User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doug Weller. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As the royalrajasthanonwheels.co.in is only website for the new luxury train "Royal Palace on Wheels" so we have given two links. One link redirected to government offical website and one is to royalrajasthanonwheels.co.in. We would like to give information about the new train. We dont want to put our link. Please suggest us further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.235.57(talk) 15:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It won't be notable until it gets reviews, articles, etc in newspapers, etc. Not blogs. Wikipedia articles are about subjects that other reputable sources have written about, so most new things can't have articles until this happens. 18:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

I would like to inform you that we have created the wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Palace_on_Wheels not for the promotional purposes. We have provided the information about the new product and given relevant links to the website. I would request you to please update the page or give us an approval to add the content again about Royal Palace on Wheels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxindia (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It read purely as an advertisement and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which publishes what reliable and verifiable sources have said about subjects. It had no sources other than its own websites, and to be recreated would required sources that meet our criteria here: WP:RS and it wouls also need to be notable by our standards at WP:ORG. dougweller (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

it is me (scott) im hoplite well anyway i guess your correct on your statments and verified infotrmation is better and i have been looking on how to contact some sort of historian group or history scholars not much to go off of but do you know anything that might help me in my quest? (quest from anglo french queste an act or instance of seeking)<- just to verify i am using it in a ccorect instance not a nerdy way ya know just a more scholarly word then ending it with, help me with my search. oh and i hope there is no hard feelings hope we can be freinds (not litteraly i mean like we are okay with eachother and i can refer to you if i need help with this or somthing)--Hoplite54 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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. Wikipediaencourages 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)

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

You may be interested in commenting here. Verbal chat 12:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are perfectly good paragraphs that have been removed. If they are no longer part of the article, other authors won't have the opportunity to add references. Since I have reverted two bad revisions already today, I will restore them after midnight.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I will put them on the talk page. You can't just put them back and hope something will happen. And midnight has no significance. Nor in fact is there really a magic number 3. dougweller (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if every paragraph on Wikipedia which did not have a reference was deleted, two-thirds of Wikipedia would disappear. Articles are not developed on Talk pages, and you know that.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages exist purely to develop articles. And there is a lot of cleaning up to do on Wikipedia, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument.

If the standards that you apply to this article were applied to every article from the beginning, nothing would ever get written.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. What happened is policies and guidelines were tightened up a couple of years ago, leaving a lot of articles which have to be improved. I've only written one short article from scratch, and I wrote that all in my userspace, making sure it met Wikipedia standards before it was placed in article space. That's how all articles should be written now ideally.dougweller (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, but when people see one article being held to a higher standard than many others, its quite easy to think that it is being unfairly targeted. The subpage allowing the "tenets' to be worked on until proper references have been established I think is a good solution. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish you could convince Caleb of that, maybe if you said something on the article talk page he'd stop thinking it was simply an attack. I guess the problem is that some people, eg Caleb, have a very narrow view of Wikipedia as they only work on one or two articles. dougweller (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to smooth things over. I did mention to him about attacks on others based on religious persuasion (or lack thereof). His approach does not encourage cooperation. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please block me from editing? I have told myself I will stop editing time and time again because doing innocent and supposedly helpful things like adding infoboxes or persondata boxes tend to upset a lot of people here, but usually I end up adding some information anyway. Wiki-addiction maybe. Maybe if you banned me from editing it would be easier for everyone. i am not joking or being sarcastic by the way. Its annoying to get reprimanded over and voer for trying to help but kind of hard to resist editing. Thanks. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page, it would be better to ask to be adopted. Maybe you could find other outlets for your addiction. :)dougweller (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that Goodrich is not a reliable source? If so, isn't the proper response to put something into the article indicating that she's wrong, rather than to revert it? I'm not being sarcastic, I actually think that's how NPOV is supposed to work when you have conflicting sources, unless one of the sources is genuinely presenting a fringe argument. Goodrich might be "dreadful" (I'll take your word for it that you have reasons to believe so), but I'm not aware of a reason to think that she's completely goofy. I'm unreverting. Cheers. DCB4W (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I put a flag on the talk page for that article, if we could address it further there, in case there are other editors with opinions on the issue. I kind of liked Goodrich's book, so if there is a reason to disregard her I'd like to know that. I look forward to the discussion. DCB4W (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dougwellwer. I just wanted to let you know that I had moved the Gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes section from my talk page to the discussion page at WP:IPNA as it seemed a bit more appropriate there as I would be able to address some of the "Algonquian" section, but the article is more than just that. At IPNA, I have posed some additional comments for the rest of us to think about as well. CJLippert (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you but here's his latest sockpuppet. It's patently obvious that this is him.Here. He's been using it to mass revert the edits to his contributions that were made by max and me. --Migs (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll have to take it to ANI, it isn't obvious enough to me to block it on my own I'm afraid. And if it is a sock it still should be at ANI so others know. dougweller (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another discussion here Verbal chat 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I'm really not sure of the correct procedure, but there is a little situation at Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head involving an individual editing from an IP account who is consistently vandalizing the article, at least by my interpretation of vandalism. Of course, I may be incorrect, and the IP's edits may be in the best interests of the 'pedia, but that really doesn't seem likely to me. Could you perhaps take the time to initiate whatever process that will result in blocking this editor, or at least take a look at the article? Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing from a Barclays Bank computer, lots of vandalism from that account and in fact I just reverted vandalism from the same address on James D. Watson, and gave an anonblock of 1 month -- just the latest of a number of blocks on that account. Whatever they were doing on the head article, they needed blocking for their other vandalism. dougweller (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gracious. ClovisPt (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Seth Material, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks,Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped my opinion into the case as an "additional issue". Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, some good comments there. I still don't feel I have a complete grasp of [[]WP:UNDUE]] but I do think it probably applies to the Seth article. dougweller (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, I added the the external link from the article about Sheol, and it was promptly removed. The article I was linking to is a chapter in a free online book, and the chapter deals with the subject and concept of hell in the OT, specifically with the word Sheol in its various usages and contexts. I know the links are "no follow", but I thought the article might have something to offer to a person interested in Sheol and its usage in the OT. The Wikipedia article is low traffic, and only has one external link, so I thought I could put the link in there without a problem. What is the protocol for adding links? I've "suggested external links" before in the talk section, and too often they seem to get ignored. What do I do if I don't get a response one way or another?

Take a look at WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:EL. Basically links to personal websites unless they are the site of the author/subject of the article are deprecated. Ditto commercial links. If you don't get a response, I guess you can add it but don't be surprised or upset if it gets removed (we all get stuff removed, it's not worth getting upset over). I've added a welcome menu to your talk page with loads of links, and you really should get a regular account if you plan to stay around, but not everyone does.dougweller (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if you think I was being rude over at the Seth discussion. I am writing here because the other discussion is getting so convoluted I am having trouble following the thread. All I meant to say was that to me pseudoscience as far as I am aware is an attempt at making something into a science which really isn't. The Seth Material is more philosophy/magic . . . it is not an organized religion, but part of a "New Age" religious view . . . a kind of mishmash of religious ideas that a good number of people hold. As usual, in situations like this, I try to help and end up getting kicked by both sides. Sorry if I lose my temper on occasion. See why I wanted to be banned? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

-) No problem, really. I agree about your characterisation of the ideas of the Seth Material, what makes it fringe is simply the psychic element. I hadn't realised until today that it is actually Caleb's religion, which I guess explains his anger and I think makes it difficult to work with him (you, on the other hand, even if you may lose your temper, are trying to work with others). Anyway, I'm definitely not banning you. dougweller (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He does get a bit hot under the collar which is a pity because it seems the people involved are trying to work with him pending sources for the tenets section. The odd thing is that Roberts herself wanted to avoid having her work turned into a religion. Go figure. Take care. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage,Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Seth Material. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I think [1], on or about 3 December, renamed Biblical Archaeology and made a mess of things. (The new name he wanted to give it was Biblical excavations and artefacts - which seems pretty sensible and I'd support it). I don't have the skills to fix it. PiCo (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It was the talk page for Biblical archaeology, which has now been retitled Biblical excavations and artifacts. Somehow it's been orphaned. PiCo (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you place a temporary protection on Land of Punt and give a warning to Dragonfire 123? Someone seems to be really obsessed with placing sexual 'stuff' in it from the article historyBy the way, that was my Anon IP which removed the 3D image here as it is a relief, not a painting or papyri which are 2D art. It has been placed for deletion on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your vote to oppose me in the election and I felt I should clear some things up. Yes, I have as an aside mentioned that I am not opposed of the idea of a parliament on Wikipedia. Would this affect my work as an arbitrator? No. Would I be actively campaigning for a parliament as an arbitrator or even as a regular administrator? No. Would I propose such a thing, or do I plan on proposing it? No, not even close. I give you my complete assurances that a parliament is not and will never be part of the reforms of ArbCom or Wikipedia in general that I seek or propose. I urge you to please reconsider your vote. Thank you.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Redirect sorted now. And thanks for your earlier message. Thinking about it... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

this is scott. well im okay with you deleting it though i call it a theory since it is testable and i have studied history since the age of 5 and probably know more then you (no offence intended) i do know more then most people i even match the historical knowlegde of my social studies (history) teacher. im in 8th grade so he knows a good deal meaning i know more since he is only teaches part of history. i knew more then my 7th grade history teacher who taught about the greeks. so i may not have credentials and everything but hey if this is an editing site how come we cant add if it actually matters and isnt random crap and just deletings? im aspired to be a historian since age five. ive read the odessy, the illiad and many history based books that span from the ancient to medieval times and not only am i the same level of intellegence as my history teacher im in advanced so there you go as i said before im not mad im just a little confused as to why you even allow edits also how do i make an account and what does it accomplish for me?--24.44.51.17 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I left some comments on User_talk:Appietas. He is making a large number of Roman history articles unreadable. I can't even understand a lot of what he does, and I am fairly proficient on the topic. Part of the problem is the sheer volume of seemingly irrelevant information he adds (such as quoting contemporary historians in the original Greek), not to mention how disorganized his edits are. RomanHistorian (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Doug,

• I am leaving this message here as a minor request. If possible, please try to 'move' or change the title of this article:[2] from Senemut to Senenmut. (with the second 'n') You did this with the titles for the Psamtik kings. I have read Dorman's 1988 classic on 'The Monuments of Senenmut' and even he spelled this person's name with two n's--and this was 20 years ago. The same happened to Dorman's 1991 book 'The Tombs of Senenmut at Thebes.' My guess is someone started Senenmut's article here on WP with the Senemut spelling which is slightly wrong. I tried to move the title from Senemut to Senenmut and was blocked but you can use your Admin tools. I'm just aiming at historical accuracy, nothing more. Regards,--Leoboudv (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• As an Aside, please consider placing temporary protection on Ramesses I. Someone with two different anonymous IPs has been targetting it in the past 2-3 months--stripping out chunks of the article. He got blocked temporarily on 1 IP and soon used another IP...and has not been warned. If you look at the article history, I just added back a huge missing chunk which had been lost for 2 weeks. Some people have too much time on their hands! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's OK on Ramses I. And thanks for helping out on Senenmut. I'lll standardise the spelling there. Enjoy your holiday in Prague. I'm currently snowed in in Metro Vancouver--the first winter storm in Western Canada! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I apologize upfront because I realize this is going to sound like nagging and obsessiveness, but nevertheless, I feel the need to revisit this since the article Sofia Shinas was unprotected this morning. To review, an SPA, one of a slew of the same who variously insisted they know Shinas, insisted they knew she had to have been born in 1974. When pressed for proof, one of them suddenly came up with an alleged copy of her birth certificate obtained from Shinas' brother who "who wouldn't mind" if [the SPA] sent it in (which raises the question of permission to release it). You protected the article because of the edit warring from the SPAs, at which time someone working in OTRS changed the article through the full protection, which you questionedhere, which included my recap of the situation. Note my posting was not responded to. At that time, a question was raised on AN/I[3]]. After my posting, nothing further was posted on this.

The issue of the apparently connected SPAs was raised in a sock puppet case, which was closed because the page was protected, rather than the inquiry be investigated or action taken. I approached the person who closed the SSP here, which you'll note was also not responded to. Everything seems to just wither on the vine and no one seems concerned with this, although I still think OTRS was duped, especially since the following has since been raised on Talk:Sofia Shinas. An editor posted Talk:Sofia Shinas#Birth Date - This may solve it..., which included a 1992 article about an interview with Shinas from the Los Angeles Times, an archive of which exists here. The article gave a chronology that absolutely refutes the alleged birth certificate authenticity. I gave my reasoning on thishere. I then contacted you above,User talk:Dougweller#Sofia Shinas.

What I'd like to know is what can and should be done about correcting this? At some point, I believe I read that at the AN/I thatLucasbfr at OTRS was trying to locate the ticket and then someone was trying to contact a Shinas representative to try and verify the birth date, but I suspect that also died a natural death. I honestly don't usually keep revisiting this sort of thing, but everything I've read and know tells me the birth certificate submission was phony, the article in the LA Times supports it, and Wikipedia currently supports a "fact" that is not a fact. Please help. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with your request (other than how to answer it, minor detail) - it doesn't seem nagging. I've raised this at AN, see here: [4]dougweller (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I originally opened the AN/I about this but had pretty much give up hope on it. If it's ok, I'm more than willing to remove the DOB because, as Wildhartlivie stated on the AN/I thread, there are sources that contradict the unverified OTRS request. From my personal memory, I know Shinas isn't four years older than me and I'd rather have no information available than false information. Do we need some sort of consensus to remove the date of birth or can it just be removed? Again, thanks for looking into this. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just remove it. dougweller (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug. After some three weeks away from Wikipedia, I have finally come arround to draftthe proposal to ban Ariobarza (at the moment less concise than I initially expected). I still have to look into Talk:Battle of Thermopylae. You may want to take a look at it before I present it at the administrators' noticeboard (no hurry). Feel free to edit it at will. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the entire message with an open mind, so Ariobarza does not have to repeat it.

Hi Ev, talk about deconstructive comments. I thought we had put this issue behind us. Since November 2008, I have quietly gathered sources, and minded my own business. And now you want to propose a topic ban on me? This is dissapointing. First of all, for the Siege of Gordium I have giving up, and no longer care if it happpened, because overall consensus of the users here determined probably nothing happened, and I have even agreed with them, so Siege of Gordium is over (I was not the originater of the idea, like I said a thousand times, I copy pasted the info, added 1 sentence from the Gordium article itself). And at the end of the deletion debate, I agreed to delete Siege of Gordium. This is the last sentence I said at the deletion debate; Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

For Battle of the Tigris, this issue was between me and ChrisO (which I now Do Not have anything against or any problems with that user), it is not your business, I suggest not to involve yourself in this highly sensitive article which I am sure you know nothing about. I NOW have damning evidence of what I said before as the mostly the truth, yet now that I am so close to presenting the evidence, you come up with a topic ban for me, nice job.

I consider your proposal to be highly rude and disheartening at this time. You are attempting to waste my time and others for the next month over a topic ban debate on me. I am tired of waisting my time on quite frankly stupid (I don't care anymore, I said the word stupid, big deal, I am guilty as charged) and endless debates with revisionists with no lives, other than to waist others time.

Misrepresenting the issue, and presenting false information is not helpful here. I {suggest} if you have a personal grudge against me to say it to my face on my talk page. And not spread "Off with Ariobarza's head" pamphlets around the town. You stalking my movements on Wikipedia to see if I am breaking the rules has itself inspired me to leave Wikipedia. Coordinated group personal attacks on me shows how much Wikipedia is in danger of developing close nit gangs within its topics.

Of course its not Wikipedia's fault, its the fault of users that don't know squat on a subject, then when they see something they THINK is OR SYN, they jump on that user without looking or researching the evidence for it. So when Ev assumes its OR SYN, and later gets proven wrong (this time by another user who presents the evidence), Ev develops a grudge, and revenge sets in when out of nowhere a topic ban on Ariobarza pops up! A coincedence?

If you do not stop (what I consider a personal attack from you), I will never stop until your true intentions are exposed, possibly an RFC for your other menions too. You spending months on this issue to get me banned from the topic shows how determined you are to get rid of me, actions speak louder than words.

Me being not in contact with my Unofficial mentor or continueing making deleted articles in my userspace is not a violation of any law here. So with the little good faith I still have in me, I ask you to abandon this inapropriate proposal, you must either present the ancient crimes I commited here (which everybody got over) or present new evidence, which does not exist.

I am not saying you have a grudge against me, though it is a possibility. Anyways, I urge you to please stop this, and if you have any concerns with me, to come to my talk page so we can work something out, can we agree? Thank you.--Ariobarza(talk) 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Dear Doug, I hate to say this but it may be time to consider placing an indef. protection on Ramesses II. Due to the nature of this king's monumental rule, his web page seems to be the victim of an abnormally large number of vandalism by anon IPs according to this article's history If it cuts down on vandalism by 80% (I don't pretend it will be 100%), it's still better than nothing. Of course, you could always discuss the matter with other experienced Admins first if you wish.

• I should note that WP's article on Terry Fox, one of Canada's greatest heros is also protected since it kept attracting constant IP vandalism. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: I see Ramesses II got vandalised again today. A pity! --Leoboudv (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there are now over 500 links to this page all over Wikipedia. I think most of these should be replaced with synonyms of some kind. You're welcome to comment at Talk:Anglosphere. 67.150.252.18 (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug. You recently removed some stuff from Newport Tower (Rhode Island) on the grounds that it is original research, or the bad kind of synthesis. I feel like some version of the material could be re-added to the article, since it is accurate, as far as I can tell. Of course, we have the problem here that we always run into with fringe archaeology, that of credible sources not bothering to deal with the multitude of wacky fringe claims. Can you think of anyway to add the basic, sourced point that astronomical alignments didn't disappear from European architecture after the Mediaeval Ages? I kind of thing it would aid the article in it's attempt to present an accurate and reliable collection of information. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

David Trochos (talk · contribs) is the most likely person to be able to help with this. I suggest you ask him, sorry, I'm a bit, well very, busy. dougweller (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, I am highly dissapointed with what you said about me on my ban page. I already resolved the issues, and I am in the process of doing it. This is the worst time, and it is the worst mistake to ban me. Just 3 days ago was I fine, and now I am about to get banned based on 3 elitist users opinions. They have not gave one shred of evidence that I broke any rules after my block was over, if I get banned my currently SOUrced articles will be gone too. How could this happen? What the hell did I do in the last month to deserve this? You protected the Thermoplyae battle for no reason, I resolved that issue right away with that user, and everything was fine, lies upon lies. People get banned for the worst of reasons, why me, Why me! I have 1% good faith for you now,unless you recount your statements on the page, and acknowledge that ChrisO is now proven to be hypocrite, and wrong on the Tigris battle because I now have the damning evidence that your ignoring too. Other than saying I waist time, why don't read my post once and get it over with, why prolong this dispute? With my last best regards(don't forget to respond on my page), goodbye!--Ariobarza (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I have kindly accepted a new proposal by user:rouix on my ban page. Please, if you could just go there and vote yes or nofor it, much appreciates.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Ariobarza talk

Thanks Doug for clearing up the point on my talk page. I just think some users have used the excuse of neutrality to balance articles that are in no need of balancing. With respect to others, I still keep an open mind about people, and simply don't appreciate the labeling of them as nationalists and vise versa. If I like editing computer articles, I don't think I should be called a computer nationalist. Its really a simple concept. For you, I have never and will never accuse you of being desrespectfull to other users. In fact, I think that you have helped me on Wikipedia more than anyone else. And I thank you for that. Best regards.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

im looking for ancient through medieval history modern is not my subject :). i know ancient greek, middle ages europe, and medieval europe. paricularly good with the crusades, spartans. but i have a good knowledge of everything.--Hoplite54(talk) 00:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

When you protected the Middle Ages article, you set the protection level to "edit=sysop". The article has been vandalised frequently, but all vandalism I can see since the last protection expired, with the exception of one edit by J295 (talk · contribs), is from IPs and new accounts. Was full protection intended or should it have been semi-protection with a continuation of the existing move protection? —Snigbrook 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Meant to be semi-protection with full move protection, but I can't change it for some reason, it keeps complaining about the expiry time. dougweller (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Something was definitely wrong there, but it's fixed now after a 3rd Admin tried. dougweller (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If the sources are unreliable, it should be pointed out within the article. There is this theory floating around, and it's being heard by lots of people across the world: by simply censoring it, we're not going to help anyone make up their mind.--Exidor (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'theory', a hypothesis really, is already mentioned in the article. It is a minor fringe idea, and the table has so many inaccuracies it simply should not be in the article. And as I said, it's a minor idea and WP:Undue would I think suggest that a mention is all that is appropriate. dougweller (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller,

I started on an Aubrey Organics article to keep adding to it as I believe they play an important role in the industry I am in but most of Aubrey Hampton and his company Aubrey Organics' role is unknown to most. I had no intention of advertising in any way. My first article was deleted the same way so I tried to improve on it with my wording and links, references, which was deleted by you. I have looked at some of the other entries that are similar such as Redken and Dr. Hauschka etc. and I don't see why my entry is classified as advertisement and they are not.

I had to keep it short due to the available time I have on my hands right now and have not had a chance to work on the important information such as when and what was achieved in their 42 years of work in the natural cosmetics industry.

Could you please let me know what I'm not doing or doing wrong? If possible I would like it to be available as it is, I will keep working on it or perhaps let me know what is causing the problem so I can fix it.

Thank you

PS: Under "Did I delete your page, block you, or do something else that I should not have done?" above, the link "let me know" to create a new entry goes to J.delanoy instead of your own. I ended up asking J.delanoy :)

JollyJelly (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. I thought I'd fixed that, thanks! dougweller (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, more reading before more typing. JollyJelly (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Tundrabuggy's language on Ariobarza's talk page has become unacceptable. Since TB has not been involved in any editing of Persian/Greek ancient history, his contributions on the talk page are purely trolling. He seems set on gratuitously annoying other wikipedians by posting hate messages. If he continues, I hope that somebody blocks him. He doesn't seem to realize that Elonka dropped Ariobarza's cause some time back. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe simply that the original research policy is that you must cite what your sources state rather than your own opinion. I did not say there was no OR in the article, but it can be correctd. I don't think thats a reason to delete the entire article. What I think is the main problem of the article, is that, yes there is some synthesis in it. That is why I have removed several sections that directly compare the two empires, and retained sections which explain the empire in each area. E.g. Roman economy(explained) Han economy(explained) and so on. I do not believe putting facts right next to each other is synthesis. If you have any doubts, check the sources of each paragraph. Thank you. Also, i hope you can reverse your delete vote as I have now found several new sources and rewritten part of the article. I have presented my case on why it should not be deleted in Afd template. I look forward to working with you if the article survives Afd. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't check the sources easily because of lack of page numbers. Some of the sources fail our criteria for reliable sources. An article about comparing two things should be based on sources that compare the two things, otherwise it is synthesis. I see where you are coming from, but that would justify an article comparing the Roman Empire with any culture or civilization, ie it would be literally pointless. dougweller (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that what I think two sections of facts right next to each other with different sources isn't synthesis. It's used in the most featured articles of wikipedia. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree article about comparing two things should be mainly based on sources that compare two things, but that doesn't prevent details from being added by sources that cover one spectrum of the article. For example, on the article "Comparing American and Canadian health care systems" the main sources are about comparing, with minor sources comparing details. In this article, it is structured similarly. Most sections have two or three paragraphs of sourced from a source that compares both of them, and one on each empire from a source that covers only one.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you still wish to delete the article? Teeninvestor (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bring Wikipedia; Comparison articles to my attention. see discussion;Teeninvestor (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, see this section:

"The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

Therefore, as long as all your claims are sustained by your sources, it is not original Research. I believe this settles our discussion about whether putting two bodies of facts next to each other is synthesis. As long as the sectiosn are true to their original content, they fit with wikipedia guidelines. Also, please do not attempt to interrupt in my private discussions; I for one do not endeauver to find out who you talk to when you are not discussing the comparison article. During the public debate, I have been (from my POV) relatively courteous to you. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't that simple. And on the OR talk page, you must have found that the other editors disagree with you.

As to private conversations, I'm afraid they don't exist on Wikipedia. Chiming in on conversations on other editors' talk pages is quite normal. One of the great things about Wikipedia is its transparency. dougweller (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I see this block is for 1 week; the last was for 6 months, and the one before that 3 months. Is there as reason for the short block? Is the problem getting better? I’d have thought (as someone who works in the NHS) the longer the better.
I thought I’d written to Ryulong about this last week (see here), but it seems the NHS has more than one IP address.Xyl 54 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here, why are you asking me as it was User talk:Sam Korn you need to talk to as he did the block.dougweller (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; you're right. I made an assumption because your name was on the note with the CU block. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I may have indeed made a mistake, but I'm confused about what current Wiki-culture is about withdrawing nominations. In my mind, it's better to let AfDs run their course in order to establish a community consensus. What do you think?

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen noms withdraw nominations recently, and as your recent AfDs are now being used to attack you, it would show GF. In this case I think it's pretty clear cut that it is going to be a keep anyway. It wouldn't hurt and I think would help to withdraw it - in this specific case. dougweller (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but I've also now been attacked for not "properly" withdrawing AfD nominations. I'm going to wait for an answer on what the "proper" withdrawl procedure is. Unless you can tell me. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, chiming in there. dougweller (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)