Mobile Suit Gundam SEED

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

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.

---

Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic. If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place. If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, you can report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. If you need a page to be protected from editing, try Requests for page protection. If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is, well, that way... :) If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, you can: Make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards. Ask another administrator for help. Here is a complete List of Wikipedia Administrators. If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.

Did I delete your page, block you, or do something else that I should not have done?

First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, let me know, but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. Also, if you sign your post (by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - at the end of your message), I will respond faster, and I will tend to be in a better mood, because unsigned comments are one of my pet peeves. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked.) I watch the talk pages of everyone I block, so I will almost definitely see you make your request. If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Doug Weller) and I do not answer your request soon, or you cannot edit your talk page for some reason, you can try sending me an email. Please note, however, that I rarely check my email more than a few times a day, so it may be a couple of hours before I respond. Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future.

Talk archives:
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/February
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/March
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/April
User talk:Dougweller/Archives/2008/May

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

Sodom and Gomorrah

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

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

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

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

Olsson "Editors"

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

Sorry

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

Midewiwin

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

Something you might want to look into

Hi there. After seeing your RfA, I had a look at your contributions and such, and just thought you should be made aware of two things. Firstly, the picture for the Email link on your userpage doesn't show up for me in IE7 or FF3, and Worth Hamilton Weller has superfluous bullet points in the "References" and "Publications" sections in IE7 (but not in FF3) for me. I didn't see any actual blank lines with just "*" in them in the WikiMarkup, though, so I'm not sure what the issue is there - you might want to bring it up at WP:VPT, for instance. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I never have figured out why the email picture doesn't work, I gave up trying but must get back to it, maybe a completely new menu. And I'll take up your suggestion about WP:VPT as there doesn't seem to be any reason for the IE problem. Doug Weller (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Right-o. Let's hope that bullet point problem gets fixed soon. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs and RfA

Hi Dougweller. Thanks for the reply to my question at your RfA. I have responded with my support, not because the response was one I wanted to hear (it wasn't), but because you seem capable of learning the right answer on the job. So I should (briefly) respond.. AIV is for listing vandals who need to be stopped by administrators (ergo you would have blocked it). The IP was used twice - once in April and once in August. It was undoubtedly used by a different user on each occasion (you should learn about dynamic IP addresses and shared IP addresses, especially before making any IP blocks). The second user would therefore have never seen any warnings, requests to stop testing, or links to the sandbox. You say, "being blocked might have spurred them into finding out about their talk page". Uggh. This is what talk page warnings and the orange message bar are for. With good faith testing newbies, such as the second editor, it almost always works. Anyway, feel free to drop by for any advice, and Happy Admining. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support and these comments. I thought I knew a bit about dynamic IP addresses and shared ones, but I'm confused about the idea that the 2nd user wouldn't have seen the warnings, as they are all on the same talk page. You may well be right about them being different users of course, but I thought there was a connection with the Lahore edits in April and the List of caliphs (where text was deleted, not clearly a test edit) and Five Pillars of Islam but clearly I could be and quite likely was wrong. What I have forgotten about is the orange bar. Here [1] I just found this: "this matter of 'was the block-triggering edit made after the editor saw the warning' is a point that gets missed sometimes (I think you or Geogre made the same argument that Geogre was busy writing a talk page message instead of resetting a certain block). The sequence should be: warning, sees warning, edit, block. Sometimes it is: warning, edit (half a minute later), block, "hey, I didn't see the warning!". It can also be (when the admin gets very confused, or spends a long time writing the warning): edit, warning, block (cue red faces all round). Or even: warning, edit (before seeing warning), responds to warning, block, "I was about to revert and apologise!". Anyway, just some things to think about, I suppose, and I still think the point should be made very forcefully that people should post warnings to user talk pages (for the orange bar) and ensure that enough time has passed for the orange bar to alert the editor. Sometimes, when writing long posts (like this one!), the orange bar doesn't alert an editor until many minutes after the warning was issued. Sometimes even longer if an edit window gets left open."

That's very helpful. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Clossal stones

Your name has shown up on several pages involving colossal stones. I thought you might be interested in 2 lesser known ones that may be among the biggest ones ever moved assuming they weren't carved in situ. Neither of these have much if any information posted on wikipedia.

One is the Statue of Jain Saint Gomateswara. This was mentioned in Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Ancient India: Land Of Mystery (1994) This is a reputable source but provides little information. The following provide more information but I'm less familar with them. One of these sites estimates the shoulders as 26 feet wide. This is probably high I'm guessing 23 feet wide. Rough estimate on weight of this is 3-6 hundred tons

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000326/spectrum/main5.htm http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/jain/monu.htm

One is the Masuda-no-Iwafune in Japan. the following sources provided some limited information on this.

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=18824 http://www2.gol.com/users/stever/asukas.htm http://www.asukanet.gr.jp/asukahome/ASUKA2/ASUKAISI/iwafune.html http://grahamhancock.thd-web.jp/e7962.html

Judging by the pictures the 11x8x4.7 meter estimate might be lightly exagerated but not much. This probably weighs 2-5 hundred tons.

Even if they are carved in situ they deserve more attention but would like additional information and source checks before writing an article. It wouldn't be unprecidented as you know since larger stones were moved in Baalbek and Egypt but it would indicate that large stones were moved around in other parts of the world.

Any comments will be welcome but if your busy as you seem to be don't worry about it

Zacherystaylor (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm busy but will try to look into these. Doug Weller (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits

This guy is still doing strange stuff. Claiming to be bypassing redirects but only pointing them to the new redirect he made, as well as continuing to edit other users sandboxes. I'm not exactly sure what to do with him. We've had 3 people tell him to come and discuss it and he doesn't seem to care to. While this behaviour could be seen as mildly disruptive, it isn't normally something we'd block for (i suppose unless a user is doing just this a lot), but I'm leery about someone who refuses to discuss things even after many people tell him to discuss things and revert him.--Crossmr (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He'll have to be blocked if he goes on this way without discussion. I'm not an Admin (although I'm going through the RfA process right now) so I can't do that. Whoever sees him vandalise next can report him to AIV (making sure it is really vandalism, not all his stuff is, which is confusing). Doug Weller (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This [2] has got to be the most ludicrous excuse I've read yet on Wikipedia. I'd have to have a truckload of good faith and an automatic good faith generate to buy that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tejas

Yeah that makes sense. I had never heard of the place, I just saw that it was removed so I googled it, found it was a real restaurant and then linked it. I was definitely not trying to advertise! Cnota (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: icon etc.

I fixed the icon, you missed an equals sign in your /Menu page.

As far as stale reports go, you just have to do what seems approprate. Generally, is someone vandalizes again after a level 3 warning (the first one that threatens them with blocking), they will vandalize after a level four warning. As a gross generalization, after 60-90 minutes have passed since their last edit, they're not going to vandalize any more, at least not right then, so I remove the report so it doesn't clog up AIV. Since Huggle (the only popular fully automatic revert-and-warn tool) considers a warning to be "active" for 72 hours, if the vandal is playing around, and he vandalizes again after waiting, say, 2 or 3 hours after his final warning, Huggle will re-generate an AIV report for him, as will any human who visits his talk page to warn him after reverting. I'm pretty sure that the anti-vandal bots behave similarly.

tl;dr version: Just do what seems to work well, generally after 60-90 minutes with no vandalism, it should be safe to remove the report.

BTW, I'd like to offer my early congratulations on your RfA, since it is all but certain that it will pass. Have fun with the mop! Just don't do this.... ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I took so long writing this that you wrote me back in the meantime! No problem at all. I've learned to look for that sort of thing by hard experience. Once, I was working on an XML document to create a custom theme for my PS3, and I spent two and a half hours fighting with it only to discover that I had missed a closing quotation mark...

oppose rfa

I oppose you becoming an admin, and I listed the reasons at your rfa. No hard feelings --Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, all you can find is stuff from my very first edit and a couple from my first 6 edits, all over 2 years ago, and you think that justifies a strong oppose? And nothing to do with differing viewpoints as to whether the so-called Bosnian pyramids are a hoax or not, of course. If you were serious about wanting to become even an editor, you'd know better than to start off this way. Doug Weller (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

UUYES

ON THE FIRST THING CHRIS IS right about vandalism, I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF EDITING IT TO INCLUDE REFERENCES, and what does HE IS RIGHT YOU KNOW M E A N??? Lets continue the conversation on the talk page of BATTLE OF OPIS, and THY DEMAND THAT YOU EXPLAIN YOURSELF YOUNG LADDY!--Ariobarza (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

opis

YOU know, he is wrong too, he does not adress the newer translation and further supports the old translation with OUTDATED referinfo, and is ONESIDED. Second, if you know who Zecharia Sitchin is, and his theories about the 12th planet, he has been proven almost wrong by NEW translation of certian inscriptions, so he is now considers by scholars as OUTDATED, why as I KNOW its not up to us but why accept outdated TRanslation refuted by a better scholar, and why does CHRISO STILL keeps the onesided article and improve his article. PLEASE READ my response on the talk page, and study it carefully, mines and Larno.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I have responded. Sitchin was never able to translate Sumerian properly, no one serious ever considered him a Sumerian scholar, he was a journalist by trade and training. You aren't qualified to judge who is the better scholar or right in this issue, it's up to the experts in the field to discuss this. Doug Weller (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

The admins' T-shirt.

Congratulations on your RfA passing! Here are some useful links for you:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
• Wikipedia:New admin school

If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line and I (or another experienced admin) will be more than happy to help you out.

Congrats again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now do I send out RfA thank you spam? I guess I should, although I've noted that not everyone appreciates it! Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, and NO! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stick a thank-you note on the top of your talk page? It's been done by some people, although I can't remember who exactly. I'm sorry I didn't support your deservedly successful RfA - asleep at the wheel - but congratulations all the same and the best of luck to you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey! the thank spam is the only reason I ever express any opinion in RfAs. :-) Congratulations and good luck with the mop! You'll do fine! henrik•talk 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bad person to ask; I never got around to doing my RfB spam, despite writing something up and everything... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's your t-shirt - congrats!  Frank  |  talk  20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

—§unday {Q} 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA. Best wishes again -- Tinu Cherian - 04:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Many congratulations! Sorry I didn't get round to voting on your RfA in time, but you didn't need my help anyway. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Book

Since you asked about "How Wikipedia Works"... it's for sale in the UK now :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And hopefully will be delivered today or tomorrow! Doug Weller (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Doug, and my apologies for not weighing in on the RFA - one of my pet peeves is people who ask optional questions and then neglect to !vote - this was not my intention. –xeno (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

DOUG I GOT YOUR EVIDENCE, GO TO TALK PAGE OF OPIS AND READ 'MY FELLOW WIKIPE...., THANKS

Ya.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Re: YOU THIEF!!!!one!!

HOW DARE YOU STEAL MY STUFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...not really. Feel free to steal anything you want. If you have an idea of something you would like changed/added/created, let me know and I'll see if I can fix/add/create it for you. I like making complicated stuff, but I rarely have any good reason to do it....

As far as admin-ing goes, it will be a little overwhelming for maybe 2 or 3 weeks, and then the "OMG!!! I'm an admin!!!!" will start to wear off, and you'll kind of get used to being able to do all the stuff yourself rather than going to AIV, RFPP, UAA, or CSD. The best part for me when I first became an admin was realizing that I can delete attack pages myself. I still get a boost to my happiness meter whenever I do that. Blocking vandals harassing good users feels good, too. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I usually block schools until September of the next year. If they don't have a long block log, try 2 weeks. After that, escalate to either 3 or six months. Anything in their log longer than 3 weeks usually gets a year from me, but just do what seems to right. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck

Excellent result at RFA - WP:100, no less. That can feel like a daunting burden - "damn, all these people trust me that much" - but it's really not such a big deal. Good luck with the tools. If you take it slowly to start with, as you work out what buttons go where, there shouldn't be any problems. Ping me if you ever want any advice or pointers or anything. You'll find the swing of things soon enough :) Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. RfA can't be all that broken after all, it would seem. And now please sit down and fix the 'pedia! :o) --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

REquest

Doug, I was just wondering if the last huge paragraph I wrote in the background of the Battle of Hyrba article, as it involves Cyrus mysterious backgrounds, should it be part of that article and make no change to it and improve it, or should be PART of the Cyrus the Great article itself, or that it is just INVALID.

Click on new classification when your finished reading it, and look for new classification as a valid thing in Original research, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

THIS BELOW IS WHAT IS GOING ON, THEN READ MY RESPONSE TO CHRISO MAKING A PAGE ABOUT ME WITH ALL MISTAKES MAKING FUN OF ME AND TWO OTHERS!

snip

To say the least, I'm very offended at this labeling of three users (which includes me of course) that just recently got of the deep end because ANOTHER three users (which includes ChrisO) are taking a simple issue to the extremes. which in turn, is making me think of making a page with all the misconduct of lets say... Chris/Dbachmann/Dweller stored on ONE PAGE, and accusing them of being nationalists, and using sources from ignorant or not recently informed historians (who say propaganda all the time) and also add them as users that should be taken off Wikipedia for getting a little mad that (me and others) are accusing them of violating their own agreement. As you know like not showing a neutral point of view and driving CrazySuit into so much madness, that he decides to put a protective label on the Battle of Opis, thus not letting other users edit it to make the grammer better.

I hope you guys understood that paragraph above.

But, of course if you did not understand what ANOTHER three users means (it is ChrisO/Dbachmann/Dweller), which have violated their own agreement because they refuse to discuss the matter straight forwardly, and come up with a consensus, and as you look on the talk page of Opis, I AM CERTAINLY OPEN TO TALKS. But you have taken this WAY TO FAR, and certainly please do not think that I am unable to make such page about you, citing all your mistakes on ONE PAGE, and letting the world see it. But I assure you (the certian users) if you continue to take this too far, I will have talk to administraters, and as of now I am not willing to take ALL of options of the table. You have been warned. Please do not think that I want to personally offend you, (which you have done to me, and others I suspect) I want you (mostly ChrisO) to not go back on your own word, and comment on my page on a real solution to this problem, me being goofy at times with my caps lock, does not mean I am a raving mad man with ferver, I am short on time, and when I want to make certian points, I do it swiftly. So all the original research that I was in the middle of fixing when you deleted it, was an attempt to solve this mystery, as I like mysteries. (INSTRUCTIONS) I politly ask you to go to the Opis talk page, and click on the link in my most recent message, when you get to the 'nationlistic' site that is supported by verifiable histiography, scroll to the near end of the page, and read the WHITE PAPER PART, and which is titled Assyriologio Antiquetes Lingiusti... I don't remember what it is exactly called, but you will know what I mean, and that paper explains the mix up of texts, and letter by letter translation that proves the older one was WRONG. Before you ignore me, I hope that you might have some wisdom still in you to do this task, which If you do not, I will lose all hope in your integrity as an Wikipedian user, thank you very much for reading, and goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

THIS WAS COPYPASTED FROM THE TALK PAGE OF THIS ARTICLE Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ariobarza,_CreazySuit,_Larno_Man,

the page itself is full of streched truth, and ridiculus accusations.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

there

There you go. Talk:Sub-Roman_Britain#poor_editing. Alun (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok sorry, didn't think about it like that. BTW congratulations on your adminship. Alun (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you asked Epf to tone down the language on his edit summaries. Since you warned him he made this edit, with a personal attack in the edit summary. Thouugh you might like to know as you have already warned him. Cheers, Alun (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Let's hope the power doesn't corrupt you, eh? 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

New horizons?

Hello Doug. I know that medieval Rus is a bit outwith your usual interests, but I'm looking for outside views at Talk:Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018 regarding the weight, if any, to be given to an article published in a supplement to the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 10:30 21 September 2008 (UTC).

WP:BLP warning

The source states that he speaks X and Y languages, it doesn't say "he claims to...". [wais.stanford.edu/waisprogram.pdf] So your edit, which is meant to discredit the subject, is a clear violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:BLP. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since he wrote it himself, it's a claim. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not. That's just your opinion, you need to prove that he wrote it himself. ( It's a Conference Program prepared by WAIS) Otherwise, stop this immediately, or I will contact Farokh to file a BLP complaint with Wikipedia's head office. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you have to prove it's a 3rd party reliable source, reliability is not the default. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is ironic. CreazySuit has just said Jona Lendering "is not a historian, he's just a blogger who works as an archivist in real life." Now there's a real BLP violation! Note -- wanting an article to have reliable sources and not simply rely on the subject of the article is not an attempt to denigrate. But 'claims' may not be the best way to put it. I know it's the conference program, they use details submitted by the participants, where else would they get their information from? Doug Weller (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

HO

Hi Doug, I did not violate the copyright, the parts you see that has numbers in the middle of text is footnotes copy pasted from the book. Let me repeat myself, I DID NOT CHANGE A SINGLE WORD, I will acknowledge that I made the mistake of putting to much info at one time, and not backing it by sources. But if your follow the external link it will take you to the EXACT page which I got all of the information from, but thanks for reminding me, my school is about to start and I can only edit three times a week, thanks anyways.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

You've copied large chunks of text from a book that although written long ago has a 2002 copyright on it. I'll find out where you can ask about it. Good luck with school. Doug Weller (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about it.

Extremely nice to have your endorsement, but I'll have to think about it seriously.

See also

• my reply on John's talk page
• my reply to Moreschi.

It would be interesting, of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Phantom Time Hypothesis

Hi. I went to the talk page of 217.41.240.15 to leave a note about original research, but it seems you've already been there. Anyway, the user has continued to revert the article with their original research, most recently on 22 September. Perhaps further action needs to be taken...--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. A 1 week block. Thanks for letting me know. Doug Weller (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Use of your great welcome template

Wow, this is a compliment especially since i have not edited for several months. Thank you for informing me I will inform the user on how to fix the link to my talk page. Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me! 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

=Newgrange

Hi Doug, No worries re your refert to the above. But I would say that the article is misleading in that it gives the impression that Stonehenge (generally) is almost the same age as NG, which doesn't seem to be the case. But I'm not an expert on either! All the best, bigpad (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not feeling too well right now, and in any case we seem to have a clash of dates for different Stonehenge pyramids. I'll try to get back to this. Doug Weller (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya busy?

I have an IP on Talk:Zechariah Sitchin that just doesn't get that his ancient astronaut "theory" is fringe. So far, it's just my evil biased opinion against him. He won't let it go, and I know the minute I stop engaging him he will start editing the article again in a blatantly POV manner. I'm not the most eloquent, so I need backup, specifically someone who has more experience on their side with this sort of thing. Since you've edited the article recently, and I know you have the chops, I've decided to pick (on) you to see if you could lend a hand. Would surely appreciate it, Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Um

I got a great idea, I will back up Rawlinsons book with modern sources, even modern sources just paraphase him, anyways what if I quote Herodotus, as he wrote his book 2,500 years ago, not 150 years ago, EVEN Newton's book is old, but even scientists have trouble understading what he says, because he is too smart, just an interesting note though, I totally accept if you don't consider my idea, you are free. But I agree with your findings, and I noticed that you ONCE accused ChrisO of uncivil behavior, which he said he was frustrated, BUT I am glad that you see it both ways, and that your at least open minded, which is good. One last thing, if you check the history of Opis article, Larno REVERTED my edits because IT WAS ME, that included Graysons translation in the first place, which led to whole DEBACLE, so in the begining I WAS in favor that Cyrus had slaugtered the people of Akkad. Thats why I put thousands of civilian casualties for the Babylonians. But one thing to get straight, if an Iranian is proud of their history, and show it publicly, plus are patriotic, it does not means they are nationalistic. A nationalist thinks the whole world goes around his country. Please try to understand that after Larno said the translation was wrong, and said Cyrus would not do such a horrible thing, thats when ChrisO turned on him and accused him of being nationalistic. Which now ChrisO has also put me in his "Black List", seeing that I am a threat to the civilized westren world. If you read my solution part, which I think you already have, and that I also responded to ChrisO on the page with a title of my screename on it, you know what I am talking about, go there, and go to its talk page, read my solution there too. ChrisO looking to fill up his bag, and he is ignoring my diplomacy, which I simply say that he is streching the truth with false accusations, to ME of course, I don't take responsibility for Larno or Crazy, but for myself, which much appreciation, thank you for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I know, I hate it when Ariobarza writes a long paragraph, but if you could, give Ariobarza a suggestion of how he should deal with ChrisO, as it concerns him, thanks.

I have to say "stop feeding the trolls" at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaveh_Farrokh

It's obvious that a certain minority keeps drumming up that single book, which already has its own article anyway, as central reason to keep Farrokh's bio, despite the obvious fact that liberal arts academics write books as part of their job description, and that Farrokh isn't notable for anything else, so he clearly fails WP:PROF. My bet is that anyone closing that AfD will say "no consensus" since the minority has managed to derail the AfD with interminable tangential and off-topic discussions. VG ☎ 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just keep finding more and more silly attempts to puff the book and can't resist posting them, my bad. I'm hoping the closing Admin will actually read the WP related arguments, but... And if the article stays, there will be constant arguments between those that want it to be encyclopedic and those who want it to praise the author, but that's nothing new. Doug Weller (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from Byblos !

Yes ! Thanks from Byblos and for your good, very good contribution about what was apparent attempt at subtle vandalism. Best regards.

IP, 24 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.67.131 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis redux

You might want to see my quasi-rewrite at User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis and the comments I've added to DS's page at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven#Battle of Opis redux. I think we will be seeing movement on this soon. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The review

All we know for sure is that the Farokh's review starts on page 117 of the journal, we don't know how long the review is, and if it is one page or ten page, considering that his review is the last item of the journal. Since there is reasonable doubt about the actual length of his review, we should avoid a problematic adjectives like "short" or "one-paged" that could be interpreted as an attempt to downplay the value of the man's work. Thank you. --CreazySuit (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We really do know as in every case the page numbers, eg 1-4, are mentioned in the source. This is not an attempt to downplay, it is an attempt to be accurate and neither exaggerate or downplay. I deliberately did not put in one-page as that might be interpreted as downplaying. I don't see any reasonable doubt as to the length of the article. If the journal's listing only gave the first page of each article I'd agree with you 100%, but that's not what it does. Doug Weller (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

mikeydotcomdotau

My username doesn't contravene your guidelines. I do not have the personal energy (and know better) than to get into flame wars.

So Long, Wikipedia. What a dissatisfying experience... I thought it would be wonderful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeydotcomdotau (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason for it to be dissatisfying if you will listen and ask questions. But true, it isn't for everbody and for those that it doesn't fit, I guess it's best if they find out early. There have been no flame wars from my side or the other Admin you complained about. Doug Weller (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

You seem to have had plenty of interaction with Ariobarza. Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man? --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've posted to it before it was deleted saying he should be separated from it. Funnily enough, he calls me Dweller at times which confuses me, especially as it is part of my main email address! Why do you ask (may not be able to respond today). Doug Weller (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted? It's not deleted. I just wanted to ensure you'd seen it, no more. Yes, I had a couple of comments when your RfA followed shortly after my RfB. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was deleted, it's temporarily restored I see, for ChrisO to recover some diffs. It will be deleted. I'm not surprised about the comments. I hadn't realised or had forgotten Ariobarza had posted to your page (I just looked). Was he just confused or were you involved anyway? Doug Weller (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See my contribs at the thread(s) at ANI! --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey buddy, guess what, go to Hyrba, and look at the date Rawlinsons book is from, hint, last year!!! You got to check it. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

More and more confusing. Your ISBN number, ISBN 9781428647, is for August Krey's The First Crusade: Accounts of Eyewitnesses. And what is the "John B. Eldan Press"? Where are you getting this information from? It needs to be corrected. Doug Weller (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your absolutly right, I'll fix the two mistakes ASAP, but it IS from 2007, yah baby yah!--Ariobarza (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Reprinted then I guess, but what's the point you're making? Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really, the point that I am making is Rawlinsons spends the most time on The Persian Revolt issue more than anyone else other than political history of the ... and he also gets quoted on it from todays historians, so whether I put New source or Old source, its the same info, and the subject has'nt changed, (dont worry i will also include new sources too) so their is no reason to say its too old, everything about the whole subject is already old! HERODOTUS, is very old and wrinkly too, Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

It's too old in the sense that there has been a tremendous amount of archaeology since. He was a very important figure at the time and the fact that his books are reprinted shows he still has a lot of prestige. But the average reader isn't going to know where new evidence has overtaken him. Take a look here at the forward a reprint [[3]- New information on Egypt and Mesopotamia continued to accumulate, and much of Rawlinson's work in those areas quickly became outdated. Moreover, even contemporaries faulted his lack of familiarity with the non-Greek languages of the ancient Near East. But scholars continued to consult Rawlinson on Parthia until the mid-twentieth century, and they still consider his work on Persia, Phoenicia, and Bactria indispensable because of his command of the sources written in Greek and Latin.. Indispensable to scholars because of his command of sources. Good. You need to source articles from contemporary scholars and hopefully they will use Rawlinson where appropriate, but relying on him yourself is not a good idea. And remember he still seems to be in copyright. Doug Weller (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock on Opis

Check out the pattern, editing almost perfectly out of each other's way (with one outlier).

|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=NepaheshgarHere] and [4]. This with the comparable interests and conduct is enough for a checkuser report, I would think. I have to run, or I'd figure out how to do it (nothing is easy to file here, and I've never done one), so I'll leave it to you. Hope you aren't too "involved" to file a checkuser report...cheers Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi, just wondering if you could deal with a vandalizing user: User_talk:67.79.54.130, who recently added an illegal private server to the Rose Online article. Thanks! --Resplendent (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Correcting grammatical errors is not OR

I've corrected grammatical errors and sentence phrasing under the Hinduism section of the Henotheism page. Your OR claim is absurd. Please consider abstinence from unwarranted reversals or I'll have to report a 3RR if your vandalism continues. VedicScience (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

POV editors always think removal of their POV is vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== How does 'fixed...substance issues' and 'corrected tons of mistakes' become 'grammatical corrections' ==

Correcting mistakes=fixing substance. Don't make POV complaints out of thin air! Did you even care to look at the original article under Hinduism and the grammar in there? It had tons of errors in it. Fixing errors should be lauded. I thought you were smart. BTW, most people don't expect arbitrary reverts from a normal admin. VedicScience (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Admin_Dougweller_is_a_vandal regarding, well obviously, your edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The numerous discussions were all at the wrong places. If he puts one in somewhere it belongs, then you can get involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ever since I pointed out his main source was a self-published book he's been unhappy with me. Doug Weller (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See some real forum shopping. I wonder why he can't go to the "right" (typical) place. I'm going to leave Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee for someone else to remove. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. And he's been called on his edit he called a 'grammatical correction'. These guys generally self-destruct after a while. I've got a busy day ahead, when I have time for Wikipedia I'll probably concentrate on more important things. Thanks for your help. Doug Weller (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

he

Hi Doug, I do not want to waist your time with my problems, but I am a tiny bit concerned with Thermopylae, please go to its talk page, and look for the message titled For the sake of arguement. It is very easy and short to read, and it is not directed at someone, so do not get mad, it is actually funny is some places, do not worry be happy now, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

"DO RO DO RO DODO DO RO DO" Its the song from Doug the tv show, hey I commented on your page to see what your stance was on the whole 15,000 Greeks thing, not to simply write it off as a well represented essay. With great regards, bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Sorry, no time right now, life is too hectic this week (and next, after that it slows down). Doug Weller (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Is correct, Dougweller, but Plato also said that the wall surrounding the Acropolis, which was oreichalkós, shone with reflexes like fire. In none moment Plato said that shines like silver.

Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Dear friend Dougweller, I've provided reference links while making corrections in good faith on the Henotheism page. Please care to check them first before engaging in rvs and / or edit warring. As an admin you should know this better. I've also posted a detailed response on the talk page. Hope we can work together. Be well and take care! ADvaitaFan (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this an admission? I note you are posting 3RR warnings to editors after they have done one edit. As my edit says, looking at the talk page, you clearly do not have consensus. If you continue to post warnings such as these you will end up blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So someone else also ran into your disruptive editing. This further proves that you really need to work on your NPOV. I noticed that you continue to dabble in with your POV on the Henotheism page as well after the recent Adityas debacle. Let me remind you that “civility” is best understood as rational commentary. So you should go debate on the Talk:Henotheism instead of engaging in edit reversals pushing your own POV, without paying attention to references added by others (in this case ADvaitaFan) for verifiability. It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean the usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating your original position ad nauseam through rvs in the face of questionable verifiability of your edits – is not civil, but merely tendentious. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't wish me well when you have been busy attacking me everywhere you can, it's hypocritical. And if you are going to claim I put ""We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)" into an edit summary, let's see you provide the diff for it. I believe tendentious editing was the reason you were blocked? Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunno where you got this newly invented theory of "consensus" from! Whatever happened to the ideals of verifiability? OK. You forgot what your own edit comment on the Henotheism rv. Here it is - Doug Weller: "I have looked at the talk page, it is clear there is no consensus for this edit". Do yourself a favor and care to read Wikipedia policies if you are a new admin. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you invented the quote you attrributed to me. We have a number of policies, it can be difficult for new users to understand how they interact. My being an Admin has had nothing to do withour interactions, by the way, as I haven't been using any Admin tools. Doug Weller (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reversal of edits on Chaturvedi

Chaturvedi Thank you for your edits to this article, but as it already has no references, it needs to be improved by adding references, not more unreferenced claims (Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, by the way). Take a look at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY to see the type of sources we need. I did try to find information about "Kamsa vadh mela" by the way and found nothing. You also can't call the Vedas the most ancient books in the world as although many people may believe this, it isn't generally accepted as a fact. How about trying to improve what is already in the article by finding some references? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking again, carry on with your grammatical corrections, etc. And there is nothing wrong with getting rid of the unsourced material, I agree there is quite a bit there that should go. One more thing, you wikified Kamsa but I didn't see the connection between the article and the celebration, are you sure there is one? Doug Weller (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to dougweller =

Somehow I feel that your criticism "How about trying to improve what is already in the article by finding some references?" is a stock reply to any edit here. If there are things that are not referenced, and moreover if they do not have any factual basis, they need to be removed. References can not be provided to them. Kindly check the parts that I had modified carefully because they were inaccurate. You seem to be quite happy to keep such sentences like "legend has it that the chaturvedis(chowbeys) were priests in the army of alexander who settled in india after the greeks left" which has no basis, unless of course you want to imply that Alexander brought the Vedas to India. It would be only fair to ask you to provide references if you want to keep this claim. If you read what I put in, and the wikification that I carried out, you will see appropriate references there!

I am not sure if I understand your other criticism, Doug. As far as I am aware, there are no other texts that are supposed to be historically older than Vedas. If there are please correct me, and provide a reference. I put in references in the text to Wiki articles on Vedas which again contain references to european sources, which should make you happier. And this is my first edit, so adding even more references will continue as I work on it.

Kamsa was the demon king who was executed by Krishna. Vadh means execution. Kamsa Vadh is the execution of Kamsa by Krishna. The reference to Kamsa tells you about the Vadh of Kamsa by Krishna. Mela means a fair/ a celebration. Of course people in those regions will celebrate the Vadh of Kamsa. I am not aware of any English/European language references yet that describe the Kamsa Vadh Mela. If I find one I will put it up, but surely the criteria of all references should not be that they are written in English.

And you just irritated me by telling me to "carry on with my grammatical corrections" and at the same time doing a bulk reversal of all the edits, including the grammatical corrections. Now I hope you would tell me where I had typed in my original material I had typed in.

Sorry I irritated you, but I was encouraging you to remove the stuff about Alexander, not suggesting it stay in. As I said, you can't use Wikipedia articles as references. As for the Vedas, if you agree with our article on them, we are talking about maybe 1500 bce but with no physical texts that old. There are older physically existing texts. If you can find good non-English references, and include a quote translated into English in the footnote, that should work. Thanks for the explanation about Kamsa. Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No source whatsoever is cited in the article. I do not doubt that Chaturvedi is a surname in India, but the burden to provide references is really on whoever wishes to discuss the topic. I won't be necessary to even comment on the unencyclopedic tone unless some sources are brought forward. --dab (𒁳) 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully the source I found will be used well by the new editor. Doug Weller (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian Religions article

Please read the sources. Who put you to the job to declare whether sources are liable or unreliable? These sources I am giving are from actual books as opposed to the non-referenced material inputed into the article by vandal users 'Anishshah19' (who abusively called me a "joker") and 'Mitsube'. These users are pushing their POV on their own Jain and Buddhist backgrounds. - Nexxt 1

All editors have the job of trying to decide if a source is reliable or not. I made it clear I was a bit dubious about Mitsube's book also. Doug Weller (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that you need to check nexxt1, he is being very disruptive and make wild accusations against me that Mistube is my sock. He is not bothering to reply when I have challenged his sources of using medical and geography books and almanacs for Indian religions. Can I use a book on dentistry or say child psychology for an article on say...Big bang and then make some authorative claims? --Anish (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Doug. Thanks for your timely protection of this article. There is currently an ANI discussion at WP:ANI#Edit war on pages of Indian religions by User Nexxt 1. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary warnings to User:Amandawashere

Hi, I noticed that you issued warnings level 2, 3 and 4 to Amandawashere (talk · contribs) after I gave her a level 1 warning. This isn't necessary; the account stopped vandalising before the first warning was given. I removed the superfluous warnings you issued. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Amanda was/is a vandal-only account. While I agree that multiple warnings were unnecessary, and generally speaking warnings should not be given after vandalism has stopped, I would have indef blocked given that every single edit ever by that account was very clear vandalism. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I'm gradually getting the hang of this. I just blocked one editor for 3RR, shortly after an IP did the same reverts. Pretty obvious what was going on, so I blocked the IP and semi-protected the page. Doug Weller (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation re Battle of Opis

A mediation has been opened on Battle of Opis, an article with which you have been involved recently. I have listed you as a party but please feel free to remove yourself if you do not want to participate in the mediation. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-06 Battle of Opis for the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jokshan and Troglodytis

Thanks Til for that vidication. Please think Troglodytis (and any other discriptive word) not as a place but as a word that can be applied to different places that match that discription of 'a place where people dwell in caves?' As for 'needing something a little bit more 'main stream', I think you fail to understand just how main stream that actually is: They are the largest protestant denomination. The Seventh-day Adventist bible commentary series is a massive work representing tens of thousands of pages and is updated regularly. And more so than any other Christian group, biblical archaeology is our specialty. The information contained in them in this case straight from the cuniform tablets or anthropological academic works. Doug, I would never say: "The Seventh Day Adventists tentatively identified Zimran with the Arabian town of Zabran." What was there was fine.--Avanduyn (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) As regarding your Jokshan edits, you don't have to reference what is considered public knowledge like when the Yemenites commonly acknowledge Jokshan (aka Qahtan) as the head of their nation.--Avanduyn (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanduyn (talk • contribs)

Til has clarified things. 'Rift valley' to me meant Africa, not the Dead Sea Transform which is what you meant. Doug Weller (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

I need your help in this article. See Talk:Egyptians#The_dictatorship_of_minority. There is a user who insists on promoting exceptional claims depending on unreliable references and revert my edits. Egyptian lion (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Israelites

You seem to imply you have problems with this article which I recently edited. I think the use of templates of the sort you attached are probably a last resort after discussion has taken place. Do you mind explaining why you placed them there (aside from the need for Ebiru citation)?--Meieimatai? 09:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Promised Land and Israelites

On Promised Land, the current (short) version is definitely preferable - but better by far to merge with Land of Israel, as has been suggested. The map, by the way, doesn't represent the mainstream view on the identification of the "River of Egypt", which is that it refers to a certain wadi around the current Israel/Egypt border which represented the border in ancient times also.

On Israelites, that's a real can of worms that I'd rather not get involved in - too many fanatics around. But I do note that it's very narrow in it's treatment - some interesting work has been done on the concept of Israel in various parts of the Hebrew Bible, and none of that is represented. There's also interesting stuff about the Bible as an attempt to create and delimit group identity - you can see the tensions from passage to passage, some stressing purity and exclusion, others inclusion (compare, for example, the tension in Exodus between the plagues which differentiate between Israelites and Egyptians, and then the mention of a "mixed multitude" who are apparently not Israelite but allowed to leave Egypt with the Chosen people - there was apparently a major debate going on as to just who was and was not Chosen.) PiCo (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

HighKing, Bardcom

Hiya Dougweller. Bardcom changed his Username to HighKing, months ago. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't look carefully enough at Bardcom's contributions -- I just saw that they were being made, but not that the username on the contributions page was HighKing's. Doug Weller (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef IP blocks

Hi Dougweller.[5] Please see WP:IP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)