Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:38, 5 July 2012

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.

PA

I recall that you were involved in unblocking Yogesh Khandke a few weeks ago. Does this seem to be an acceptable comment to you? - Sitush (talk)

Accusation of warring

Just a note to say I've responded on my talk page to your accusation of edit warring. --Sasanack (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page but you haven't understood what I was trying to say. I made ONE revert but then things got technically messy as I tried to remove 2 separate citations while DominusV (unknown to me) reverted my original edit. I think if you are going to warn people in that formal way you should be certain of what has happened. The whole situation remains very strange from a 'part-time' editor's point of view. The whole behaviour of the 'group of 4' editors (as I like to call them) is aggressive and negative yet they are never criticised. The DRN has at least brought forward independent editors making helpful and constructive comments and suggestions. Sadly, as I explained on that noticeboard, there is absolutely no readiness by the g of 4 to compromise or accept any of the suggestions. I think you are unlikely to need to ban me because the whole experience on Misplaced Pages has been so discouraging and negative that I think I probably need to get out of here sooner rather than later.--Sasanack (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to block you, and a ban needs community approval. But looking again, I see that there are 0 minutes between edits, so I don't think it would count as 3RR after all. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Weber

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mark Weber. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Poetry corner

O wad some Power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us—Robert Burns, To a Louse

—Machine Elf  14:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

his page was under my watch, regards DBigXray 19:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthonybex

Hi again, Doug. To revisit that thing from yesterday, could you please take a look at this page? I've given him a warning on simple and am working with another commons editor over the images. Regards, Osiris (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

DBigXray 10:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith

Thanks for informing me. I'll check into it. She's one of the most valuable editors we have.

I just left a message on her talk page about massive changes user:Zachariel just made to the History of astrology page.

"I've just reverted Zachariel's changes to History of Astrology per BRD. Could you take a look through his changes and see if there's anything of merit in them that can be saved? Thanks."

You're pretty good at historical sourcing, so would you mind taking a look at Zachariel's edits, and keep an eye on him? He seems to be edit-warring again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It was your message on her page that led me to post to you. Not sure I have time or energy for astrology! Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is going to go bonkers if we let it. Are you happy that the review is in good hands, now? If so, let me know and I'll close the incident to forestall the otherwise inevitable. Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• A bit late now (I've been doing non-Wiki stuff), although I would have said yes. Anytime ArbCom gets involved can get - inevitable. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Even before that. The nature of the incident itself would have led to contention and all sorts of side-issues. Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, it was either that or just unblock, what held me back from saying or doing more was that it looked as though ArbCom would be involved. What I didn't expect was the fast motion. If I'd expected that, I wouldn't have done anything. But it did look really bad - a week for a good editor, mentioning legal threats but not a legal threat block, no rev/del which I would have expected if there'd been something as serious as was suggested. That was the first time in all my time as an Admin that I've even considered anything like this or reported a block for review. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm concerned it's a bad situation pretty much all around. It's still threatening to blow up, which I'd rather it didn't. Uncle G (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd rather it didn't either, but I don't know all the details (which is why I brought it to ANI without comment. I've made one comment on the ArbCom discussion as this actually wasn't a legal threat block so that shouldn't be an issue (I guess someone might argue it should have been, but as it wasn't, it wasn't). Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Well, it looks like that problem has been resolved at least in the short term. I wonder if you would have any interest about maybe offering some input about an article which might have similar problems, if from the other side, at Soka Gakkai. Getting a few more people involved there would be useful as well, and I would be particularly grateful if an outsider would comment on the newer additions. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not resolved yet as it still has Steeringly's version, and although my last revert was over 24 hours ago I'm a bit loathe to revert again as it looks like just me against him. And one editor that I think missed the point commented on the talk page about heterodox, did you see that? I will look at your article though. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Editor Retention

Hey Dougweller, I've answered there but wanted to give a little background. There are a great number of people who do blame admins for all the problems, and of course admins aren't the primary reason for losses. There are some problems that we admins need to address as a group, but there are many, many more reasons we lose good editors that need to be addressed. I think that for the project to work, however, you have to put all the cards on the table and at least acknowledge that perception of admins is a problem. I don't want that to dominate there, however. But the project needs many admins to actually take a role and join the project, because loss of talent IS a serious concern here, and why isn't completely clear. I think having it as a clearing house to establish problems, set priorities, discuss potential changes in policy before RfCing for the change, all of that can actually help us keep the talent we have and not scare off new editors as well. We need some type of centralized discussion for retention at this stage, and a Project seems the right way to go. It is only a day old, so what it is depends on who participates and how they mold it. Would love to see you be a part of the molding process, particularly early on. Bring a friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl

Thanks for the message. I've been trying to improve the page on the Hanau epe over the past few days. I don't know much about Heyerdahl, apart from vague memories of him on TV in my childhood, and the notion at the time that there was some great mystery about Easter Island. I've just ordered a copy of his book Kon-Tiki, because I want to get a sense of why he seems to be obsessed by these diffusionist ideas and why they seemed to catch the imagination of the time. I have a feeling that these scenarios of ethnic struggle were linked to a post-WWII with fascination with stories of racial extermination that came to defined as a sort-of liberal re-imagining of the Nazi mythos (The Lord of the Rings is the classic example of that). That's why I'm inclined to think that the "racist" claim essentially misses the point, just as much as the Saint-Heyerdahl-humanitarian version does. Of course this is all "OR", but I'd feel happier getting a sense of what he actually wrote before diving in to the Heyerdahl article too much. Obviously these arguments should be clearly presented, though I think they should be placed in context - this "Thor-Nazi" image is a vary recent one, though criticisms of his theories certainly are not. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to read American Indians in the Pacific - I doubt that the Nazi thing holds water.

A friend of mine once wrote on Usenet: I believe that this is because his particular brand of racism fits in well with the basic racist assumptions held by a large proportion of people (if not a majority) in Europe or of European origins (white Americans, Australians etc.). This is that whites or "caucasoids" were and are the most intelligent, energetic, creative, and generally capable "race", and that therefore all true civilisation needs to be initiated and sustained by whites. And the most "white" of all are of course blond/red-haired blue-eyed "nordic" types. Heyerdahl's work is full of the implicit or explicit association of blond/red-hair, blue eyes, and "caucasian" features with creators and diffusers of high civilisation. It is also full of the sorts of idea that says that e.g. Polynesians - being rather lazy, fond of a good time, not particularly creative etc. - could not possibly have been responsible for the Easter Island statues. "...keeping in mind when he wrote" - yes, when he started writing, such ideas were much more *openly* expressed.

Just look at some of the supposedly "scientific" textbooks on race which were published right up to the 1960s. After that date, such ideas are much less openly displayed. And a study of Heyerdahl's writings reveal a similar trend. In his earlier works, especially "Aku Aku" and his magnum opus "American Indians in the Pacific" (AIP), his belief in the differential abilities of human races, and especially in the almost superhuman abilities of his blond blue-eyed caucasoid all-civilising, world-voyaging "long ears" is explicit. In later works these ideas are rather more disguised, and in addition he begins to emphasise a self-procaimed sympathy with third-world peoples etc., telling us how much he has done for them etc. I suspect this is all under the influence of "political correctness". However he has nowhere repudiated his earlier clearly racist beliefs, and it is clear from his most recent work "In the Footsteps of Adam" that he has not changed his mind on any of his theories, which at least partly rely on his basic racist assumptions. Incidentally, I am not here saying that he has necessarily reached the wrong conclusions. I am not even saying that his racism is necessarily wrong. Maybe blond blue-eyed peoples really are superior to others. Where I find Heyerdahl *scientifically* unacceptable is that he often uses a sort of circular thinking ("Easter Island statues were made by non-Polynesians". Why? Because Polynesians couldn't make large stone structures. How do you know this? Because all such structures in Polynesia were made by non-Polynesians. How do you know this? Because Polynesians couldn't make large stone structures etc.). Take away this sort of argument and there is often very little of substance left.

Incidentally, I have been looking into the "evidence" that Heyerdahl, Andrew Collins etc. are using in support of their ideas of an ancient worldwide all-civilising blond caucasoid race. Much, if not all, appears on closer examination to be illusory or misleading. For instance, early reports of "white" Amerindians are vitiated by the observation that some early Spanish chroniclers describe *all* the South American Amerindians as "white". (They were writing well before the time when "white" had fixed racial connotations, and in any case they were not trained physical anthropologists. What they probably meant was that they regarded the Amerindians as more similar to themselves than to their "black" African slaves). As for the often-quoted Indian legends of "white" civilising heroes etc., it should be noted that our first accounts of these legends date from well after the Spanish Conquest, and come from Spaniards. And actually there are many other accounts about creator-heroes in reported Amerindian mythology which describe them as anything but "white". The whole field of ancient Amerindian, and Polynesian mythology is much more obscure, complex, and confusing, than Heyerdahl etc. would have us believe. And I have yet to find a real primary source for the supposed "blue eyes".

My view is that he took on so much, and was so far ahead of his contemporaries in theorizing, that he did not get adequately challenged in a sufficiently timely way as to be forced to re-examine some of his shakier observations. He certainly has not been "adequately challenged", in the sense that he has prevailed so far in the propaganda war over those who would disagree with him. Many of his theories have been adequately challenged on a scientific basis, but the general public rarely gets to hear of this. As for being "far ahead of his contemporaries", many of his theories are actually re-hashes of the sorts of theories which were flying about in the 18th., 19th., and early 20th. centuries, when it was quite obvious to most westerners that non-whites were inferior to whites,and must therefore owe any admirable parts of their culture to white initiative and influence. Incidentally, it is interesting that Heyerdahl nowhere picks up on the fact which you mentioned in one of your earlier posts - that Australian Aboriginals often have blond hair - nor does he dwell on the fact that some Melanesian populations (e.g. on Malaita) also contain a significant proportion of blond and red haired people. In both cases, actually a much higher incidence of blondism than in any part of Polynesia. Yet he goes on at length on evidence for blondism among the Polynesians.

A reading of e.g. AIP, will suggest a probable reason for this blindness towards the blond Australians and Melanesians. Not only are Thor's blue-eyed blond caucasoids at the top of the hierarchy in terms of intelligence and civilised attributes, but the dark Melanesians and Aboriginals are definitely at the bottom. Since Heyerdahl associates blondism with high civilisation, he attributes the blond elements among the Polynesians to the same source as the more civilised features of their culture (stone structures, rongo-rongo writing etc.) i.e. to his beloved caucasoid long-ears. It would spoil his picture to point out the much higher degree of blondism among the Melanesians, as this would suggest a very plausible alternative source of Polynesian blondism, as well as muddying the chromatic association of blondism and light colouration with civilised virtues. For even if Polynesians are regarded in AIP, "Aku Aku" etc. as distinctly lacking in these as compared with the lighter supposed "long ears", they are however considerably superior to the darker dismally savage Melanesians. (end quote from friend) Dougweller (talk)

Interesting comment - presumably written while Heyerdahl was still alive. I wanted to look at Kon-Tiki initially because that's the earliest of his works and I guessed that racialist assumptions would be clearer. I've read a few early-mid 20th century textbooks on race, and yes these assumptions are indeed commonplace into the 60s and even beyond. of course if good sources comment on his racial models they should be inluded. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Surnames

Btw. Thank you. And also those were sensible revisions to surname/sock redirects recently. I was diverted from anthoponymy and didn't see them. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New user - suspected sock of banned member

I suspect the new user User:Madvirgin is a sock of earlier banned user User:Arfaz and User:DdraconiandevilL. He is new member but his edits look like experienced user and resemble the style of the two above mentioned accounts.
Anish Viswa 06:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Working on this. He's not that new. Do you have any diffs? I've found some copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he become active recently only and his editing pattern is very similar to the accounts I mentioned.
Anish Viswa 05:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Misplaced Pages: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Endless PG games

Doug, you may check my IP-edits on talk page and article Persian Gulf naming dispute. I've done it because (in)famous endless games have started again. Cheers, Mr. O. --109.165.191.169 (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance looks ok, but it was a quick glance. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection request

• Thanks Doug. Could you protec my userpage?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblocking syntax for IPV6

Call me thick, but when I was trying to fix that Mikemikev issue, the block page won't let me rangeblock an IPV6 - I tried 2001:630:12:1073/64 and various combinations of extra colons, but it wasn't having it. What am I doing wrong? Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Watz up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Take It To The Head (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for support on Theory of Portuguese...

Hi Doug, thanks for your support on this page. Somewhere I have a mental note you may have attended one of the Mahogany Ship symposiums - I really dont know why I think this! Maybe you wrote something about it somewhere? Anyway I have been working at a revision of the Mahogany Ship page and would appreciate any comments and improvements when it finally appears. Cheers.Nickm57 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Melungeons

Hi Doug. You asked for me to have a look.

• The deletions being made mention "We still don't use forums, certainly not 23andMe, restore text cited to reliable 2012 source which was deleted in favor of earlier work." But what is being deleted does not seem to refer to forums or testing company publications?
• On the other hand, while it might not be relevant, testing companies would often treated as serious sources of research, in cases where they are either just working for someone who is publishing or else where they are getting their results published in a third party source with fact checking.
• One source being named is a JOGG article. That is not a perfect source for genetics as such, but I think it is a reasonable source for "genetic genealogy" which should combines good understanding of pedigree research with some basic genetic knowledge relevant to genealogy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP's edits have been deleted since I posted, they sourced from included "This Information had also been backed up by leading DNA Genetics company "23 and me" (In 2008, Time magazine named the 23 and me's saliva-based DNA-testing service "Invention of the Year",In 2007 Google, whose co-founder Sergey Brin is married to the co-founder of 23andMe Anne Wojcicki, invested $3,900,000 in the company, along with Genentech, New Enterprise Associates and Mohr Davidow Ventures).</ref><ref name="Portugal DNA">]</ref> </ref><ref name="Human Genetics of Portugal">]</ref> A more recent study on Portugesse DNA Haplo groups also back up the Melungeon DNA test results conducted by Jack Goins to the current and on going DNA studies in Portugesse people. The News article from New Scientist life also backed up this finding in the December 2008 issue by Ewen Callaway </ref><ref name="New Scientist life">]</ref> </ref><ref name="Portugesse DNA">]</ref> </ref><ref name="23 and me wikipedia">]]</ref>"

23andme gets a lot of publicity and is used by the media, but I'm not convinced it's an RS here. See Parkwells' comment. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can not comment on past versions and past discussions, but shouldn't the latest proposals be judged on their own merits?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned about using non-peer reviewed sources, and I think any such need to be discussed at RSN. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian God vs Biblical God.

On my edit you were concerned that i confuse Christian God from The God of the Bible. They are one in the same and absolutely is not the trinity,

Lake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laketahoejwb (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian God vs Biblical God.

On my edit you were concerned that i confuse Christian God from The God of the Bible.

" Please do not delete sourced text as you just did. The article is not about God in the Bible, it is about God in Christianity. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC) " .

I tried to say, that He is but one God, God and the Christian God are one in the same, and absolutely is not the trinity,

Lake --15:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Laketahoejwb (talk)

Um, I'm not sure what your point is. And the article doesn't say the Christian god is the trinity. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

from laketahoe: ---It most certainly does. The trinity consumes half of the article

--Laketahoejwb (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source for use of term "pseudohistorian"

Hi Doug, I noticed in the Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 5, you voted to support the term 'pseudohistorian' as a category name on the basis that it is used in reliable sources. Your comment read:

This is a term used in reliable sources, there are even books about it. The fact that like so many categories it may be subjective is irrelevant, it's a meaningful and useful term.

Would you mind listing a reliable source which offers a definition of the term according to mainstream acceptance? I started a new talk section yesterday to point out that according to dictionary.com the word 'pseudohistorian' doesn't exist. Like others, I'm confused by the intended meaning of its use in WP. Obviously, if you have a reliable source to show that it does have legitimate status, and that it has an accepted meaning which can be found by appropriate encyclopedic reference, that would quickly bring my concern on this matter to an end. Thank you -- Zac Δ 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For example, if an author starts to publish historical articles in peer-reviewed journals, can s/he then be regarded as a proper historian, as apart from a 'pseudo' one? --DLMcN (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I would guess that it would come down to what the majority of the author's works are classified as, and what they are notable for. If Zecharia Sitchin had published a few works in legitimate journals, the rest of his work, what he is notable for, is pseudohistory (at best). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. I've said at the category talk page that a discussion there about definitions is pointless, as 1) it looks like another run at the deletion discussion which has a solid keep, and we don't care if a word is in a dictionary or not, or how it's defined, we only care about what reliable sources say. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting more confused - we only care about what the reliable sources say (?) But what do the reliable sources say about the definition of 'pseudohistorian'? If you know plenty of them, can't you at least supply one on the talk page to quiet my ferreting brain?

I know it's not reliable, but since I'm drawing a blank myself on sources, I resorted to asking Jeeves. As an adjective for a subject 'pseudo' means "not genuine but having the appearance of", but as a noun it means "a person who makes deceitful pretenses". So are all the persons catagorised by the non-existent (?) word 'pseudohistorian' being labelled in a potentially libellous manner - by suggesting that they make deceitful pretenses about history? Or does the term attempt to define historians who study pseudohistory?

It troubles me that "we" don't care how it's defined. With all these endless WP:policies by which we can incessantly reprimand each other on talk-pages, you'd think there'd be one like WP:NTC - 'Need To Care'; like caring about using proper, legitimate words; not pseudowords, that have the appearance of authentic meaning but could be masking deceitful intent. -- Zac Δ 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pseudohistory seems to have quite a few sources, and it follows that a pseudohistorian has involvement in pseudohistory. - Sitush (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

... and, btw, the last sentence of the blog here had me ROTFL. Yes, we have an article on Raëlism. - Sitush (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If we used words like pseudohistory according to what we believed was their definition, and decided when they applies, we would be doing original research, please read WP:NOR. That's why we stick to reliable sources instead of doing our own definitions. It troubles me that you don't understand how Misplaced Pages works yet. I'm not sure how a word can be non-existent when it is used by such sources as the Britannica and other reliably published sources. And a pseudohistorian writes pseudohistory, he doesn't study it. There's a huge difference. And drop the 'libellous' language please. See WP:NLT. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Zac, just to clarify, I wasn't warning you about NLT, just advising you that there can be problems with using the word libellous. Now back to your dictionary problem. My Oxford Dictionary of English (larger than the concise - pretty big in fact, but not the multivolume one) has the word 'pseudo-' (note the dash), with combining form in bold text after it, indicating that it can be used with other words. Not that it matters, as I said, what we care about is its use in reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Sitush – the blog was well worth the recommendation - thanks for the laugh.

@ Doug – my mood further escalated when you hit the nail on the head and explained that to imply a meaning for the word ‘pseudohistorian’ based on a belief of what ‘pseduohistory’ refers to is WP:OR and is to be avoided. My point exactly.

It sounds like you have found the precedent I’m looking for - that reference to Britannica shows the term ‘pseudohistorian’ has been used in a reliably published source to describe someone who writes pseudohistory (rather than being someone who deceitfully pretends to be a historian). Britannica is a big source to check – can you provide a specific reference within that publication, for verification purposes?

My mood dropped a bit when I discovered your reprimand, and suggestion (not warning) that I study WP:NLT – another new one to me. On the positive, I never cease learning new things as a WP editor, and never cease to marvel at how limitlessly policy-references can be given to avoid looking at a problem sincerely, using only the gift of human intelligence, the ability to reason, and the employment of common sense.

However, I don’t find that it helps to be advised to avoid the use of real words when questioning the meaning of a word not found in dictionaries. Especially since my concern is in protecting the interests of WP, by obtaining reference to a reliable source which justifies the use of the terminology we are using. After studying the page I realise that nothing in those policies relates to what I have posted here, and that there was nothing in it that I didn’t know already or would not have assumed to be a given. To ease your own concerns, I am not threatening to take legal action against you if you don’t provide a reference; only requesting one to facilitate the process of ending the controversy attached to that category. If you can’t or don’t want to oblige, that’s OK. It’s just that one of the reasons the keep decision was made was because you said the term is used in reliable sources and there are even books about it.

(BTW, I know what the prefix pseudo means, as I’m sure you realise, no concerns about that – but thanks anyway) -- Zac Δ 12:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

AGF please. It never crossed my mind you intended suing anyone. I try my best to make sure that editors who are trying to follow our policies and guidelines don't get blocked, and I've seen an editor get blocked over that word who, to cut a long story short, just didn't get it. I wasn't trying to suggest you not use the word libelous to stop you from discussing. The problem I have now is that you don't seem to have done any searching yourself to find out if the word is used in reliable sources. Britannica was just a suggestion as you seem worried about dictionaries. It says (discussing literary forgeries0 "Geoffrey of Monmouth (died 1155), a pseudo-historian who compounded stories from Celtic mythology and classical and biblical sources into a fictitious history of ancient Britain." But all you have to do is search Google books. But why bother? Unless you are suggesting there is no such thing as pseudohistory (in which case you might want to go to to AfD on our article), there must be pseudohistorians. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

IVC

Please reply on Indus Valley Civilization talk page asap. --Ancienzus (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)