User talk:Dougweller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot.
Any sections older than 100 days are automatically archived.

Contents


I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.



[edit] Sodom and Gomorrah

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

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

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

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


[edit] Olsson "Editors"

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

[edit] Pin the Tail on the Donkey

I better not continue this on the ANI page or I'll get slapped (again). I especially like the part where someone tagged it wanting an "expert" to review it. It fits, in more ways than one, a bit of dialogue from Duck Soup where Groucho Marx says, "This document is so easy a 4-year-old child could understand it!" Then, in an aside to an advisor, "Go out and find me a 4-year-old child. I can't make head or tail of it!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Grobnik field

This newspaper article is speaking about history myths and reality. Words about Battle of Grobnik field are: "Historians are knowing that this battle is not in any document from that time and because of this agreement is (between historians) that this battle is myth".--Rjecina (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I wish someone could convince Egyptzo of the important of sources, he relies on his memory. I wouldn't dream of starting a new article without sources, but then I enjoy the research and like to be sure that what I am writing about is pretty accurate (one problem is when you start researching you find that things aren't simple and there isn't just one answer).--Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This newspaper is speaking about Croatian president Franjo Tuđman visit on anniversary of battle (750 years). With this I am done because there is very little internet sources which are speaking about "battle".--Rjecina (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (rm irrelevant promotion of Urantia book -- this is fringe, inappropriate here.

Mr. Weller,

The charge The Urantia Book is "fringe" and "inappropriate" is nonsense. The Urantia Book has been published since 1955 and has sold more than 500,000 copies, making it a popular and best selling book through time. It is included in Wikipedia, not as "fringe" material, or in any sense inappropriately. Giving attribution of the source is not "irrelevant promotion." To exclude the source of the reference in question reduces it to an unsupported assertion.

Since The Urantia Book's inclusion in Wikipedia, I have made it an occasional task to check the accuracy of both punctuation and content of the page. Occasionally as my use of Wikipedia may dictate, I find a topic that could benefit from information found only in The Urantia Book. Such is the case here. The vast amount of unprecedented information regarding the historical Jesus in The Urantia Book will only slowly make its way into articles like this one, and unfortunately that advent will not infrequently have to contend with attempts to exclude it from the thought stream of knowledge due to the personal prejudices of individuals.

Your comment and removal of my edit may reflect your personal opinion of The Urantia Book, but does not meet any justifiable standard regarding the information provided by the UB reference and edit. I note you've had a previous run-in with another "Urantia" editor, which makes your swift action here appear all the more personally rather than professionally motivated.

If necessary, I will continue to engage this issue with the appropriate persons. Saitia (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead. I'm not the only editor who finds your edit inappropriate. I suspect I will always have run-ins with POV editors who label things they don't like vandalism, I'm not the only one having problems with that editor. Doug Weller (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It is always a problem when a POV editor thinks his edits are NPOV. I am not the only one apparently having problems with this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston (talk • contribs) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You're having problems with Saitia? By the way, when are you going to apologise for issuing me with a 3RR warning when I only made one edit a week? Of course, you did get blocked because you yourself broke WP:3RR which was ironic. Meanwhile, fringe is fringe and I'm not the one defining it. I think fringe stuff like the Urantia book should definitely be on Wikipedia, in its own article, but it doesn't belong in Crucifixion as other editors have made clear. Funny neither of you have posted to User:Lima's talk page complaining, why is that? Because of the comment about that editor's great efforts at NPOV -- but as that editor said, the article is about the Crucifixion, it is not about the Urantia Book, which is not a WP:reliable source for crucifixion. Read WP:Coatrack.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion gained from regurgitated or parroted second hand knowledge. You seem to be on some crusade to prevent truth from being known, but that is something you will have to deal with on your own. I am certainly not your enemy, nor is truth, but you might concentrate on what you do know instead of what you think you know. From what I understand Wiki is about improving articles and the promulgation of truthful information, not about trying to perpetuate erroneous biased points of view. I would hope we could come to some common ground together before we take it to a higher level unnecessarily. Just out of curiosity would you explain this edit of yours? It appears to be the first Urantia edit you made. Revision as of 11:51, 5 March 2008 (edit) (undo) Dougweller (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 1 edit by 66.162.25.3 identified as vandalism to last revision by Richiar. (TW)) Majeston (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As for my edit, that was my reverting an attempt to change a passage that mentions "six bestowal incarnations of Jesus" to one that said "six bestowal incarnations of Michael", so my first edit to The Urantia Book was to fix it, a good thing, right? I probably saw that on 'recent changes' -- an IP editor, their first edit, always a warning sign.
As for trying to prevent the truth, or Wikipedia being about the promulgation of truthful information, you (and some other editors) have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's aims. Please read WP:VERIFY which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It goes on to say (under the section about Reliable sources) Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

No disrespect, I don't think that describes any word of scripture or belief. Adding the Urantia book to the Crucifixion article does not add anything to it but a mention of the Urantia book, which I can understand you would like to promote, but it's inappropriate there.

If you do treat editing as a conflict between the truth and people trying to prevent the truth, I think you will continue to have problems. Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, the Urantia book is certainly a fringe production. Roger Pearse 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)
After looking at the NPOV policy and the comments on the talk page, and indeed the Urantia page itself, I've marked it with the NPOV disputed tag. Frankly the article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Roger Pearse 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Doug, when you made your first edit attributing it to vandalism were you aware of http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p120.htm or aware of http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p121.htm  ? As far as the crucifixion article, I was not promoting anything. I think I made that clear on it's talk page and thought simply a ref would suffice. The Urantia book not only contains an entire account on the crucifixion but it describes in detail the method which no other source does. As far as I am aware, there is no existing remains of any cross of crucifixion anywhere from these distant times and all the information is theory.

Roger, you definitely have a personal problem. LOL but, don't let truth get in the way of your well researched verifiable deep seated opinions. Majeston (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Majeston, I was not aware of those web pages. Why should I be? The article has had that phrase for almost a year, with the exception of the edit I reverted. Maybe it wasn't vandalism, maybe it was confusion, but I checked and that was what the article had said for some time, and an IP edit with no explanation, especially a new IP, should always be checked. I would normally remove vandalism from any article no matter what it was, but I probably would be wise to make an exception here. As for the Urantia book and the crucifixion, the level of detail in it doesn't matter since it isn't sourced on historical documents. Please don't use my talk page to insult others. I've noticed that most good editors get insults, so I don't mind them aimed at me, but not others.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Well, I don't think an in-kind response to such a superficial assessment, "disgrace", of an article that has been edited by well over a hundred competent editors over several years can be termed insulting. In fact I would think the person in question has broadly and without regard insulted quite a few editors in one fell swoop. But, of course, that's only my opinion. Perhaps, you might ask other editors to not come to your talk page and insult the hard work of so many other "good" editors.

As far as I know there are no historical documents nor artifacts of the manner of the crucifixion relating to the way the nails were driven in nor to the support for the body weight. If there are perhaps you will be so kind as to direct me to the evidence. Until such time, I prefer truth over speculation. Majeston (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia isn't about the search for truth, and certainly isn't a place for 'revealed truth', so you have a problem there. And lots of people think they have The Truth, you are no different (except of course for your username which rather proclaims your belief).
Editors can say what they want about content on talk pages (except I guess infringements of BLP, insulting editors personally can get you into trouble. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


I can see I'm banging my head against a brick wall. No problem, I'm done here. Bye Majeston (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Inventions in the Islamic world

No problem at all, I am glad you gave the heads-up, as you are right that this is the kind of issue that can get out of control really fast. Complicating issues is that the article does have a number of legitimate problems: The tone is kindof WP:PEACOCKy, it is too long, it is poorly organized and poorly sourced (and many of the claims I find dubious). Those problems aren't unique to this article; a lot of the articles of the form List of Inventions by a Certain Type of Person have those same problems. For instance, Canadian inventions is completely unsourced, but of course it's not like Newsweek is running a front page article about the rift between the values of Canada and the rest of the world ;D

I'll give it a second look, particularly the comment you pointed out. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed Oxyman42's edits, and given him a lengthy warning on his talk page. It appears he is the same as indef blocked User:Protest against islamic imposition, but that is already public knowledge (see this diff). However, User:Slakr chose not to impose further sanctions at that time, so I will not report to WP:SSP. He has a number of useful contribs in regards to the London transporation system, so I am not eager to see this user indef blocked -- but I would definitely hope he would stay away from articles relating to Islam, or at least tone it down some. I'll keep an eye. Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm found to be so noteworthyOxyman42 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fasta (Frisian)

"I see you added category Mythology to this non-existent 'Fasta'"

No worries on the cat change. I'm working the WP:UNCAT mega-list, and for max speed I often end up booting obscure articles into rather general categories for specialists to refine, so I appreciate your help narrowing the cat there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noah's Ark

Doug, Taiwanboi is calling for a vote on the 20th century scholarship section of the Noah's Ark article ([[1]]). Your voice would be welcome. PiCo (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've spent a lot time at afd's, but your catch tops them all

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your brilliant catch at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Featherproof books, Brewcrewer plasters your talk page with the appropiate barnstar.brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI at Sollog biography

You have been reported for possible COI at the Sollog biography. Go to WP:COIN to comment.Arnold1 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply about redirects

Sorry about the lack of edit summaries. Since some needed a slight wording tweak, or other misc stuff as I was removing the redirects, many of the edit summaries would have needed extra/different info. I figured it was obvious to anyone checking that I was just removing redirects, so I took the lazy option. I apologise :) All done now though. 58.165.171.92 (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem. I just found a few more, so I'll tidy them with an edit summary since there are only a few. Take care. 58.165.171.92 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Davenport Tablets

Sorry that you oppose the source about the Davenport Relics so vehemently. Your opinion against this source as "Fringe" is simply unjustified and unscientific, despite the careful and complete research that the author did for this significant work. As a contribution to the understanding of the Davenport Tablets, it is unmatched. I have added the Source to the Wikipedia Article as a contribution to the group, despite your strange objections. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not being vehement to point out that Guthrie's article fails the criteria "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." You haven't been able to find any reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, all you can tell me is that it's been discussed by email, etc. That isn't bias, that is just fact, whereas your statement that 'it is unmatched' is clearly your personal opinion. My objections are not strange, but the idea that this is a 'group' is simply wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You choose to ignore any and all materials including scholarly articles that are relavent that I have referenced. Your personal opinion about Guthries work failing to be a reliable source needs to be verified. As long as your going to run with the source not being reliable, what source did you use for that viewpoint? Once again, wikipedia Sources should present a neutral point of view. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on the talk page for the Davenport tablets. Wikipedia articles need all significant views from reliable sources, and there are guidelines about what is a reliable source. I'll add this there: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources."

[edit] Re: post on my talk page

RE: reversion page. Thanks! I like it too. :) To answer your question, a lot of times, after a vandal is warned for the first time, it annoys them that Wikipedia is not as easy to mess around with as they thought. Not believing that it was possible for the good guys to revert them so fast, they go to another page, and, being too lazy to actually type out gibberish by banging on the keyboard like this:


asipht['asog'[ shtew[0ht]-u]NQ\R4=Q]V2U[U;OIUHTPWEHT[ VUEPH[v j[OJ KGJ'goja 'gja'sjg'asjv asopr


they start clicking on the buttons above the edit window, like so:


Italic text == Image:Headline text--J.delanoygabsadds 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[[Media: == Example.ogg ==#REDIRECT [[
Insert textSmall Text<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math><br /> <gallery> Image:Example.jpg|Caption1 Image:Example.jpg|Caption2</small><sub><blockquote> Subscript text<small>Small Text</small> </blockquote><br /><blockquote> {| class="wikitable" |- Block quote |}<br /><!-- [Comment]<math><nowiki>Insert formula here--J.delanoygabsadds 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[[Media: == Example.ogg ==]]</math> -->

</gallery></nowiki>]]]] ==



(sorry, I've always wanted to have a good reason for doing that :D )

Re: Cahokia page You can use ref tags. Ref tags, <ref></ref> simply make it so that any text between the tags appears in the list of references when <references/> or {{reflist}} is used. I fixed one of your refs to (what I assume) is the correct format. Here is the diff so you can see what I did. Just be sure to include a bibliography near the reflist on the page so that people can find your books if they wanted to verify the article. Hope that helps. If not, feel free to ask again. J.delanoygabsadds 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never seen that format before. Let me look at it and see if I can figure out what is going on. J.delanoygabsadds 18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New header cause something is broken above

I figured it out. Here is your problem. You accidentally included a ">" where it shouldn't have been. Don't feel too bad for doing that. One time, I was working on an XML document, and I spent the entire afternoon trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. I forgot a closing quotation mark. :D J.delanoygabsadds 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly how you feel. I do that all. the. time. J.delanoygabsadds 18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worth Hamilton Weller

I note your recent addition of Worth Hamilton Weller to the list of prominent alumni of Walnut Hills High School and your listing him as having graduated in 1932. Have you good documentaiton of that? The reason I ask is that he is NOT listed in the 1932 Remembrancer (the school's yearbook) but is listed in the 1931 edition. This suggests that he actually graduated in 1931. Because of the connection between this alumni listing and your larger article on him, I am not changing the year before checking with you.

By the way, the photo you placed of him appears to be the photo taken for the yearbook. Pzavon (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the yearbook is correct, I don't know what I was thinking. Interesting about the photo. My dad (his brother) gave it to me. Thanks very much for pointing this out, I'll change it now. Doug Weller (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hadrian the head

Wait, did I add a note of thanks to the wrong editor's talkpage? If so, I'm a dunce. Anyway, it looks like someone else has already taken care of the image's talkpage on commons. Ford MF (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that editor had simply reverted some vandalism to my edit, which was the image one. They'll be confused. :-) Thanks for letting me know about the image's talkpage. Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)