User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 9

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

Thanks, a bit of a mess but I've fixed it I hope, 72 hours. Doug Weller (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tobryant

I originally misread his user page and though English was not his native language. Still, judging by his post to WikiProject Spam [2], I don't think he understands the spam and coi notices on his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what he understands, see this [3] - I'm not sure what his aim was there. I saw the Wikiproject spam post and left it there. Doug Weller (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery

Would you be able to semi-protect? There seems to be a concerted attack on it at the moment. Ty 12:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what happened there. The edit summary says "unprotected" and it's not protected at the moment (there's just the template on the page). Ty 12:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Carelessness on my part, I'd tried to block for All users and meant to block for all non-Admin users. It's protected now. Doug Weller (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope something can be resolved about all this on AN/I and/or Foundation if the Saatchi Gallery choose that route. Ty 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

... has no bank

[4]: this use of the word bank may not be clear to all readers. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, is it better now? I've added 'earth' as an adjective. Doug Weller (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

White Tiger

Why did you just delete what I wrote? I even added a reference? Does that look like vandalism to you, a quote with a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Weird, I thought I was reverting the edit with no reference, I know I didn't see a reference. Anyway, sorry about that, the article is very vandalism prone. If you'd used an edit summary, which you should always do, I almost certainly wouldn't have reverted it. But frequently vandalised article, IP editor, no edit summary... Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at WP:AN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ok

so no one's gay over there? or you'r not? or I just shouldn't try to meet new people? whatever it is, I'm all about following policy, so let me know what behavior it is that's reasonable in a normal social situation that's so out of bonds here. thx St. Puid, Head of Assisi 13:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social network, so you shouldn't be trying to use it to meet people. See WP:NOTMYSPACE. Doug Weller (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Barry Fell/R.D. Flavin

Hi Doug, an IP recently removed the quote from Flavin from the Barry Fell article. This has since been restored, but the IP's edit summary asked a valid question, namely, who is Flavin and why should we care what he says? Since I don't know the answers to either of those, I was thinking maybe you could pop over and add that to the article. Also, I'm not sure, but it seems like the quote comes from a self-published paper, which may not meet 'pedia guidelines for reliable sources and notability. Thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

ShadowOne333

ShadowOne333 who im sure your aware of on the Resident Evil 5 page, who continually adds that ridiculous wii petition and cussing out other editors for removing it is at it again, I suggest you ban him permanently since he just doesn't learn to quit- Deus257 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Misformed AFD

Hi - I see you have created an [5] for the Kuzhinapurath Family, only problem is I've just done the same thing today. I'm not sure how you did it but there is no edit history record of you editing the article page to add an AFD notice? Wonky tool? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonky Twinkle it seems, or maybe it's using Chrome with Twinkle. I've taken the duplicate AfD problem to the Village Pump here [6] and will add a bug on the Twinkle bug page. Doug Weller (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Opis problemo

Hi, you said this;

You mention 'making connections'. Be careful, WP:SYN says "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

I am glad that at least (unlike ChrisO) you do not accuse me of making information up. But if my main problem is synthesis, here is the problem;

1. I put multiple sources that nearly reach the same conclusion, in one place implying it, and in other places actually saying it happened which then means they are agreeing with my assessment.

2. I connected material that seem to be explaining the same event, without anyone disproving and or updating the evidence.

3. The sources cited are not in conflict, and all are related to the subject.

4. I did not change the meaning of the sources and what the sources actually say, I just put them on Wikipedia.

5. What I did is I took information from somewhat or barely outdated sources, but reliable sources overall, and put those claims in mostly their own words, that reach that specific claim.

So you see, I can not get more clearer than this, I have researched this subject fairly enough to reach this conclusion myself, the sources just strengthen it, what is also sad that the user ChrisO has no common sense towards things. He is always out there to disprove things, without actually researching the topic, and creates disputes that waistes my time and yours.

AND this is even before I have edited ANYTHING, ChrisO has already jumped on my case, and recruited others to do so, his behavior is highly estranged. ChrisO is double crossing what he preeches by analyzing the text and making a conclusion from it (saying that nothing can be made of the obscured text, the end, which actually a lot of things can be made from the text that most likely has one meaning), and ignoring the historians who say that it happpened, none of them say it did not happen (I personally thank the historians who dared approach this topic long ago). He forgets that maybe the historians who reached that conclusion, have BETTER sources available to them that is NOT available to me or you. What he does has AGENDA and POV written all over it. I referenced both old and updated, reliable, uncriticised texts and translations that say the same thing. And do not forget that some things, like this issue have been taken care of long ago, that is why the sources seem old, they are old but not out of date (no new information has come forth proving what is said is false) its like saying the information provided by Herodotus on the battle of Marathon is outdated, when in fact, then new information comes forth saying they recently found out a major battle in the time that Herodotus said, did happen, and then ChrisO comes and denies it, WHY!? What makes my case better is that I cite both new and old information that seem to agree with one another, other than the 4 historians+Herodotus+Xenophon which half of the 4 are renowned and famous historians on the subject, plus the Nabonidus Chronicle that Nabonidus wrote, not Cyrus, and other chronicles saying that the Sea Country are not the Persians, and Nabonidus retreat, and emptied the temples and the people got mad, all before the Battle of Opis. Please read the message "A new set of translations 2", IT contains the best evidence for the event in existence. So please Doug, try to understand this issue I am having, and read all the messages before involving yourself in a dispute from now on (a dispute that is quite frankly a pointless one) ChrisO's actions are mind-boggling, the end. I thank you for reading this long-uss message. Much appreciates mate.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

here to help

Hello I am pleased you are here to help

Most of the topics I have edited are from soureces such as the 5 books of Moses.

This is, according to most Jews, the undesputed word of God.

Within that text are specific commandments that relate to people like Aaron and to tribes like the Levites.

For the site to ramble on without these specific commandments shown, sis somewhat pointless and I've noticed many of the statements refering to the text as being inaccurate.

So, in a nut shell, I have only 2 sources. The 5 books of Moses and the Talmud, but mostly the 5 books of Moses.

Are you saying that these quotes from the 5 books of Moses cannot be placed on your website?

Youknowbest (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, Doug: but, yes, that's exactly what we're saying. You need to cite instances of other people saying these things in reliable sources, rather than making a deduction of your own since we don't do original research here. Do you understand, Youknowbest? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, because I am no genius and somewhat of a moron and that is I that i'm not talking about and not the other brilliant contributors: A direct quote from the bible cannot be placed on wiki unless some 'reliable' 3rd party has discussed it and one should quote not the bible, but what the 'reliable' 3rd party has said? Help me out here Dough.

Youknowbest (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you've come running to Doug, but we are saying that you cannot cite the Bible and say that it is the truth or that it gives a reliable historical narrative. You can't say in the article on evolution, "This didn't happen, look at Genesis 1-2." You can't say on the article on Ancient Egypt, "All the frogs went through the cities, and the Nile turned to blood, look at Exodus whatever." You can say, "Professor Jones said in his 2004 report that the passage in Deuteronomy about Moses being buried in an unmarked grave is supported by archaelogical evidence." If you source it. But you can't assume that the Torah's true. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Youknowbest, please stay with the public discussion at [7], so everyone can see the whole thing. Doug Weller (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

...::Doug Weller Please offer support. It was requested. It was also requested from Andre. I am so sorry that you are having to deal with another point of view, you and most Rabbinical Jews thought dead forever. Why not just delete all my contributions or is there aome truth in what I wrote? You know best after all.... Youknowbest (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you politely to keep with the main discussion, which among other things makes it easier for me tounderstand what is going on. What comes through strongly though is your lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia works and what it is. I can't see where Andre has asked for my help, but I do see that he has given you good advice on your talk page. Please follow it. Doug Weller (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Youknowbest

FYI, I reopened the discussion about Youknowbest. Shirulashem (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus

I always thought you were to use the type of English used by the EU for EU countries and articles Ijanderson (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also it was a former British colony therefore this is the style used by Cyprus's population. Sorry for any inconvenience I've given it a edit summary this time. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I see a lot of spelling changes simply because people don't like a spelling or don't know it's correct. And both 'ise' and 'ize' are British English spellings of course. Doug Weller (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Block of LikesPoodles

Do not reblock this user. It's a user unfamiliar with our policies, who I am helping to guide through the AFD process in response to an OTRS ticket. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't so long as the user doesn't bring it back to AfD if the result is keep. Obviously I wouldn't have blocked at all if I'd known what was happening. Doug Weller (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Högquist

It is a bundle nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of how that worked. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale

I think you should examine the discussion more carefully. Note that Gwen Gale did not address the substantive questions I raised, but only rejected out of hand the idea that administrators should be prepared to substantively justify their actions. This is, I would think, a basic responsibility anyone exercising authority should be prepared to assume. I would also note that Gwen Gale feused to cite any evidence for two of the the charges she leveled against my spouse, relying instead only on accusation. For example, the claim of disruption by "pointy" editing rests entirely on this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Bella (3rd nomination), and that nothing in the discussion supports such a claim. Perhaps you could explain this, since Gwen Gale refuses to. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you calm down and recall WP:AGF. And take your comments here [8] as you are heading for a block yourself if you carry on like this. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bay of Biscay

Hello Doug, I presume you mean crossing the Bay of Biscay rather than going around the shoreline. Well, that is not OR. No research is being done here. And, I disagree with you that "implies" necessarily per se requires a source. I think what you are trying to get at is, is this my personal opinion? Well, yes and no. If my opinion agrees with someone else's opinion, is it mine? It is not only my opinion that Pytheas went round by the pillars. And if he did he could only get to Britain by heading north along the coast. He had to have passed by the region - that is logic, or we should say, self-evident, wouldn't you agree? Self-evident things do not need a source. Now, based on what the sources say, Pytheas' base line ran south of Britanny around the Loire area. I made that point and supported it. So, as much as can be known about Pytheas, he was there - he couldn't really avoid it, could he? How he got there however is not quite so mathematical. We have this statement (which has been proved and supported) that he thought the coastal voyage was easier than the ocean way across the bay. I admit, it does not necessarily imply he went by the bay. He could have thought the bay was so tough he would go by the coast. I thought it implied a bay voyage but you know I could see the other point of view. In cases like this then you are perhaps right. We're not the authorities. If you think we need a source for this, then it seems it would be better to have one. I don't mind, but I doubt there is only one opinion on this. I can only work on this sporadically, so here is what I propose. I want to keep the statement by Strabo but remove the idea that it implies anything. Then on the quiet when I have time I will try to find the source. I am pretty sure I read someone saying he went across the bay but sometimes I don't remember righly (who of us does?) so I need to conduct a search (but looking for an opinion, that's not research, oh no). When and if I find it I probably will want to say a bit more. It isn't a major point but for higher quality sometimes little things are big things. At the moment I want to go on into the Baltic. Changing the wording should hold you for a while and if you see it, be sure and cite it, will you? Thanks. It takes more than one set of eyes to achieve quality.Dave (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If it's your opinion, it's OR, and if it isn't, then all you need to do is find a source, right? My opinion would be that based on my understanding that sailors at that time normally did hug the coast, he did too. But I wouldn't put it in a Wikipedia article although I'd put it into almost any other type of article I was writing. Thanks also for the rewording. Doug Weller (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Man oh man

Dougweller not you too! You really have the nerve uh? I thought you were your better than that, shame, oh shame. No thanks!--Ariobarza (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Come on, it's not the first article of yours I've taken to AfD is it? Remember Siege of Ectabana. In any case, I did my research first. And have warned you in the past about making up names like this one. Doug Weller (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

want to be friends melies101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melies101 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, my heater level has cooled off a little, so I am back to normal. In all kindness I ask you, I do not understand why (when ChrisO said he was going to delete it) you are in such a hurry to delete it, I hope your not as lost on this battle as ChrisO, I thought I had a problem with ChrisO. Either, he is trying to convince you of my wrong doings, or you brought him here in the first 'place' to dicipline me? I think I'm connecting the dots now... I guess its just me now, Athens and Macedon has not come to my aid, now its only up to me to stop Xerxes hordes.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Philosophers Stone

Doug, the Philosophers Stone link to the feature film is a valid link that does not violate wiki policy. I simply added a link to the Bog page after having read it and figured that more info on the band would be of value. I guess instead that I should have created a wiki for the band itself. That said I do not understand why you eliminated the entire line concerning the film Philosopher Stone.

Can you please explain? I have seen this film and it is online in several versions and it deals directly with the subject of the wiki in question. It has every reason to be listed.

I've responded on your talk page, but the film doesn't seem to have ever been shown in the cinemas, and why add the band just because they contributed to the film? This looks like publicity for what is essentially a self-published film and a band. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza and Tundrabuggy

You commented on Ariobarza's talk page about his recent behaviour. Having reviewed his edits, I believe there are significant concerns that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza.

You also commented a while back on Tundrabuggy's wikistalking of myself. I have raised this as well, at WP:AN/I#User:Tundrabuggy.

Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, do you want to block me? Or help with my research on HARD TO FIND material, that is why I joined Wikipedia, (remember what I told you in the begining) to make it has complete as possible, even if it ment trekking to the unknown realms of extreme research on hard to find things. Why did you nominate Battle of the Tigris for speedily delete a day after it was made? And why are you letting ChrisO AND Nikki.. Get away with discouraging me from EVER contributing to Wikipedia? These past few days have affected my school work, because I have to go on Wikipedia everday to see what latest things they have messed up. Go to the ANI page reread my boldened message, and my new message, if you have good faith and want respect and humility to continue between us. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I've tried since June to help you. You still have articles with no references from then and earlier, you shouldn't be creating new articles. Several editors have told you you should be using your userspace to create articles and only put then in article space when they are ready. I don't want to and of course won't block you. But you've been given a lot of leeway and advice which you should have listened to. I've said my piece on ANI, you should ask to be adopted and work on your earlier articles before creating any new ones. I'm sorry it's affected your schoolwork, but please don't blame other people for problems you've created yourself (which should be clear now unless you think virtually everyone else who has commented is wrong). Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[The below is what I told ChrisO], he wants to ban me! He is trying to delete sourced articles, and ignoring me, I knew there was something fishy about him...

I could not reach you by any communication, so I am [Sorry] I am commenting on your page now. I do not know why I can edit from my computer now. I know I should not, so I will make this brief. I had prophesied I would get finally banned, despite my efforts to be nice, you escalated things, and I am now blocked, and now you want to ban me? THIS WAS YOUR AGENDA PERIOD! You just needed to sway the crowd a little, so good job. By the way check out my home page, and do not edit it please. So again I know I should not break the rules now, but seeing that your trying to delete valid articles, I had to put in the sources. I do not know if my articles (with you here) will survive in a week, so I had to do it. I am willing to not edit Wikipedia for two weeks (I will double my own sentence, to make up for my breaking of the rules) IF you promise me you will not delete those articles until the end of November, when I come back with my Public Apology and Reconciliation Letter to all(maybe even to you too, ChrisO). I want to come back, I love editing Wikipedia (it has a good feeling, and I ask to have a mentor if I knew I could make articles before making them when putting my name in front of the title I would have done that, and no OR would have occured, I needed to put enough material to sustain the article in the begining, that is why it looks like OR, so this is my solution to how I will be good, thats if you do not ban me of course, if you do I will never come here again, the founder of Wikipedia made mistakes too, and he's a Libertarian like me, so we have something in common, and I have potential to improve, I accept I have made major mistakes in Wikipedia, mostly in OR and CIVIL stuff, I came here to Wikipedia last year, so I am technically new to the game, and wish to survive, so my life is in your hands...) I say this to you from the bottom of my {heart}. Thank you.

Please, I beg you Doug, don't let him do this, when editing articles I will uses sandboxes to perfect it before posting it from now, I will do anything, just do not let him keep tricking the crowd in his favor, he thinks he is special. God help us all..--99.190.98.23 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk