This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((helpme))
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We're so glad you're here! -- Madman 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I enjoyed your edit of Olmec alternative origin speculations.
Clovis, good buddy, let's not completely wipe out entire sections of Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations without discussion -- indeed without even edit notes. In particular, it appears to me that you are trashing the Olmecs as African school. We need to be respectful. Madman (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, here's someone to take up the cudgel against the New Age crowd! Let's see what the reaction is ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
He there. Would you mind having a look at my latest edit of the Turkey Mountain article and tell me what you think about it? Trigaranus (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you've twice removed a neutrality disputed tag from Pyramids of Guimar. I notice you're a relative novice here, so a friendly piece of advice - if you disagree with a cleanup tag, this isn't the best way to deal with it, as it'll just be put back - experienced editors only tend to add cleanup tags if they are actually needed. In this case, the issue is that there is an opinion "that Heyerdahl is controversial" which is not backed up with any evidence, so in order for the word controversial to remain, there needs to be some evidence that he is controversial (note that it's only a "neutrality disputed" tag, nothing more, so don't assume that anyone disagrees with it just because of tagging - it just needs sourcing). Hope that helps. I'll hold off from re-inserting it - if you're not able to find a source let me know and I'll add it back in, to flag the problem up to other editors in the hope that others can help. All the best SP-KP (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Cryptid. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Skomorokh 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Need some advice on dealing with editor with ownership problems who insists that there is a European megalithic culture, won't provide references etc -- see Talk:Megaliths thanks--Doug Weller (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- these seem obvious candidates for merger, but I'm not sure how to go about it and what to call the merged article. Any suggestions? ThanksDoug Weller (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"armed resistance" is at least as POV as "terrorism". Thanks for thinking of "violent action", which is neutral and to the point.[1] - Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What did you revert my changes on the Walam olum? Marburg72 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If this article is ever going to be for GA or greater status, every statement (particularly if it is broad and sweeping) within the article must be sourced. Don't merely revert a fact tag because you find it inconvenient. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Why'd you put that back? I really think it doesn't belong there.Doug Weller (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just filed an RfC about user Marburg72, one of whose edits you recently reverted. If you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view", or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so. David Trochos (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Good day! :-) On this edit, you seemed to change some of the punctuations. I would just like to discuss some of your changes.
1) This sentence doesn't make sense to me: "Instead, the Vikings exploited the natural resources such as furs and in particular lumber, which was in short supply in Norse Greenland due to deforestation
2) [sic] Not knowing whether the old Norse civilization remained in Vinland or not—and worried that if it did, would it still be Catholic 200 years after the rest of Scandinavia had experienced the Reformation—in 1721 a joint merchant-clerical expedition led by Norwegian missionary Hans Egede was sent to Greenland.
Thanks for your time. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue is largely one of WP:SELFPUB. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm on holiday, can't spend time on this. Pyle is a kook and the link with him needs to be removed or an explanation put up somehow that his claims are nonsense/refuted, but that will probably have to wait until I get back. The same website refutes them I think. Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I really shouldn't be online -- but you might want to keep an eye on this article also, see my edit just now. Doug Weller (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated the reference to Gavin Menzies' book. It is a violation of the neutral point of view policy to remove it because you believe it is inaccurate. As you know, it is very widely distributed and therefore notable. As evidenced from other comments on this page, you seem to be inclined toward removing that with which you disagree, rather than discussing it. Please, assume good faith and don't remove other people's work. Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you help me out a bit on that page. A user named Hordaland has reverted a lot of my edits. I don't understand. I think I'm a lot better at grammar than him so I would appreciated some comments (if you can). For example: "Unlike Greenland: which has been occupied for 500 years," is completely right: the listing of space (GreenL) is the ultimate placeholder---500 years is of space (just a reaction--indeed, you probably know the big bang theory), etc,. Last time I checked, units (500 years) can be listed. Believe it or not, the Maya/Inca were probably the 1st to develope the concept of time (indeed, the Inca refered to "time" as "earth". The guy might be racist coz he took the bolded part out in this sentence labeled: "who picked up the sword of a norse that had been killed by a flat stone to the head and charged the natives". Oh well, I guess ppl will be ppl. InternetHero (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with two of your edits to Bigfoot. First, you changed H. erectus to Homo erectus the full name was used previously. Why did you change it? The use if valid. Also, you changed "ape" back to "ape-like". The second one does not make sense in this context (although it is often used). I don't believe that anyone is claiming bigfoot to be anything other than an ape. I don't really care about the abbreviation of Homo but "ape-like" does not make any sense to me. —Fiziker t 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to set some conventions for the page as several things switch around quite freely even from sentence to sentence. Please see Talk:Bigfoot#Conventions. —Fiziker t 17:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I returned the section on Bigfoot fossils in Evidence regarding Bigfoot. See the talk page for my reason. Good job with the rest of the page. It still needs a lot of work but it's slowly getting better. —Fiziker t c 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you please re-evaluate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cremo? Your deletion criteria isn't grounded in any guideline or policy. I've found entries for Cremo in Contemporary Authors and a specialist encyclopedia, and I've added links to a couple of reviews of his work. There are at least a couple of other newspaper articles out there, but I can't access the full text at the moment. Still, I'm satisfied that the guy meets WP:BIO. Zagalejo^^^ 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's rather common to revert contributions that do not aid the article writing process, as that one was. The edits in question were added by a persistently unhelpful user who appears every week or two with a different IP in order to let the world know that here in America, we shoot at things no one has ever seen. I'm one of those with the thankless task of cleaning up his messes. — Lomn 22:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was gonna add one for the Heavener Runestone as well, but the one I have is no better than the one already there. I have lots of pics from my cross country trips( I tend to break up the drives by stopping at archeo sites, mostly mississippian mounds). But when I was going close to Heavener and saw a "runestone" was there, I had to stop and see that. I so laughed my @$$ off, it was so worth the detour just for the chuckle I got. To think, Norsemen made it all the way from Greenland, down the Atlantic coast, across the Gulf, up a series of rivers, and THEN decided to settle and start leaving runestones in OKLAHOMA of all places. Ah, the gullibility of some people. Glad to see there are other people on here fightin' the good fight, Cheers! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at Red Horn (legend)? There is an editor making POV editions, original research, conflict of interest, etc. He wont respond on the talk page, he just keeps reverting everything I do to maintain the neutrality of the article.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, his website is self-published. I don't see how it can stay in, even though it matches with what I've read other sources saying, including people who admire Fell. Doug Weller (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to revert User:Melaena's edit to Cryptid, which removed the statement that no cryptid has even been proven to exist. However, I'd prefer to have a reference for that statement. I can't find anything that specifically says something along those lines. Do you know of anything? —Fiziker t c 04:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind dropping in at Talk:Mark Rudd and explaining your edit in more detail? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
There have been a number of reverts over the inclusion of The Secret Saturdays in the Cryptid article. What is the reason you removed it from the article? It looks to me like it's fine (although I suppose it could be to obscure to bother including). —Fiziker t c 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. As you commented on the AFD for the page Exopolitics Institute, you may want to comment on the AFD of the successor article, Exopolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I reverted what you did to the articles on Guðríðr Þorbjarnardóttir, because you moved the page by copy-and-pasting. That is not the way to do it since we lose the article's edit history.--Berig (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
70.100.83.62 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You changed the Mesa Verde National Park article to group it as a "Protected Area of the State of Colorado". Technically, being a national park, it's a protected area in the state of Colorado - the state exercises no jurisdiction over it. I haven't bothered to do the research to see if that is an accepted style point, but....
Vulture19 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't have time, I was a bit distracted, see [2] - I've spent a lot of time dealing with his edits before yesterday. I like what you did. dougweller (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the unsourced/fringe material. Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey dude stop reverting my post on the location of atlantis. it is most definitely not vandalism i am actually being serious. --GanstaNinja (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A included a rationale, which explains my decision to keep the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In addition to including the bear with mange as one of the prominent sightings in the Bigfoot article, Sasquatch2 has created an article titled Jacobs Creature about it. I decided to give the article the benefit of the doubt and not put it up for deletion. I've tried improving the article but there doesn't seem to be much there. All I can see happening with this article is a quick discussion of where the photos came from, saying skeptics think that it's a bear with mange, saying believers think that it's a juvenile Bigfoot, and that it resulted in Bushnell offering a reward for a photo of Bigfoot. Can you tell me what you think about whether this article should be kept or not? —Fiziker t c 03:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sasquatch2 and I have been going back and forth on Talk:Bigfoot regarding whether the Jacobs Creature is prominent or not without any progress. Do you have any suggestions on the situation? —Fiziker t c 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
ClovisPt, just wanted to say thanks for wading into the edit war on my father's biography page. I fully recognize that I may not be entirely satisfied with the final result, but I can't accept a defamatory piece written by his detractors. I'm just asking people to be more objective and less hostile. I thought your post was good and hope it helps reset the tone. ThanksMikevf (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I said on his talk page I'd block him if he vandalised again (3 edits, all vandalism, now 5, ditto), but as he's vandalised me, I'm not sure I should. Next time though... dougweller (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
In Living dinosaur =) --Againme (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just realised that this may not meet our criteria for notability, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you should reconsider it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please delete the 2012 Doomsday Prediction article. It's not the end of the world in just three years, and I'm tired of freaking out over Doomsday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahs08 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you recently deleted content from Menehune. Could you use the talk page to explain it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you interested in helping with the merge to Cumbric language? Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The magazine is better known as just the Engineering and Mining Journal, which you may have a difficult time finding, depending on where you live. I ran across the article a few years ago while researching something else, and made a copy. It is clearly derived from press accounts, and treats the incident as a joke. My whole point in citing it was to show that the incident, whatever it was, was not (entirely) created 40+ years after the fact. If you leave me your email, I will scan the page and email you a PDF. Plazak (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Some libraries which have old issues of the Engineering and Mining Journal (as best I can recall): Denver (central branch), Colorado School of Mines, University of Arizona, Arizona State, University of California at San Luis Obispo. Look on Worldcat. Plazak (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I've got some stuff I could email you if you are interesting in helping work on an improved version. I've been looking at this for over a decade now. You can email me from my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You've been a regular contributor to the article on the Crips. Would you mind giving your opinion on this WP:Articles for deletion/Eight Tray Gangster Crips? Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have enough easy access to the Internet right now to work on this, but it is getting worse and worse in my opinion - I know it's an article you have edited in the past. First there is addition of Posnansky with no cites to anything serious, then another editor (Gingermint, now I really wish I was around as Gingermint is editing a lot of stuff on my watchlist) has in my opinion added some wording which is clumsy and adds further bias to the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that I had to nominate it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigfoot trap Northwestgnome (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, could you comment on this discussion? Do you agree that this article should be redirected as a content fork? Thanks. -- Ϫ 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Evidence regarding Bigfoot. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence regarding Bigfoot. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
In response to your point about many cryptid pages having notability problems, I very much agree. I have moved away from editing this area because there are other topics on which I have a far more unique ability to contribute. Nevertheless, when I have time I have been trying to add references or tag for notability. One particular article that could use some help is High-finned sperm whale - its notability has been lacking for so long that I finally had to put it up for AFD. None of the references that have been put forward in my opinion establish notability, so if you have a chance to look for notability-establishing refs there it would be great. If it really is notable I would rather refs be found to avoid deletion - no one wants to see an article on a notable topic go away. On the other hand, if those refs are not out there, it would be best if we knew that for sure. Thanks. Locke9k (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I am studying for a final right now, and today is the test. I am sorry for any disturbance this may have caused. I have been saddened by your description though, as it has been an attack on my character and identity. I am not Anti-Semite, nor do I ever wish to be. I have removed the entire section, because it served no purpose but discrimination. My intial attempt to rectify this was obviously misinterpreted. My only hope is that consolation is that not too much to ask for.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I am deeply concerned with the way that you and several other editors are treating that article. Can you explain what justifies it being an a negative tone, designed to condemn and minimize the truthfullness of the story altogether. Its suggesting to me you and others have the impression on the topic as, "it never happened, so it should be treated as such".
After reading these edit summaries, I am disturbed at the intentions of you and Dougweller:
Those summaries completely sum up yours and his intentions altogether. You clearly don't believe in it and as a result you're attributing your opinion to the article to represent suc. However, if I put "My opinion" into the article (which is wording it like it all happened, as it did) I get shot down in flames for it. May I ask? how is that justified? How does your opinion on the factuallity of an article automatically go above mine?
I'd like to see the article reverted back to the way it is. Yes this is an "encyclopedia" this is not a propaganda tool for negative anti-LDS spin control. Routerone (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You redirected the page 'Many-finned sea serpent' to 'Sea serpent'. Can you please explain why? Almost all of the information from the Many-finned sea serpent is inaccessible unless you go fishing through the history. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Not even a fringe idea, just someone's 'folly'. I've completely rewritten the article. I don't think it's notable though. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed your edit to Aveline's Hole with the edit summary "removing reference to a website containing text copied from wikipedia". Can I ask how you know it was copied from wikipedia & wasn't the other way around wp copying from them? Is there some tool available to find this?— Rod talk 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tom Van Flandern. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Van Flandern (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You may recall his edits at Angel Moroni - he was using a sock at that. He's denying it but it's CU confirmed, see User talk:Routerone. He even warned his IP sock! Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you have attached "citation needed" tags to several dozen of entries in the "Pop culture" section of Mu (lost continent). Note that many of those entries are printed books. Obviously a book itself is the most reliable source about its own plot and charaters (the blurb in Wikipedia:* about secondary and tertiary sources being better is just someone's ill-thought opinion, and these examples are obvious exceptions). Moreover, several of those entries have their own Wikipedia articles; if the disputed statement is taken from that article, the request for proof should be placed there.
Finally, consider what is the practical effect of tagging all those entries. On the down side, editorial tags (even the relatively modest "citation needed" ones) are as nice and reader-friendly as graffiti on a public building. Moreover Wikipedia has over 3,000,000 articles (growing) and perhaps 10,000 active editors (shrinking). If the editorial taggers demand 100 additional references for each article (as in the Mu example), then each editor will have to enter 30,000 references. So it is obvious that 99.9% of all the editorial tags that have been splattered all over Wikipedia will remain there forever.
Even if the tag requests were somehow complied with, *most of that work would be wasted* because readers and other editors will hardly ever use references for banal statements, much less check whether they do support the statements.
Note that when editor A inserts an editorial tag, he is not doing any useful work: he is merely requesting that someone other editor B do some work, that A feels should be done but is not willing do do himself. Note also that the effort needed to comply with a single "citation needed" request is 10 to 1000 times more than the effort of inserting the tag. Thus editorial tagging is fundamentally an arrogant and unfair activity that is detrimental to Wikipedia and to the morale of its best editors. Please reconsider and desist from it.
To escape these sins, editorial taggers should abide by the one request, one contribution rule: for each reference or substantial content paragraph that you enter, you get the right to place only *one* editorial tag in only *one* article. Anything more is arrogance, and allowing it is a recipe for disaster.
As for the trivia sections, note that every such entry (and every cleanup edit that others have done on those sections --- which was not a trifling amount of work, I can tell you!) is one vote in favor of those lists, no less valid or weighty than the votes of those editors who dislike them. So the editorial tag that requests their elimination reflects the opinion of a microscopic minority of the editors.
It is true that the Britannica does not have such lists; but Wikipedia is a wikipedia, not an encyclopedia. As Douglas Adams brilliantly foresaw, that sort of "non-stuffy-old-paper-encyclopedic" contents is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is much more popular and useful than all classical encyclopedias of the world put together. (Indeed you will not find mention of the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster in the Britannica, but Wikipedia does have a half-page section on it --- longer than the Hitch Hiker Guide's entry, in fact! 8-)
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Four years ago, when I became a wikipediaholic, editing was fun and intellectually rewarding. Now I find that an increasing fraction of my login time is is wasted checking purely cosmetic zero-value edits by robots, and defending my previous work from a growing army of robot-wielding wikivogons and deletionazis. It is not so much fun anymore. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm off to bed, I don't know if you want to report this guy to ANI or what, but I've noted all his IP addresses so far at Talk:1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. They all are editing the same articles and geolocate to Columbia, South Carolina, so it's a WP:DUCK. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. Hopefully everything will be okay now; I've looked up quotes from the original studies and scientific reports.MXVN (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe you undid my edits at Zodiac Killer and left the message "reverting recent edits be editor who insisted on inserting a signature." Why was my edit undone?
The Zodiac Killer page is presently stating the "Vallejo Police Department tried to contact him to charge him with the murders." I believe that is incorrect and at any rate, the listed source, chasingthefrog.com doesn't state that.TL36 (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. EuroPride (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Samuel Morison refers to him as "the first discoverer of North America since the Northmnen's voyages" - Columbus never saw North America. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at this and the associated AfD (and if that interests you, the associated articles by the same author). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)