Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 6 June 2014

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that 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.

Require administer for discussion in talk page of Nanking Massacre

I see you are an administrator.If you are an administrator, can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfactory. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre".
Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014

Require administer for discussion in talk page of Nanking Massacre

I see you are an administrator.If you are an administrator, can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfactory. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre".
Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=610312951 reported by User:75.73.22.81 Thank you.

Barbara Thiering

I think it is inappropriate and biased to state in the article on Barbara Thiering, especially early on in the article, that people disagree with her. Would you have such announcements in articles on any other religious denomination? None is accepted by consensus, or majority, or even large minority. Are there warnings in the articles on Roman Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, atheism, and so on, telling readers that they have critics who dismiss their positions? It's an extremely trivial issue, and it goes without saying. It adds nothing to readers' grasp of the subject of the article.

This is an extremely important article for me, the only important article on Misplaced Pages, because I'm utterly convinced that Barbara Thiering's theories are utterly correct, that it is only a matter of time before they become widely accepted, and that her gospel must get out. If not on Misplaced Pages, where else?

My name is Marshall Price. I live in Miami, Florida. I read Barbara Thiering's three books for the lay public a long time ago, and then acquired a dictionary of Biblical Greek, the Greek Bible she recommended, lots of books on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, downloaded texts of ancient Jewish, Roman, and Greek historians, and works by her detractors, none of which had anything to say directly about the validity of her work, except to comment on other people's opinions of her (almost all of them falsely claiming to be experts, and biased by their own religions against her interpretations) and make up lies. When carbon dating seemed to prove her wrong, and was widely cited as evidence against her, it was only a matter of time before the early estimates were proven wrong, and newer estimates showed her dating to be plausible. Arguments about the calligraphy were also wrong. There is no valid argument against anything she says except for one thing: I think she used the wrong word for medicines which induce vomiting, calling them emetics or something. I forget now. This came up in a Yahoo newsgroup, where she remained for a year or so before finally giving up, due to the annoying and ignorant people who intruded on the group and made it unusable.

My old username was "Unfree", but I lost my password and had to start a new account, which I did only recently (having been away from the Internet for a long time), now under the username "Funfree".

I try to avoid bias and practice courtesy at all times, especially on Misplaced Pages.

The three books Professor Thiering has written for the general public are very hard to get outside of Australia. People say otherwise, but they haven't been through the challenge. I have. The books are listed everywhere, but when you try to order them, you run into difficulties. That was my experience when I first tried to get them, and discovered I had to have them shipped from Australia. I've fallen into poverty since then, and haven't tried since I lost everything, including my library.

Somewhere on Misplaced Pages, perhaps right in that article, the details of her findings ought to be aired, so the world can judge for itself the validity of her work.

When I deleted the sentence from the opening paragraph stating that she has detractors, I believed I was doing the right thing. It's like saying in the opening paragraph about a composer that critics have panned him. Big deal. It's irrelevant and annoying to readers who come looking for information. Funfree (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I, obviously, am not Dougweller, but I like butting into conversations anyway, and saw this thread on my watchlist. First of all, I regret to say that, as far as scientific theories go, regarding Barbara Thiering, which is I believe the article to which you are referring(?), so far as I remember having seen in the various reference works and overviews that I have seen regarding topics relating to her theories, her specific theories are more or less regarded in the academic world as fringe theories more or less as per WP:FRINGE. I don't know if there is a clear guideline regarding where in articles we indicate to potential readers that fringe theories of academics do qualify as fringe theories, but we are more or less obliged, in the interest of NPOV, to do so somewhere prominently. Now, I know that lots of academic theories regarding religious beliefs are considered fringe, including some of my own. But, as per our policies and guidelines, it is incumbent on us to present theories which have not received much academic support as not having received support, at least when discussing those theories from a scientific viewpoint. And, for all I know, I think there may well be article on composers, or poets, or other artists, in which the lead indicates their work received negative response. However, those are creative artists, and Thiering is an academic. In the case of artists, what is involved is matters of taste, in the latter matters of academic opinion.

Regarding your comment about "other denominations," I admit I am at a bit of a loss. Your comment seems to be indicating, perhaps, that there is a group of people, either of a specific denomination or, perhaps, a loosely organized group which might cross denominational lines, which does clearly adhere to her theories. If that adherence to those theories is specifically to those theories as "her theories" per se, there clearly might be a place to indicate that, specifically in an article on that group, provided it is notable as per our notability guidelines. Unfortunately, I regret to say, not all denominations do meet notability standards here, and I have no way of knowing whether the group you are discussing does or does not meet such notability guidelines without knowing its specific name, if it has one.

Regarding your statement that there should be a place to present your theories, I agree, and think that the appropriate place would be in either the article on her or on her works in which she advances those theories, provided they meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, and I have every reason to believe they do. Feel free to put together such an article. Personally, right now I am wading through reference books of all sorts trying to get together lists of what they cover, but would be more than willing to e-mail to you any reliable sources I could find which would provide material which could be used in such an article. I might also try, depending on if your request coincides with a time I need another break from these seemingly interminable lists of encyclopedic articles, to try to help bring such articles up to GA or FA level, if you so wish. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that this has come up several times in the last few days - editors making the fundamental misunderstanding about how we work. To quote a discussion at Talk:Bart D. Ehrman "Per No original research, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." See also Talk:Richard C. Hoagland#RfC: Should article be trimmed down. Our articles are meant to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject, and if what they say is that she is fringe or dismissed by academia, our article needs to make this clear. Misplaced Pages is not meant to air someone's work in the way you want it to. Try Wikiversity. Your comment about religions is irrelevant, Thiering is not a religion, she is a person and people are treated very differently from religions. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall my comment about religions, but considering that Thiering's work is almost entirely about the New Testament, and that her revelations contradict the firmly-held positions of many millions of Christians, and thousands of highly respected professional experts on the New Testament, it ought to be obvious that she has an immense opposition, and her own safety is at risk. Even espousing her findings invites hateful insults. Funfree (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You said you believe her, which I mistakenly took as being a statement of religious belief. It also seems to me that you are rather dubiously acquainted with much of the major scholarship of the past few years, including Bart Ehrman, who is a self-described agnostic and has gone out of his way to point out the errors in the transmission of the text of the Bible, Elaine Pagels, who has shown remarkably sympathy to gnostic Christianity, and others. Surprisingly, so far as I've heard, Ehrman, who is much more visible and much better-selling than Thiering and has pointed out errors in the gospels, has so far as I can tell never complained about any risks to his safety. I regret to say that your own comment above shows a tendency towards the statements of conspiracy theorists in general, and except where specifically notable and/or indicated in reliable sources, we don't base content on them. Also, it is I regret to say true that even some of those considered most reliable on Qumran matters, some of whom hold their own fringe beliefs, have indicated that even among the Qumran community of scholars, including some pagans and Jews with no particular interest in Jesus, the idea of the later, Christian-era Qumran has little support based on the evidence of Qumran as opposed to the Maccabeean-era theory more widely accepted. Yes, it is always possible that the academic world is wrong and/or biased, and a small group of individuals have caught their mistakes. Unfortunately, as per WP:WEIGHT and our other content guidelines, whether we particularly like them or not, we go by the academic consensus, which so far as I can tell is clearly against the Christian-era Qumran hypothesis. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Qumran not located in Israel under International Law

Dear Doug,

Even though I value your work as editor, I also consider your editing as vandalism and you help disperse political disinformation.

Qumran is located in Palestine, in the Occupied Westbank, and under International Law, Qumran can not be considered Israeli.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Israeli-occupied_territories https://en.wikipedia.org/Palestinian_territories

Thus writing that Qumran is located in an Israeli National Park is helping the Israeli government spread lies via Misplaced Pages.

If you will not correct your editing, I will address this with other people in wikipedia

User:Toatec, at the moment the article simply says it is in the park and we can reference that. If you have an acceptable source that says the park is in Palestinian territory discuss that on the talk page. What is importNt to me is that this is sourced correctly, shows any significant views, and that there is no edit warring, particularly by IPs hopping. Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Doug, See links:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/11/bethlehem-tourism-christmas-israel-palestine-pilgrims.html#

http://alt-arch.org/en/heritage/

Quote: Archeological sites in the Occupied Territories have a double political significance: spatial control and influence over public consciousness. The sites of Susya, Tel Shiloh, Qumran, Herodion, and others, are presented as part of the past of the Jewish people. Visits to these sites and the display of their archeological remains ( including those whose origins are disputed) are meant to imbue visitors with the feeling that they are standing amid an integral part of the past of the Jewish people. For the most part, the guided tours and explanations in the sites mention nothing, or very little, about other peoples or cultures who live or have lived in the region. In some sites, such as Susya, the Palestinian inhabitants were even physically expelled from their houses in order to make room for visitors. Claiming these sites as part of the Israeli national heritage, while ignoring the Palestinian villages and residents in the area, is aimed at strengthening the legitimacy of the settlements within the Israeli consensus.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/the-biblical-pseudo-archeologists-pillaging-the-west-bank/273488/

Quote: If a settlement is ever reached between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, under the so-called Road Map for Peace, due to reach its conclusion in 2005, it is likely Qumran will fall into the area of a new Palestinian State and one of the most important of all the Jewish historical sites will no longer be under Israeli jurisdiction. Prior to 1967 the area around Qumran was controlled by the Jordanians and had been since the end of the war which saw Israel established as an independent State in 1948.

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/Unfolding%20the%20Secrets%20of%20the%20Copper%20Scroll%20at%20Qumran.html

Quote: Price says his own work underwrites Israeli precedence in some Palestinian land. "Despite the fact that Qumran is probably on the map as the Palestinians', the fact is we're unearthing ancient Jewish heritage," he said. "There's nothing here that speaks to any other people."

Price's politics are unlikely to disrupt his access to the Qumran plateau, however. Located in the West Bank, permits to excavate around Qumran are not issued by the Palestinian Authority, but rather by Israel's Civil Administration. It's a bizarre arrangement, which critics say allows Israeli officials and religious pseudo-scientists to cooperate in raiding cultural treasures.

Archaeology in the West Bank--specifically, who has the right to dig, interpret, and store artifacts--is a wedge issue that ties into broader struggles over resource control in the occupied territory. "Are we trying to be nationalist?" Price said. "In this conflict of religious ideas that affect the political situation, you have to take a side somewhere."

And additionally see below But easiest is to see the location on google maps https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Qumran/@31.741358,35.459051,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x150333e1203003c9:0x117008f8a020565f

http://www.pef.org.uk/qumran/ http://www.mepc.org/articles-commentary/commentary/palestinians-ongoing-attempt-simplify-others https://www.flickr.com/photos/rnadrchal/12821846925/

You've done a lot better than I have, as I was only coming up with stuff such as . What is obviously needed is an entire section discussing this, with a short bit in the lead summarising it in a sentence. I hope you can draft this. If you haven't already, copy this to your edit request. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, give me a bit of time then...I thought looking on a map would suffice for all...but if you want this added ok, I will put in more effort and reformulate the above.

The thing is, User:Toatec, it's more complicated (and interesting) then just looking at a map. Looking at a map for instance won't explain why it's controlled by the Israel Antiquities Authority, or any of the stuff you've found. Hopefully we can put it in a way that also minimises edit warring. Please sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry with the 4 tildes? where ? It has been some 5 years that I last edited an article...

If I sum up the things above, where and how do I place it ? I can't edit the article at the moment.Toatec (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected user page at User:Doug Weller. (edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Qumran is located in the Westbank, which under International Law is considered illegally occupied by Israel. Even though Qumran is not in Israel, it, like the rest of the Westbank is controlled by the Israeli military, and since Qumran holds important historical Jewish treasures has been put under the administration of the Israeli Qumran National Park authority. The aim is to claim this historical site as Jewish, both physically as well in the minds of visitors to Qumran. Often treasures from Qumran are also illegally transported to West-Jerusalem, and placed in the Israeli Museum.

Sources:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/11/bethlehem-tourism-christmas-israel-palestine-pilgrims.html# http://alt-arch.org/en/heritage/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/the-biblical-pseudo-archeologists-pillaging-the-west-bank/273488/ http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/Unfolding%20the%20Secrets%20of%20the%20Copper%20Scroll%20at%20Qumran.html https://en.wikipedia.org/Status_of_territories_captured_by_Israel

Toatec (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok I placed the above text on the talk page of Qumran, as you told me to. When will this be modified? Otherwise I will do it again next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toatec (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Akocsg is falsifying information from a reference

This editor is using two sources, falsely, stating that the Huns used a Turkic language, thus allowing them to be listed under List of Turkic dynasties and countries. I have posted on the talk page explicit information showing that both of Akocsg's sources do not state the Huns to be a Turkic language, that the Huns had Iranic and Germanic names, not simply Turkic, and that the Hunnic language article shows multiple theories. Akocsg's edit war to include the Huns gives undue weight to one theory. Since Akocsg has no interest in using the talk page, instead issuing a threat, "No, you are wrong. Stop your edit-war! My whole (!) source is about the core of the Huns bearing Turkic names, I'll report you now.", what is your suggestion?

Akocsg clearly noticed I had removed the Huns earlier from the article stating "per talk page", Akocsg then tried to remove said section from the talk page, and is now edit warring under the guise of "referenced information" to re-add them.,,. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I agree that this is disruptive, besides edit warring. Dr.K. has joined the fray, and now I see that Rajmaan is working on article improvement, so those are good signs. Especially the talk page edit concerns me: Akocsg should be advised that with such edits (and summaries) they are basically advertising themselves as a non-neutral editor, and coupled with the edit warring they are walking a very fine line. Any more of this warring and they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Ha, and I managed to say nothing at all about the alleged falsification of sources. If you can argue this case convincingly, then that's cause for an immediate block, I'd say--but I'll leave that to Dougweller, who is more knowledgeable than I am, and on whose premises I am intruding anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• BTW, I looked at the Hunnic language article. That section is awful, esp. the beginning, sourced as it is to HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE which, as far as I can tell, has no status to speak of. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Drmies. I just saw the ping. Rapid-fire edit-warring coupled with loud edit-summaries and non-participation on talk are not good signs. After my 3RR warning on their talk they appear to have stopped. Δρ.Κ.  16:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Now with socks on

I felt obliged to block Akoscg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same as above with two letters switched). Favonian (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies Did you notice I took 2 new articles to AfD? Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sock turned out to be unrelated. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rangeblock possible?. Thank you. NeilN 14:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

An uncivil editor

Hi Dougweller. At your convenience I was wondering if you could take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vince Molinaro and then this on my talk page. I go to extreme lengths to avoid getting into inter-personal conflicts with other editors but when rude behavior threatens to drive another editor off the project I get a little irritated. This guy seems to be really badgering another editor and the commentary is down right rude. I was wondering if you couldn't drop a friendly "tone it down" note. Thanks -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ad Orientem

, many apologies. Do you think I still should intervene? He seems to have calmed down. Given the arguments about notability not being conferred by a book, I'm wondering if David Wilcock meets our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point I think things have moved beyond the point of any useful intervention. Woz2 has resigned and vanished himself from the project. Maybe he will come back. Some do. I will take a look at the Wilcock article when I get a few minutes later today. Thanks for the reply... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, although even if I had responded it looks as though he'd decided to go, and the latest exchange between him as an IP and EEng seems civil. And EEng did say, early on at the AfD, "I'm afraid all your effort will be wasted, which would really be too bad". You could say he's a bit abrasive I guess. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Request

Requesting title change for articles: Jubilees to Book of Jubilees and Sirach to Book of Sirach. My reason is that these are the only books that don't have "Book of" before the name like the Book of Enoch or Book of Baruch -- ♣Jerm♣729 04:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bible#Page move request for Sirach. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to have your opinion on the new section of the discussion I'v created: NPOV violation. -- Thnx -- ♣Jerm♣729 08:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

• News and notes: The English Misplaced Pages's second featured-article centurion; wiki inventor interviewed on video

• Featured content: Zombie fight in the saloon

• Traffic report: Get fitted for flipflops and floppy hats

• Recent research: Predicting which article you will edit next

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Thiering's book' notability.

In the discussion under "Notability", you wrote, "None of them are particularly positive, but we can use them as sources." But I'd like to point out that positivity isn't necessarily a good thing. My grandfather held the opinion that he got a lot more mileage out of bad press than good press. Funfree (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Your grandfather, me, Dougweller, and every other knowledgeable editor. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

You have said to keep a neutral point of view, but bias is running rampant on the Far Right Misplaced Pages page. It emphasizes nazism and gives a history lesson on the Nazi Party rather than talk from a neutral, truthful prospective. When I removed a section that gave a briefing on Nazi ideologies, you sent a warning. I will not proceed to edit any articles like that again, but I do hope you would consider revising that article to a neutral perspective. TheWkThink (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Doug, I have no patience with the Nazis are left-wing kind of soapboxing and I've blocked them indefinitely: they are not here to improve the project. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I expect 180.216.13.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person. Doesn't really matter whether or not; I'll block them on their own merits at the next tendentious edit. Well, if I see it; feel free to steal my thunder if I don't. Warned on their page. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

(P.S. I've noted 130.95.254.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and your post here also, Doug. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC).)

• Tendentious like this? Drmies (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Does your trigger finger itch? Sorry, that one was posted shortly before my warning. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

• Oh! Well, guess where I was just at. Sorry to, ahem, steal that thunder. On another note, how are you all with Norwegians? I had one over for dinner yesterday and he was very nice. He was not blond so I am a bit distrustful. He refused to tell any jokes about Swedes though I pressed the point. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, you blocked them anyway, flying Dutchman. Oh well. That can't have been a real Norwegian. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC).
• I can see it's been busy while my wife and I have been watching 3 episodes of The Closer!. Off to bed soon. Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• He did have a pretty weird accent. And he had been exercising. On those skis with wheels under them. In Alabama. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Those things are OK, and not being blond. But not knowing any Swedish jokes is a tell. Wanna hear a Swedish joke? A Dane, a Norwegian and a Swede went up together in a small plane. The Norwegian pilot realised they were about to run out of gas. "OMG, we've only got two parachutes!" The Swede said: "You only brought two, you idiot? Gimme one of 'em! I don't care how you two jokers settle the rest between you!" — "Oh, OK, I realise it's my fault", said the Norwegian. "Here you are. We'll think of something." The Swede put on the parachute and jumped out. — "Now what?" said the Dane, considerably irritated. — "Not to worry", said the Norwegian. "I gave him the rucksack." Heard it, huh? Bishonen | talk 19:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Geospatial intelligence may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• information and services (GI&S); formerly referred to as mapping, charting, and geodesy). It includes, but is not limited to, data ranging from the ultraviolet through the microwave
• * ]: Electronic intelligence]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Durupınar site may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made".{<ref name=Noorbergen>{{cite book|last1=Noorbergen|first1=Rene|title=The Ark File|date=2004|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 28

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 28. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

SIOA

Hi Doug,

Please note that your edit to the "Stop Islamization of America" article (where you changed "anti-Islamic" to "anti-Islamist") has been reverted as that appears to be a controversial change. I encourage you to come back and provide your reasons for the change for discussion. GrinSudan (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Raashid Alvi

Sir i am no more allowed to edit the page. And most of the info is false and is not in neutral point of view. It is against Raashid Alvi. Plz help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazhatafroz (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, sock has been stuffed into the sock box. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea

Hi Doug. Thanks for the heads up. I do not object to removing or striking through the Periplus discussion. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Harold Covington

Good job. You really did your homework, finding an obscure cite to his blog, in a book about American constitutions that was just published about a month ago.Wasp14 (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Simply Google. Interesting book, but are you being sarcastic, Wasp14? I didn't really think a cite was necessary, but as it was asked for, I found one in. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I only questioned it, since when I checked the blog, the blog is anonymously owned by someone using the name "The Old Man" with a photo of a squidbilly as their profile pic. This cite also drives another nail in the coffin of my rejected opinion that Covington is not notable. I think he is a minor figure in the white supremacy scene, and his being mentioned in a few old newspaper clippings and obscure books discussing white supremacy doesn't rise to notability, but here he is mentioned again in some academic's book. Wasp14 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wasp14 thanks for clarification. I've got no reason to doubt that the blog is his but take your point. You could indeed argue that if he doesn't acknowledge it's his we should remove it. Not sure about the notability issue. This and are probably enough to establish notability though. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Any specific reason you didn't like C-Group??

- 207.219.3.222 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Must have clicked on the wrong link, sorry. Reverted myself. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
• TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
• TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
• New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Key Performance Parameters

Re your question on my talk "Did you actually do a search on the phrase before creating the article?"

Yes I did and found the Analysis of Alternatives used the term but not describes it, and otherwise found some English uses that had the three words together as a descriptive combination rather than a term. Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Pending revision awaiting review?

Hi,

There is no "pending revision awaiting review" for other articles. Look at the article Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daru Dakitu (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Daru Dakitu If you are referring to your edit, now accepted, this isn't unusual on articles. It's less stringent then just stopping IPs and brand new editors from editing an article. 21:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Does this edit, which adds an "Origin" section, appear to be original research to you? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't say that I do. Any suggestion of early Kurds needs to also mention significant view that disagree that 'Kurd' is an appropriate term at that time for an ethnic identity. Does it contradict our article Kurds]? Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You should watch this user

I think this user has "cherry picking" and "I don't like this!" behaviors. false edit summary, changed referenced text and called it as minor sp! personal attack. --188.158.69.69 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a same proxy IP blocked thousand times for racist attack and vandalism. You're not tired yet!?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right/Tu quoque/The pot calling the kettle black. Poisoning the well is a desperate strategy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny. Your "lesson" is insult for me. If there is "wrong", that would be you Florian Blaschke. Don't be truthful now. You're colour is too obvious. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

While you are completely neutral. LOL!

My personal beliefs don't matter. Even if I were a Neo-Nazi who hates Turks with a passion and regularly beats up foreign-looking people, if academic consensus is on my side on Misplaced Pages, you're out of luck. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You're still doing same thing. You judjing people on their etnicty. I'am not thinking you're "neo-nazi" because of you are German. Seems you're already convinced that.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Attis

What do you usually do when someone changes "AD" to "CE" and "BC" to "BCE"? See Attis. CorinneSD (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I know you haven't asked me, but I would revert exactly once and point to WP:ERA. Drive-by era changes are essentially vandalism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I often check old versions first, then do as Florian suggested. Sometimes they are reverting back to the stable version - not necessarily the first version, I recently found one that started with one era style, but was changed in 2007 or maybe earlier and had remained there until last month. That's the stable version. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Malta

I read somewhere that you are knowledgeable in history, so I thought I'd ask you whether you approve of the latest edit to Malta. An editor added "much later" to a sentence about the Roman occupation of the area on Malta called Mdina. Perhaps it is true, and the phrase is a positive addition to the article, but I think "also much later" is an awkward phrase. If you approve of the addition of "much later", I think either the word "also" needs to be deleted or "much later" needs to be moved to a different location in the sentence.

While you're there, can you also look at the previous edit adding "Left- hand traffic countries"? CorinneSD (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests