User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Joshua Arent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOLD ON

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

John Birch Society

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

Vandal

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

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

Marburg72

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

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

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

Peace, peace have no fear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withdrawing from watching the page seems wise but sad.

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

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

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

Cultural and/or edit wars

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

Vents frustration

I'm really getting sick to death of this place. 99% of the admin corps are useless and won't go near any problems involving WP:RS, WP:V or WP:NPOV. Their chief obsessions are policing "civility" (as if this were a ladies' finishing school, not an encyclopaedia), hanging out on IRC with their 13-year old buddies and making the world safe from the monster Giano. I don't know whether the problem is lack of brains, lack of balls or both. You can see what I was dealing with at Chechen people by looking at that user's first edit there this week [1]. As I said on ANI at 8.46 this morning: "KK arrived and slapped a 'citation needed' tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources". The later edits were even worse. In spite of this, not one single admin took any action against this guy, they just allowed the thread to degenerate into the usual obfuscation, sidetracking and insults (the guy even claimed it was my fault he kept adding the dubious content: "Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached?"). Still no admin response. I presented clear evidence the guy had being playing fast and loose with his alleged sources (which, it turned out, he hadn't even read). Still no admin response. Next the guy started arguing with the reliable sources I had provided, questioning credentialed academics who have published English-language books with Routledge. His reason: "I don't like it". His National Bolshevik supporting friend even libelled these academics as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Still no admin response. The guy kept trying to add the dubious stuff back to the article again, I reverted and added sourced material. Then I was blocked for 3RR (without having received a warning) by some novice admin who couldn't be bothered to do me the courtesy of reading up on the dispute. Just unbelievable. --Folantin (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a rough (and, no doubt, imperfect) translation of the Russian source Kuban Kazak claimed backed his additions with some commentary by me [2]. He didn't even realise it was by a pro-Chechen author who accuses the Soviets of genocide! (BTW Check out the quotation from the 1930s Soviet press release at the top. What amazing prose). The serious point I have to make is this: "I've always had the impression that some editors have been playing fast and loose with foreign-language sources. Throw in some references on a controversial to books or articles in a language few anglophones understand and who's going to be the wiser? It doesn't matter in the least that the general drift of the source you cited is completely the opposite to the POV you espouse and the "facts" you claim are there aren't to be found ". --Folantin (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of possible changes in the guidelines about foreign language sources? I'm unhappy about the Russain sources used on the Fomenko article[3], Doug Weller (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ark of the Covenant

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

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

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

Personal web pages

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

Hello

Just saw you on SV's page, and did this: [4]. Probably you wanted this to be done or did you mean something different? --Bhadani (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Multi-revised

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

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

Doug, Thank you!

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

I have indeed been trying very hard to be civil.

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

Patience under pressure is almost impossible to prove.

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

or end up being called uncivil for denying it!

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks! For what it's worth I just now had to take my own advice and bow out of a pointless spat in the Gender of God talk page.[5]

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

Great Wall of China links to the Great Wall Forum

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, not much point. I noted your interpretation of the guidelines and raised it here [6] which I suggest you read. Doug Weller (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Your Help Editing The New Page is Requested

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

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

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

Sources for Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)

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

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

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

Taskforce

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

On Cyrus

Hi

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

Hadrian and J

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

yo doug

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

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

yoyo doug

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

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

Cyrus

Hi,

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

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

yoyoyo Doug

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

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

Ten Lost Tribes article

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

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

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

ya doug

Guess what, I found it, here it is, the word cunningly apears in the part that Duncker is writing the account of nicolas word for word, and in the account of nicolas the word 'cunningly' apears! [7] So now i have put the word cunningly back in. And im going to check if in fixing errors, antria the user might have deleted some words from the original account on acident like you did.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Spherical Earth

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

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

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

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

Jat people

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

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

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

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

Favor(s)

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

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

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

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

1434 and colourfulglobe

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

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

Egyptian fractions

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

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

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

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

Best Regards,

Milo Gardner

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

Doug,

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

Thanks,

Milo

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

Hi Doug:

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

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

Thanks,

Milo

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

book

Hiya,

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

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

History of Indiana

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

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

Hyrba

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

Kanawha Madonna

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