest for legal action. Mansjelly (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What you propose to investigate has already been investigated. Indeed, a whole bunch of people from "Roy's IAC" were attempting to influence the article only a few months ago. They were blocked after numerous policy breaches, including threats phrased in a similar manner to yours above. Indeed, it is blatantly obvious to me that you are a returning user or are being advised by a previously blocked user - both of which should mean that you are already blocked. How you have avoided that fate thus far is beyond my understanding but if needs be then I'll find some links to past discussions in order to demonstrate, as a minimum, that you are a meatpuppet.

You've also been told before that Wikipedia doesn't really care what Kejriwal or any other involved person might say - we prefer

secondary sources here, not the biasses etc inherent in those about whom we write. - Sitush (talk

) 17:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See, for example, this ANI report, this one, this and this. Note the socks, meats and role accounts; note the similarly-worded legal threats; note the appeals to primary sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have located over a dozen secondary sources accessed from Google News which say that Roy is Convenor of IAC. I have not found any source which has either Kejriwal or Hazare saying that he is not. Please respond to this instead of threatening me. Please conduct a CheckUser or file for a SPI. Mansjelly (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of the odd things about you - a newbie - is that you even know CU and SPI exist. Of course, they don't usually work for meatpuppets. No-one is denying that Roy convenes something called IAC but it is not the IAC that the article is referring to. As I've explained, and as is apparent from some of the discussions linked above, yours is the same mangled logic that HRA1924 etc were pursuing prior to their blocks. The real difficulty for them, and for you, is that Roy's IAC was/is so secretive/insular that it failed our notability tests and thus there isn't even a separate article about it. I'd wager a fair sum that the news links you have found are the same ones they were trying to use a few months ago. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that wager. And I really have no interest in the ancient history you keep repeatedly dredging up. And by what mangled logic do you conclude that I am a "newbie" or that I was a part of "their" blocks ? FYI, I have Delhi's #1 newspaper the HT saying that Roy is the IAC convenor, and which also has Kejriwal's louie Manish Sisodia saying he doesn't know who is running IAC now. I have India's most respected English daily "The Hindu" publishing a retraction and saying that Roy is the IAC Convenor and Anna Hazare was not part of IAC - which flatly contradicts the present article.Mansjelly (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, you are citing stuff that has been discussed before - notably, the retraction in The Hindu. Your account is new; whether you are new or a sock is moot but you're certainly at least a meatpuppet. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I see here, these reliable' secondary sources have never been discussed before. What invariably happens is whoever even refers to these unimpeachable news sources - such as the retraction (which is on the article's talk page), which clearly show that Roy's IAC is at least as notable and legitimate as Hazare's(sic), get banned as "meatpuppets" when you go to ANI. "Play the ball and not the man" - if you can. I am not a puppet - so put up or shut up - and No Personal Attacks.Mansjelly (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I invite you to compare the style of

(talk page stalker) @Sitush: I also see much similarities with this user and Unfitlouie.  NQ  talk 19:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP was apparently an openly declared open proxy role account for Roy's IAC to officially pursue a long-running Mediation content dispute versus Sitush, and Sitush backed out midway. The block against this IP apparently only took place after Sitush backed out. The IAC's claims were never dismissed. The mediation had to stop because Sitush backed out from mediation and refused to return despite the Mediator repeatedly pinging him to do so. In any case, it seems (from mailing lists) that there is already an off-wiki dispute going on between IAC and Wikipedia concerning child pornograhy in Wikimedia Commons.Mansjelly (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is any similarity, surely a Checkuser will conclusively prove it.Mansjelly (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller. I request you to focus on "The Hindu"'s retraction which says that Roy is National Convenor of IAC, and that Hazare and Gen. V.K.Singh were not part of IAC. This flatly contradicts the present article which has been 90% written by Sitush. The Hindu is a very credible news paper and they do not retract without inquiry.Mansjelly (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No more here. I am going to the pub to pick up a laptop that needs repairing and then I'm taking pooch out for a walk. When I get back, I'm filing a report at

WP:ANI. It couldn't be more obvious that you are one of the Roy-variant IAC people who were blocked earlier in the year: same carefully-couched chilling legal stuff, same arguments, same knowledge, same inability to understand that the IAC organisation is different from the IAC movement, same style. Hopefully, someone there will sort you out. - Sitush (talk

) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When I have not edited on India Against Corruption, except to make a very minor change (which I now see has unpmteen reliable secondary news sources to support it), I actually see that Sitush has despicably targeted me immediately after this diff [17]. This content dispute with the IAC article has gone on long enough and I suspect that one of the organisations involved will file a legal (possibly criminal) case on this. No more here. I am off to bed in my timezone.Mansjelly (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation about using 'Dr.' in front of persons name. I didn't know. Finally I think I found the way how to communicate with you.I will use mostly discussion site unless something like this comes up, which is not directly related to Osmanagich's site. As i am new in this adventure-Wikipedia, I am thankfull for any help and guiding.--Indija (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

I totally know where you're coming from, and I've added a post to yours on the relevant talk page. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

At that article, it is one difficult editor versus, apparently, sockpuppets. J. Johnston is the

On the other hand, it appears that Joe Bodacious is a sock-puppet of a banned user. Yuck.

It's not as bad as Russia, where it appears that there are two sockpuppet farms, one in Russia and one in Italy, who are feuding. (You may recall from Romeo and Juliet that feuding is a very old Italian problem.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 15:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've put it back on my watchlist since

talk

) 11:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I knew it must have been a copyvio, but since google got blocked here, I couldn't find it. Cheers to you. That looks after the BLP vios as well. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please keep a watch on the page of Mahmud of Ghazni . It is being reverted by Kansas Bear to promote POV and one sided narrative. I have even added citations and quotations. Ghatus (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This file is an unsourced ethnocentric map based on nothing. Added by this user in this diff. Dubious and full of errors. It looks like a nationalistic pov-pushing. --188.158.102.116 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There‘s an inaccurate-map template on Commons, with which you could tag the file; please post a specific description of the errors, supported by any available references, on its Talk page. Not that it will necessarily receive prompt attention, but your doing so will at least register your objections and categorize the map as disputed.—Odysseus1479 00:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, pov-pushing: [18]. It seems that account is sock puppet. --188.158.105.228 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't forgot you've already done one revert today, you can't do another one. Worldedixor (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem, I've only made one revert today and that was just now. I did revert you on the dab page because "References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles." - you're trying to use a dab page to make a

talk

) 18:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what your intent is. You did two reverts today and are engaging

WP:EW. Are you above the rules? and, most importantly, are you abusing your admin status to negate that ISIS (previously Al Qaeda) is officially a terrorist organization (and the article already specified what countries have officially declared it as such), and "the" poster child of what terrorism is all about? Also, you willfully used the non-sourced word militant, at a time I provided one reliable and verifiable source that supports the use of the word terrorist. I also did due diligence to provide ample evidence of the terrorist atrocities of ISIS (ex Al Qaeda). With the way you are handling this matter, including unnecessarily calling me rude, it is my strong opinion that you are an example of admins that many bright minds don't appreciate and therefore no longer bother editing Wikipedia, let alone donate to Wikipedia. I will no longer participate in editing this article with you willfully doing what you are doing. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk

) 19:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I wrote up an article for Pitot.io, which was deleted. Similar websites such as FlightMemory and FlightAware still have their own pages up. I also included it in the relevant category. EmileVictor (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 13:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have rarely if ever been involved in writing policy and guidelines, so seeking input from you.

The two primary concerns relate to wikipedia being a "scientific" work and specifically

The other primary concern relates to the easily assumable bias in a large proportion of wikipedia editors and in the modern scientific community.

This quote from the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, 2nd ed., 2003, p.782, article "Science Wars" relates to the latter - “The science wars debate has obvious interest in the context of the science-religion relationship because it exposes the institutions of science and shows them reacting to a form of critical pressure with obvious parallels to the situation facing religion during the first century of modernity.” Please note how it compares the popular perception of science today to the embattled position of the church in the early modern era. This is made worse for us here by the high proportion of editors who could, uncharitably admittedly, be described as science geekboys, who would be among the least likely to be able to rationally and emotionally separate the positions of science based on its principles and the positions taken by the scientific community in its PR/propaganda wars. And, yes, as someone who studied astronomy, that includes me. The proximate cause for concern is the word pseudoscience and its use here. See the prominence it has in Intelligent design and discussion there and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. The term seems to be only of comparatively recent vintage, and to be used as problematically and perjoratively as the early modern church used the word heresy and its equivalents. A group engaged in "circling the wagons," which both the church then and science today seem to have done, will of course find derogatory labels to affix to opponents, like the words pseudoscience and heresy.

Also, honestly, how to differentiate between the "religions" of crystals and other New Age beliefs, the "religion" of science as sometimes presented today, and ordinary religion seems assumed in policy, and never SFAIK ever specifically stated or indicated.

I think perhaps changing wikipedias status from a purportedly "scientific" encyclopedia to a "philosophic" or "academic" one would reduce the amount of problems we would have associated with apologetics for science, make us more consistent with the pillar that says wikipedia is an encyclopedia by making us more consistent with other high-quality reference or encyclopedic sources, which could also make development easier, and reduce the possible occasional joke that we might be the only "scientific" encyclopedia that gives so much coverage to Tom Cruise, J.Lo, boy bands, and other ephemera as we do.

Unfortunately, I know buggerall about writing policies and guidelines around here, and don't even necessarily have a clue what specifically to do. Any ideas where to start and what to start with? John Carter (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is sentence which was reverted without comments

In his book Alternative History he proposed that Hitler and other leading Nazis escaped to an underground base in Antarctica. You maybe don't know, but this is wrong information and I hope Wikipedia is not supporting wrong information.

1. book Alternative History doesn't exist. There is book "Alternativna historija tom I-IV in bosnian language. Please let it be in bibliography.I will put it soon (sorry no time now).This books are relevant and notable for Semir's work. You don't know language and cannot judge. It is not right that only few English books are here. people here may have their opinion about book if they red it, but Wikipedia is not place for book reviews or critics, or maybe I am wrong.

2. reference is leading to smithosian site and on this website there is nothing mention about this (Hitler-Antarctica). This is misleading readers. (as I am new to all this , I am checking myself to get true information, and want to help others to have them also.) reference is intentionally directing reader to site which is negative and it is again mixed little facts and more opinions not based on any prove. but anyway reference should be connected to the subject..

3. Hitler on Antarctic has nothing to do with "Bosnian pyramids claim"(title) this aricle is generally very poor without right and objective information. It is partial and according to attitude of main stream archaeologists which are for some reason against this project. Wiki should give both sides of information and people can decide themselves what they will believe. Please help me correct it as much as I have time , and as what I know is true and facts. I can correct this sentence ..little later and please comment on your action.I would like to discuss this on site talk. Thank you.--Indija (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied at the talk page.

talk

) 13:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I am having an issue with another editor who keeps putting a ref improve tag on an article that already has two other tags indicating the need for more sources. I have removed the tag three times with explanatory notes in the edit summary and s/he has restored the tag three times, without comment. This is starting to look like a soft edit war (it's occurring over multiple days) which I have no interest in pursuing. I'd drop it except that the added tag looks like a case of tag bombing. The lack of even a word of explanation from the other editor in response to my concerns also strikes me as a bit rude. On a side note, this is not an inexperienced editor. At your convenience if you could take a look and maybe drop a friendly line or revert the tag yourself, I'd appreciate it. Of course if you think s/he is right I'm open to correction. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please disregard the above. I just noticed another editor has stepped in. Hopefully that will resolve the issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, one less thing to do!

talk

) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for guiding me .It is to much complicated for me to participate on Wikipedia with all this rules, I will try my best if I continue.--Indija (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday evening (29th) I suggested on the Talk page some wording for the Lead that covers the terrorism point, with footnotes. I did not want to make the edit without general agreement, but only one person has responded. Is it safe to go ahead? You will see I have followed DeCausa's suggestion, part of which follows the way this is dealt with in the Al-Qaeda and Hamas articles.

PS I twice tried adding this message to the earlier section with this heading, but it kept saving onto your User Page! --

(NOT IMPORTANT) Sorry about the confusion over posting my messages. Can't think what went wrong. Maybe something to do with the way I have been templating your name. :( --

talk

) 10:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely you got the ping on The Anome's talk page, but just wanted to let you know I've disabled the filter for now. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hey kiddo, les dieudonnistes are french NN, why deleting them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.101.110 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. With this comment User:Iranmehr27 is unsulting me on my talkpage. It is not only a racist Anti-Afghan insult, but he is also directly insulting, more or less telling me to prostitute myself. If you want others to translate it to you, you could ask one of the many Afghan or Iranian Wikipedia users. This guy is just another ultra-nationalist troll, trying to push his racist views into Wikipedia articles. --Lysozym (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.– Wdchk (talk

) 14:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. My reading of this [19] is either an attempt at sharing a tip on being anonymous or veiled threat re: OUTING. Either way, it's murky and I ventured a caution (despite being involved) [20]. Seems anyone that interacts with the editor gets entangled. Widefox; talk 10:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Probably mostly harmless but although wanting good faith won't give it. And thinks he's being harassed, which is of course not happening.

talk

) 11:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I== Rarevogel ==

Isn't he something?!! How come he's not indefinitely blocked? -

I don't think anyone has taken him to ANI yet.

talk

) 16:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Let someone who had more interactions with him do that. I barely have the time to check here lately :( -

Where did you find the citation for the Cliff Palace photo being taken in 1891? It says that on the photo description, but that can't be used as a source. It mentions that the photo came from the Finnish National Board of Antiquities. On their site, they show the photo in question, and they mention that Gustaf Nordenskiöld visited there in 1891, but they don't actually say that this photo is Nordenskiöld's. - Afiler (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 19:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the photo caption on the Swedish wikipedia page, and that Nordenskiöld published The Cliff Dwellers of the Mesa Verde in 1893, but the photo caption on another wikipedia page can't be considered a reliable source, and that he published the book in 1893 is not evidence that the photo is from 1893. - Afiler (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

)

W.B. Bartlett[24] has wrote a number of books, including one on the Titanic. I can not find any information concerning this person's education, "expertise", etc. Can you help? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Go to resources request and see if anyone can get you a copy of Review--W.B.Bartlett, An ungodly war: the sack of Constantinople & the Fourth Crusade by Bernard S Bachrach - published in Choice.[25].

talk

) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Any opinion on Omniglot the online encyclopedia?[26] I probably don't have to tell you which user uses this as a source.[27] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, Hope you are well. Please consider following url and please requesting you to re-think for Daffodil content that you have removed last. http://daffodilvarsity.edu.bd/about-us/ranking.html http://daffodilvarsity.edu.bd/component/content/article/38-main/362-diu-club.html Daffodil International University recently achived the well ranking in the two sites and just added their exeisting clubs and it activities. See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_South_University They have added their clubs names so why not Daffodil ? I and Daffodil International University need helps from you. Please guide us. Thanks Rafiqul Alam Rubel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiqulalamrubel (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Filled with a big flamin' quack. You have previous I see, I think you twigged, no? Murry1975 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Doug, to the extent you know anything about this master, I'm clerking the SPI. I pinged Murry1975 yesterdayish because he had offered more evidence "if needed" and I said yes, more would be helpful. However, none has been forthcoming. He's edited only twice since I pinged him, and perhaps he didn't pay attention or didn't have the time, dunno, but, generally, the burden for this sort of thing is on the filer. At the same time, I hate to let go of what may very well be a meritorious report. If you have anything that would assist, that would be great.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

He may come back when he has cooled down. I know I was pretty heavy with the two of them on the Talk page yesterday, but I do feel strongly about NPOV in Wikipedia. I just didn't seem able to get my point across. I feel as strongly about it as I did about getting some form of wording about terrorism into the article where there had been none before. That is why I was so persistent about that as well. --

@

talk

) 10:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 11:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 18:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help. "Sudbina najmlađeg kaplara" seems to be another biographical book about him. I found a link confirming its existence (cyrillic title): http://bibliografije.nb.rs/bibliografija/cip/CM2014032/naslovi021.html In the e-mails that I've recieved, there has been no mention about whether the book confirms that it should be "10", or if it should be "8". - Anonimski (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

talk

) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't get much more info about the book, other than the fact that it exists in the Serbian national library (and I don't live in Serbia). For example, for the previous book in the list, I could find that it had been recieved positively by the literary community, and that it's from a well established author: link

The one we're talking about doesn't seem to have reached much notability/popularity, on this page (link) I found that it's only been printed in 1000 copies. I can't find any mentions of it in media (at least not online newspapers, etc.). Maybe we should remove it, for now? - Anonimski (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

...and now Moca1810 has done the same edit as before. - Anonimski (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some discrepancy as to the birth of Willie Lynch within the Wikipedia text. 1712 or 1742... Is this a son?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:5D80:60B:D157:1CBB:8F77:97CB (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Which article is this?

talk

) 19:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The following message left on my talk page may be of interest to you too:

"This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)"

Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

It seems like User:Moca1810 is sockpuppeting as User:Aca2910, and going on like he was doing before he got blocked. Is there a possibility to edit-protect the article against newly registered users? - Anonimski (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mom%C4%8Dilo_Gavri%C4%87&action=history

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE DOUGWELLER. The Age of Empires II guide gives some history of the Huns okay? It does, I am not getting it from the game, IT IS ONLY ONE OF MY SOURCES FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. I HAVE CITED MANY OTHER SOURCES IF YOU WANT I CAN REMOVE ALL MATERIAL FROM THAT SOURCE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? IF YOU WANT ME TO GET RID OF THAT CONTENT, PUT A TAG ON THE MATERIAL YOU THINK IS INCORRECT AND I WILL GO THERE AND REMOVE ONLY THAT. ALL MY OTHER SOURCES ARE FINE, STOP RUINING MY WORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryAddict2000 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Argh. Why is it that people who choose to use the words "History" or "Truth" in their name seem so often to be incapable of pursuing either in a way that is acceptable to Wikipedia? - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And he was being polite. But then he self-destructed.

talk

) 14:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dalbir Singh Suhag page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Thanks a lot, Jonosbro (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you know about Sanskrit, Hinduism and Buddhism ? Go and read first before changing anything !! Lord Buddha's real name was Siddhārtha Gautama ( Gautam/Siddhartha are Hindu names ). He made a new religion but knew no other language than those of Hindus as he was born a Hindu. Sanskrit is a Hindu language which was taken by other religions for their personal benefits. Sanskrit has one origin and Hindi is derived from Sanskrit incase you didn't know. Change the text and please don't provide false information.

Vikramaditya Kumar

No idea what article this is about.

talk

) 15:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Last month you blocked a couple of User:Jim-Siduri's accounts. Here is a thread on the ANI which will lead to more of his activities: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Jim-Siduri again - I think this might merit admin attention. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That was a mistake I did, thanks for pointing it out. (N0n3up (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC))

In regards to Hadrian, even though I didn't put any source, there is very limited source that confirm that he was even born in Rome.

http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/21/21h.405/www/hadrian/Hadrian's%20Villa/Hadrian.html -This one says he was "probably born in Italica, but doesn't provide other possible places of his birth, thus I don't see the reason why Rome should be put in the template box in the first place.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/aelius-hadrian.asp -This one further explains his family's early establishment into Hispania, giving further evidence he has likely born in said region. (N0n3up (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC))

However, it is clearly uncertain/disputed. I'm happy to have 'uncertain' in the infobox, or "Either Rome or Italica" or something like that, but we can't choose one.

talk

) 14:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but is it alright to maintain Italica in the infobox, and then put (uncertain) on the side, since it's widely more known that his origins were in Hispania? (N0n3up (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC))

Would you happen to have access to this? Mehmed Ali Paşa and Sultan Mahmud II: the genesis of a conflict, Abu-Manneh, Butrus, Turkish Historical Review, volume 1, issue 1, page 5? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry,

talk

) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the last two requests I made garnered no response. I believe an editor(Biar122) at Muhammad Ali of Egypt is logging out to revert DeCausa. Both Biar122 and the IP have used the statement, "An modern article can't stand against older historical books".[28][29] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit miffed when I saw that edit summary, but I made my point - which in retrospect I do think needed making - and am happy to leave it at that. TBH, I think he is unbalanced and having more people on him will only make it worse for him and therefore for Wikipedia in the end, I think. Thanks as ever for being so solicitous about this. --

That's fine. It is just one more thing that reflects badly on him and not on you.

talk

) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to go on record that "I think he is unbalanced" is a personal attack

WP:NPA and I ask for its immediate removal. Also, and admin should be unbiased not validate a personal attack with "that reflects badly on him". Worldedixor (talk

) 15:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Go away or go to ANI. You haven't a leg to stand on.

talk

) 15:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I hope this doesn't cause you more problems. I didn't mean what I said unkindly at all, it was just how I see it. I seem to have put my foot in it again. --

talk

) 19:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 21:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel a bit better now. --

talk

) 23:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the Greek city-state patron gods literally has no viable sources(see the talk page), wouldn't it just be better to delete the article and allow me to find reliable sources, including page numbers, and then re-add it to Wikipedia? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&action=history

You reverted my edits to the Bakr Al Baghdadi page 2 times. I already put in LEGIT sources that prove that Al Baghdadi is born of Jewish parents. I don't understand why you keep reversing it. He has been trained by the MOSSAD, you also deleted that. Tell me why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthismine (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 15:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mark Belling page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am indeed the son of the former president of Columbia Pacific University, Les Carr. Until this point I was unaware that because I had a familial relation to a subject I could not edit it. I wonder about this Wikipedia policy. I assume I could edit something on the Holocaust, for example, despite being of Jewish descent. Their is no financial interest in my correcting of the record, as CPU has long been closed.

In reading the entry of Columbia Pacific University, I was shocked to find definitely libelous statements concerning the very innovative university which my father founded -- no legal action implied. Please feel free to fix the page if I am not allowed to. Nothing about that university would cause it to be closed today. In addition there are numerous errors of fact concerning Rutherford University with which my father has no association at all.

The portrayal of my father's university as a diploma mill is absurd, to say the least. My father was president or VP of several other established universities before he founded CPU. CPU did distance education before the internet existed, and was simply ahead of its time. It was closed mainly for offered credit for life experience, something that most universities and community colleges do today as a standard practice.

I am a university professor myself, of physics, and not given to writing opinion, but rather well-trained in science. In my edits I was careful to include only facts that could be substantiated.

If I am not to fix these errors, who will fix them? Do I ask a Wikipedia editor to do so? Do I ask you? Please advise me, thank you.

Lincoln Carr, Professor of Physics, Colorado School of Mines

Hi

talk

) 15:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Dougweller

- Thank you for your clear reply and I do see that you might have believed me to be my father due to having the same first initial. I went over this talk page and do not believe that the final article fairly and correctly cites the sources and presents the facts. The present version is quite biased based on just the content on the talk page, let alone what I actually know from behind the scenes from discussing with my father (who is now quite elderly, and has not been involved in education for many years.) My impression from viewing the talk page is that even if I bring up bona fide refs and POVs they will be discarded. Moreover I'm not sure if I'm allowed to edit as the son of the former president of the university. I did put some time into editing before and don't want to waste time again. I would be grateful if you could clarify Wikipedia policy on this point. I had a bad experience previously where I was reading the nuclear physics page and found a nut theory (I think WP calls them alternate theories, but indeed this was a nut theory based on a very naive use of Physics 101 ideas, absolutely nonsensical). As my students were reading the page I updated it with a correct entry. This was removed as "too much editing at once" even though one could find the same statements in nuclear physics textbooks. So, after getting burned twice on the supposed crowd-sourcing aspect of Wikipedia, I would be grateful if you could clarify what I am supposed to do in this situation before I jump in again.

I appreciate your clearing up the Rutherford University misstatements. As for libel, the point is if I read a long court document and newspaper articles and pull quotes out of context, taking the worst possible quotes, of course I can build a picture of anything I like. This is what I mean by biased, and grouping a bunch of these quotes together to create a false impression may constitute libel (no legal action implied, and feel free to correct my use of the language and suggest an alternate word). I will give you one of many examples of bias on the CPU page, based on the talk page. There are 50 states in the US. Under "Legal status of CPU degrees" only negative statements are made. It does not say that CPU degrees are valid in 48 out of 50 states. You'll find this kind of thing in many places in the article.

There are diploma mills, for sure. I deal with them all the time as a university professor. CPU was not one of them. As I wrote above, "CPU did distance education before the internet existed, and was simply ahead of its time. It was closed mainly for offering credit for life experience, something that most universities and community colleges do today as a standard practice."

Feel free to move this to the talk page if appropriate. However, I could write on the talk page all day but if it doesn't lead to changing the actual entry what is the point? I appreciate your time. Thank you.

First of all i removed Afghan as Afghan is a nationality and not an ethnicity any more. PAshtun is an ethnicity. Afghan means PAshtun, tajik, hazara and uzbeks of Afghanistan so you cant use the word Afghan for PAkistani Pashtuns . I didnt remove any sourced material but i guess it would be appropriate to use Pashtun word as Afghan has been added by nationalists of Afghanistan. I would appreciate if you could change Afghans to Pashtuns where ever it is not sourced. Saladin1987 12:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

talk

) 13:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely thankyou for your reply but article is about Pashtuns but usage of Pashtun word in all the article is none as comapared to the Afghan word. Even though some references used in the article may have used Afghan word but most of them dont use it, its mostly the nationalists who have edited the article previously , but pashtun is a neutral word if you look at the article

(

Pashtun across numerous articles is just going to bring you heartache. We have to follow common usage. - Sitush (talk

) 13:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

True i completely agree but the fact is the article is regarding Pashtuns and pashtuns are twice as much in Pakistan as comapred to Afghanistan. Its completely your decision of whether Afghan should be used or as stated by wikipedia providing clear information is better as compared to vague info and the reality is only Pashtuns of Afghanistan call themselves Afghan while pashtuns of Pakistan only call themselves Pashtuns or Pathan. Before Afghanistan was made in 1800s Afghan word was only used as an ethnic group but now its a nationality of Afghanistan and the people living in it Regarding Sitush i guess he has got problem with every other edit, i dont know the reason but whatever page i look at his job is to revert the article even if people have done sensible edits. I would appreciate if you could help in making the article more clearer by using the word Pashtun as pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pakistan both agree with the word Pashtun but Afghan is exculsively used for citizens of AfghanistanSaladin1987 13:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Oh, I think you are on pretty safe ground with this specific article, which is obviously about the ethnic group, but less so elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Sitush, the reason i use pashtun is mainly because every person in the world understands it but Afghan means a person from Afghanistan. Similarly Punjabi is tribe in india and pak but we have to use pakistani punjabi and india punjabi as both are different in terms of religion but same ethnicallySaladin1987 13:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

So what do you think, should you change the Afghan to Pashtun in areas where there is no reference quoting Afghan in this particular article. Thankyou for your timeSaladin1987 15:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

... The Race of My Life at some point? No rush but an IP keeps reverting my redirect. They may be right but to me it is just promotional guff that is in fact covered by Milkha Singh etc. Singh being something of a national hero, we get quite a bit of worship going on. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dougweller. FYI: I have suspicions (based on the dates and time of editing, common interest in a few Afds, and the style in which the edit summaries are used) that these two users are one and the same: [30][31]. Both also seem to somewhat unusually put brackets around their signatures (see [32], [33]). (Pinging @

talk

) 12:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I have sufficient evidence, and I could be mistaken.[34]

Location (talk

) 17:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure. But that means nothing, you should see some cases where socks are arguing with each other.

talk

) 18:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

I found the article, Khusruwiyah Mosque, to be plagiarised(copy & pasted) from this website:[35] I do not know the extent of plagiarism by the creator of the article, Zozo2kx, or if it extends into other articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

More plagiarism, Al-Firdaws Madrasa. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 19:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick response, the editor posted to her page to ask what to do.

talk

) 19:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller. These set of articles were started when I first began editing at WP. I understand if you feel the need to start a CCI, and would gladly try to help as much as I could (as you can see, I am not very active at the moment). Let me know how you'd like to move forward with this, and how I can help remedy this. Best, Yazan (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller. Cf. my message to Moonriddengirl. Apologies for the wasted time, but they were honest mistakes, and I'll be happy to help clean it up any way I can. Have a good day! Best, Yazan (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I never doubted it. But you can imagine how tiring this can be to try to fix rather than just delete or stub.

talk

) 08:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, you fully-protected this page so I wonder if you wouldn't mind helping me to implement the RfC result? Thanks and all the best—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 19:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

All I need is for you to unprotect the page?—S Marshall T/C 07:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 08:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

If you take a closer look at this Wikipedia listing, you will see that there are a number of films that were NOT marketed as Christian films and, therefore, do not meet such criteria (if that's what you're using). And I would argue that a lot of the older films on this listing were also not "marketed" as Christian films; rather, they are Hollywood films that have as their subject matter Christianity or Christian religious values (as we westerners accept them).

For a few examples (from the list):

Honoring a Father's Dream (2011) <-- a documentary showing Christian values at work, NOT a "Christian" documentary The Blind Side (2009) <-- Christian values, NOT a "Christian" film Like Dandelion Dust (2010) <-- Christian values, NOT a "Christian" film The Book of Eli (2010) <-- SciFi/Alt realty big studio film, NOT a "Christian" film

etc. I could go on

Given the extremely subjective (and thereby, flawed) nature of this list as is, "Signs" doesn't merely have an Episcopalian priest as its main character; it is a film about losing faith and regaining faith. In fact, the very last scene is of the priest with his collar back on (he hasn't worn it for at least 6 months) and obviously on his way to church. As a scifi alien flick, it very slow going and even a little boring. But as a religious movie, it is all about the priest's struggle to reconcile his faith in god with the senseless loss of his wife. There are quite a few little anti-homilies throughout the film where the protagonist tells people not to call him 'Father' anymore, that he hasn't been a 'Father' for a long time. And there is one particular anti-homily where the priest explains to his brother the difference between the type of people who believe in luck and those who believe in coincidence, etc. It's a foreshadowing of a moment near the end and the payoff is that the priest is able to "see" a number of things that have happened before and after his wife's death as being connected, and he is redeemed.

"The Blind Side" is not nearly as obvious. Neither is "The Book of Eli."

That's my two cents.

ciao! ... anor ... ;-) 14:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aka anor (talk • contribs)

Please see my reply to your comment on my talk page. Maybe you'd like to re-revert the edit. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abhinav Bindra may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] 2014 will be the last [[Commonwealth Games]] for Bindra.work=Patrika Group|issue=25 July 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joseph Seligman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Joseph Seligman''' (1819–1880 was a dominant Jewish-American banker and business magnate.<ref>{{cite book|title=Our-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

A nationalist user corrupted the article Yazidis. He make major deletion without using talk page and force one ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.140.220.194 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a dispute over the Yezidi Article with some unknown person.

He simply edits the article without any understandable reason. Using news articles from BBC and Guardian are no reliable sources according to Wikipedia rules but he still insist on them. Even though he insist on them he only selectively takes some phrases out of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi

regards Wikisupporting (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This nationalist user write his own sentences in the sourced content which are not in the sources. Making distortions with false edit summaries and corrupting the article. Just look at his older edits. He also made the same thing in Zaza-Gorani related articles too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.140.220.194 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

you are just vandalizing the article without even reading the sources. I simply copied what is written in the book by word. You claimed that Asatrian source was deleted by me what he wasn't. You claimed that some Yezidis have Arab origin without any source.

All what I wrote is written in the sourced content you are basically beeing an ignorant vandal.

page 404 http://books.google.de/books?id=ptYpOSKPCgMC&pg=PA404&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=yezidi&f=false

I quote " Yezidis speak Kurdish and have essentially a Kurdish culture". Wikisupporting (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Be careful your language. lt is personel attack. And you first deleted the asatrian and then gived up. And write weird sentences to the leading section just impose your pov. You are well-known Kurdish nationalist and possibly the sock-puppet who vandalising articles and try to Kurdify people such as Zazas despite their identity is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.140.220.194 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me. I do not see any coatrack according to Beren Dersi.[36] The usage of WP:Primary is nonsense, since Richard Eaton can not be considered a primary source. Ghatus, as far as I can tell, gave proper heading to Eaton's article since it was clearly in disagreement, to some degree, with Schimmel's work(which is the opening sentence in the paragraph). Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You just sent me an email right? My gmail account tagged it as possibly illegit.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 21:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Good to know. I probably should have asked before I responded to you in detail ;) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You will see in the Lead there are many "citation needed"s beside countries. I put those in as the editor provided no back-up. [37]. I left a note on his page to ask him to provide citations, but he hasn't responded. I have left another note, and said I might remove the countries until he did. Would it be acceptable to remove them if he doesn't respond? I know it would be a revert, of course. --

talk

) 11:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's claiming Genghis Khan as being red hair and blue eyes, and had been used by some eurocentrist. Claiming the portrait have no fact in how Genghis Khan would have looked. This is because of deliberately misinterpreting by previous users.

There is no reference or citation for these claim and yet it's been here for so long.

- " No accurate portraits of Genghis Khan exist today, and any surviving depictions are considered to be artistic interpretations. "

- Persian historian Rashid-al-Din had never met Genghis Khan but had recorded in his Jami' al-tawarikh (written in the 14th century) that the legendary "glittering" ancestor of Genghis Khan was tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and green-eyed. Rashid al-Din also described the first meeting of Genghis and Kublai Khan, when Genghis Khan was surprised to find that Kublai had not inherited his red hair.[citation needed] According to al-Din Genghis' Borjigid clan legend involving their origins: It began as the result of an affair between Alan Gua (Alan-ko) and a stranger to her land, a glittering man who happened to have red hair and bluish-green eyes. "

But there is reference for this claim

" The only existing portrait preserved until today was painted in 1278, almost half a century after his death. Kublai Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan, ordered artist Khorisun to paint the portrait and asked some of Genghis Khan's few remaining trusted men to overlook the painting and make sure it reflects the true image. "

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hONCAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA171&dq=remaining+trusted+men+to+overlook+the+painting+and+make+sure+it+reflects+the+true+image&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nljuU6mAAe6y7AbW_YDgAQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=remaining%20trusted%20men%20to%20overlook%20the%20painting%20and%20make%20sure%20it%20reflects%20the%20true%20image&f=false

IF YOU DO NOT LIKE BOOK SOURCE, HOW ABOUT A ARTICLE FROM MONGOLIA?

http://www.googida.com/momapa/mongolia/mn/022.html

"Trustworthy persons have related that Chinggis Khaan, at the time that he came into Khorasan, was 65 years old, a man of tall structure, of vigorous build, a robust body, the hair on his face scanty and white, with cat's eyes, possessed of great energy, discernment, genius and understanding, awe inspiring, a butcher, an over-thrower of enemies, sanguinary and cruel ?He was an adept in magic and deception and some of the devils were his friends."

The only existing portrait preserved until today was painted in 1278, almost a half a century after his death. Khublai Khaan, the grandson of Chinggis Khaan, ordered artist Khorisun to paint the portrait, and asked some of Chinggis Khaan's few remaining trusted men to overlook the painting and make sure it reflects the true image. "

WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 19:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And where is the academic reference about Genghis Khan having a green eye-red hair ancestor? Where is the source in which Persian historian who mentioned this. The only source I know it comes from White-History.com At least mention the fact that portrait was drawn during Kublai Khan rule. Kublai Khan had saw what Genghis Khan had looked like, because after he was the oldest grandson of Genghis Khan Kublai Khan was born in 1215 meaning he would have been at least up to 12 years old, which is obviously old enough to remember how Genghis Khan looked like before he died in 1227. How is this part not included is beyond me. And yet we have nonsense source from a Persian historian who was born 20 years after Genghis Khan died. You have to at least mention it was drawn during the time of Kublai Khan rule, who was a grandson of Genghis Khan. WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm only there because you are adding unreliable sources. Learn how to source properly and to cite and edit the article. Google has some stuff mentioning red hair and green eyes.[39]

I cannot tell you how grateful I am to you for adding those words about this saga on the Talk page for all to see. Have you see his Talk page today? --

I did it so that him would stop vandalism of the page. And I can block him for sockpuppetry, cause you are the sam persons by look. My references are reliable. And I warned him or you. I'm not accusing you. Jamesgoldbo007 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd, this was just posted, not yesterday.

talk

) 12:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Doug, you might want to take a look at this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biar122 Regards, --Manway 16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and what's that. You know what. Stop editing mothers of Ottoman Sultans. That's all I ask for.

Jamesgoldbo007 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hello Dougweller! While patrolling a few Egyptians articles, I saw a number of edits by User:GORDON FRANCK promoting ultra-fringe theories with only references to his own books for sale on Amazon. This clearly has no place on wikipedia but after the revert I realised that this guy also managed to have an article on him, Franck Gordon, created on wikipedia, which he and perhaps other accounts by him or his familly (see their names) created and contributed to. You can judge by the content of the article that it is nothing but a self-glorifying text and the only references are again his own books put up for sale. I think this serious enough that this article (and its other language counterparts) should be deleted, since they do not fulfill the notability requirement on top of being of a purely commercial nature. Since I don't know how to propose an article for deletion, and since I think it would be good to have someonelse thoughts about this, let me know what you think. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller! I am Frank Gordon. I am very surprised about the deletion - without civil discussion with me - of the article on me, Franck Gordon, created on wikipedia in 2012. talk) 16:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.27.233.178 (talk)

Three accounts with the name Gordon were 'pinged', ie contacted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Gordon but in the end it was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7:

==== A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) ====

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization,

• {{Db-a7}}, {{Db-person}} – for people, {{Db-band}} – for bands, {{Db-club}} – for clubs, societies and groups, {{Db-inc}} – for companies, corporations and organizations, {{Db-web}} – for websites, {{Db-animal}} – for individual animals, {{Db-event}} - for events
• It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion."

You can appeal at

talk

) 20:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have foolishly reverted myself today (with intervening edits by others). Is that my 1RR for 24 hours? --

talk

) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I have edited the sections "Etymology" and "Origins", using excellent literature. could you keep an eye on that? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

[User:Nephiliskos|Nephiliskos]], will do. It's me on my watchlist for a long time.

talk

) 08:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, are you around? You were at 11:50. Trouble is brewing at

Sitush This isn't canvassing, I hope. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@

Jim Carter - Public: No, it isn't. You obviously haven't read the policy that you are linking to. Name one word in my note that is non-neutral. In addition, as an admin, Dougweller is an experienced contributor and will have had past involvement in CITEVAR-related matters. Neither you nor Syanaee are particularly experienced or, at least, you are not so using the accounts that you are editing from. - Sitush (talk

) 13:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you haven't read or understand what I said did you?? I know it is not Canvassing and I haven't linked it here but yes it is related, Dougweller are you an editor who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) , Editors known for expertise in the field Editors who have asked to be kept informed?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Jim, go away for a bit, have a cup of tea and take a chill pill. Just because you add "I hope" on to the end of your message doesn't obviate the accusation. It's is similar to the very pointed comment you made about my block log at

Talk:Jat people and which Bishonen has just commented on - you need to calm down a bit, mate, and take a bit more care to understand our policies. I'm trying to help you learn here and you're running around battering me for it. - Sitush (talk

) 13:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please give an explanation in the talk page about why you tagged the article. "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". What major contributor? There is no major contributor as far as I can see. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 20:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. It should be "Mosul Dam", not "dam". Have wikilinked it in first entry. --

Hi Dougweller - I am contacting you in particular, not only because you seem like you can probably answer this question, but also because I have had a brief Wikipedia encounter with you shortly after I began my contributions and editing. I noticed that the nice little article about Cesar Gracie is no longer available while there is an article about Cesar Gracie Jiu-jitsu. I was wondering if you might direct me where I could find out why the article about Cesar Gracie is no longer available. I thought the article was relevant and fairly well written. I look forward to hearing from you.Horst59 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 19:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at the edits of Yacatisma? He/she is an Azeri user and all of the edits they are doing are pro-Azerbaijani and anti-Armenian. They want a massacre of Armenians, Shusha massacre page deleted because they claim their are only Armenian sources, but if you look at the references there are multiple western sources. On the page Capture_of_Garadaghly they removed the Armenian pogroms when i added both Armenian and Azeri claiming there should be Azeri, even though i left them on the page. They are not constructive edits. He/she also cites Azerbaijani sources but when i add Armenian he/she removes them saying they are not reliable because they are Armenian. They put a disputed tag on the 2014 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes without taking it to the talk page. 1then they removed my addition stating its an Armenian reference 2 Can you please take a look at the other edits as well. Thank You. Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added the sanctions alert to his talk page. We'll see what happens. I obviously want to stay uninvolved.

talk

) 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, Ninetoyadome removed perfectly written references and added it is biased, when it is from third party source, which should be. As seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zori_Balayan&diff=621807802&oldid=621747006

As far I know, you've previously punished him for breaching rules.--Yacatisma (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And sometimes that is how people learn how not to break them.

talk

) 21:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I answered your claims in Materialization (paranormal) talk page. I would appreciate that you also formulate an opinion regarding the fact that LuckyLouie keeps adding a text and citation that is contrary to modern physics. Thank you. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I can't find the talk page where you discussed the change. Could you please send a link? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teoporta (talk • contribs) 04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear sir

How can i improve my page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Patel

Thanks Sunil Patel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilrpateldop (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I was wondering if you could please take a look at

Can you review the current revision and previous revision by me and remove what you think is necessary? I have tried my best to attempt to collaborate with the new editor, however, it is turning into an edit war so I think administrator intervention is needed here, thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Wikipedia is NOT American propaganda! So please answer to my questions about ISIS. Or I will undo your revert by today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teoporta (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, how are you and also I've never seen you before you're an admin here on Wikipedia while I'm editing or reverting edits on articles that was correct or incorrect. Keep up the good work! :) --Allen ^talk 10:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dougweller. I saw your notification on the page 'Zorats Karer' and you had written 'these dates are ridiculous.' No, they are not. Carahunge or Zorats Karer is the oldest astronomical observatory. And then, in radiophysicist and archaeoastronomer

talk

) 19:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It is back to being 7500 years old again. I do not want to reverse it, thanks to a recent run-in with the vile Sandstein. Maybe you will want to do it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I noticed that you were the one to report Septate to ANI for a 1RR breach. One day after the tban from said report was implemented, StanTheMan87 showed up, and continued to edit the Taliban article in exactly the same manner as Septate had been. Septate has not made a single edit since. Looking at their contributions shows that they both edited Islam related articles almost exclusively, and Septate was interested in the Taliban article (esp. the infobox) prior to their tban. I just wanted to get a second opinion before filing an SPI, as I was not too well acquainted with the original account. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, due apologies for obnoxiously pinging you on your own talk, but even a quick response would be appreciated; if you don't have the time to go into this, no worries, I just wanted to check. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk

) 10:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 00:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hallo Doug,
this guy reverted again: how is possible to take it to the talk page? I don`t want to edit war, but there is no consensus for what he is writing...Alex2006 (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem Dough, just one question: the first time I just removed one edit of him (no revert), and I left 95% of his edits. Does it count too as revert? Thanks,

WP:BRD

twice (and, as always, the other guy ignored it, accusing me of vandalism), but I want to bring him to the talk page.

Oh-oh, I didn't know it, good to know! Another question: if one reverts invoking BRD, and the other reverts again without going to the talk page, what happens? In other words, WP:BRD is a policy which can be enforced, an advice, or what? Alex2006 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi just need your help in the article stated above. Problem is that there is a mention in the article that is kakazai here [[40]] but the source that has been provided for this doesnt state anything about it. There is a User:McKhan who has reverted the article but when i asked him about the source for it , he provided me with a source which has taken text from this article of wikipedia. Also it is some fans website. i have started conversation on talk page to get concensus on it but before that i would really appreciate if you could remove the kakazai part being an administrator as i could also do it but this User:McKhan will revert it i know. Before some concensus is achieved the category of Pashtun people and kakazai has to be removed.

This is the conversation that i had with this user [[41]] [[42]]

Saladin1987 11:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for the comment. You know, I included the wiki links in the footnotes thinking you might want them - I'll remove them right away. Which brings me to a question: Would you direct me to where I can find information on how to link names within the body of the text to other wiki articles? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funadoe (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The above article seems to me to be subject to an edit war from apparently one editor. I'm involved and would welcome outsider input as to who might be culpable if anyone is on the talk page.John Carter (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 20:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Waiting to access the relevant reference work this week which should resolve a lot so probably not necessary.John Carter (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

But your input is of course always welcome. (Hint.) I have found a few really old journal articles specifically on the historicity of Jesus on JSTOR but haven't actually looked them over yet. But most if not all of the first returns based on relevance seem to be from the early part of the 20th century and relate to discussion from Shirley Jackson Case and others about the historical reality or lack of same of Jesus. They and the others there might be useful in determining the specific scope of the article. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

very very welcome. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a long indef-blocked (therefore de facto banned) editor ProfessorJane who is obsessed with making sure articles on Taiwan mention the island's sovereignty from mainland China. Could you block it and the other IP he was on?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for all the reverting. Also he's on 2600:1012:B012:96B5:7588:58E3:FCEE:5C84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Its seems you had issues about this user earlier. I don't know what this user did that would damage the content or meaning of this article involving changes to

Sorry,

talk

) 19:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. As one of the main WikiProject Africa contributors, your input here would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I pinged you at Volcano God's user Talk page. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, you were mentioned along with another couple people at Wikipedia as very helpful in regards to religious issues/controversy on Wikipedia. I am finding the discussion at the page

Sorry, I won't get involved with that hot potato.

talk

) 11:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't realize you had already taken a gander in this direction :) Thank you for your time anyway ! Prasangika37 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I did get involved. The potato is hot indeed, and spiced with chili-sauce. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, please could you see the talk page where I mentioned you. Seems clear cut to me per MOSDAB, but I've put a note into the dab project for more opinions. Widefox; talk 09:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Commented there already. I'm leaving this to you.

talk

) 09:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I safely remove this material?[45] There is no consensus for it and seems unfair that this editor ended up with it in the article even though they got blocked. --

Thanks for your remarks at the Leo Frank Talk page. I've posted a more detailed reasoning for my edit, and would like to know your thoughts on the matter. Gulbenk (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

btw: my edit summary contained a typo. Intended to say arguing "by" Slaton, rather than arguing "with" Slaton. The latter results in an unintended insult, and does not make the point that those specific Slaton remarks were simply rationalization, rather than legal reasoning. Gulbenk (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hi Dougweller. A user who has no connection with the armed forces issue and who apparently hasn't really edited since 2009 all of sudden weighed in, talking about some long-forgotten encounter that he and I had five years ago on another page, a few months after I had joined the project. I'm confused as to what exactly is the purpose of this discussion process? The top of the page states that the matter "must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users", yet that is clearly not how the process has gone. It seems, as User:26oo suggested on the talk page, that a few users with personal grudges are instead trying to settle old scores. In your experience as a former ArbCom member, is this how the procedure normally goes? If so, wouldn't it be fair to at least request comment from the many more users with whom I have had good dealings? Because as things are, it paints an exceedingly misleading and one-sided picture of my contributions. I also had a look at the relevant policy and it indicates that the process "cannot[...] impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" [46]. This is basically what you indicated in your post, but I don't think the others are aware of this. Is there any way to make it more clear what is the actual purpose of the process so to arrive at an on-topic, constructive and voluntary denouement like the policy appears to instruct? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My opponent is no better than me. Why him no warning? Double standards to a friend? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• A second editor then wants to get a consensus? I wrote to him. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Faizhaider's talk page.
Message added 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Something strange has happened to the View History pages since I did my revert for the day at around 4 pm 16.00 UTC. I have been completely reverted (I made several changes in different parts of the article) but there is absoutely no record of this second revert on the View History page! Has this ever happened before? --

I have reported it to the VP Technical Help Desk. --

talk

) 17:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had this message from them. [47]. I'm not sure we can sort out this knotty problem ourselves. Do you know anyone who can? --

talk

) 20:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor is

Should I take this to ANI? --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 20:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

According to M. Aga-Oglu, al-Jazari is referred to as an Arabian scholar.[53] I found Aga-Oglu was an Associate Professor of the History of Islamic Art.[54] What do you think? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 20:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've left a question for you on the Jordan Belfort talkpage. --67.40.215.84 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to you on Talk:Jordan Belfort. --JB18Aug2014 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that literally true? Presumably it's possible to write some macro-type script that makes browser edits without ever touching the API, if the API requires a named account.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Unexplained edits -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)