This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Doug Weller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Dougweller)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The current date and time is 22 September 2019 T 22:53 UTC.

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.

User:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home

Talk Page

Workshop

Site Map

Userboxes

Edits

Email

Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...
Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia.

If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic.
If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place.



Itsspokenmonkey seems to be back[edit]

@Doug Weller: It seems that Itspokenmonkey (talk · contribs) has made his reappearance as 206.71.232.226 (talk · contribs), with the same kind of disruptive behavior. He's done more than just that on more than one page. Can you do something about this? Cheers, Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

update: I just noticed that he also created a new sock Helloimcooldx (talk · contribs). I have little doubt that it is him, going by the use of -dx in his name, and his old hobbyhorse, that Italian is spoken all over the planet. Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
No time today, will look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! He seems to have cooled down somewhat, so there is no hurry. Landroving Linguist (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Landroving Linguist: still no more edits. The posible sockmaster is stale so far as CU goes so it would have to be WP:DUCK. Let me know if there's any more activity, ok? Doug Weller talk 18:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks! Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP question and the use of ISFDB as a BLP source[edit]

Hello. I noticed what you had done in a recent WP:BLP case on 14:36, 5 September 2019, in Special:Diff/914156238 for Ryk E. Spoor. I would like to have your opinion about editors using the Internet Speculative Fiction Database as their sole source for biographic information (i.e., date/year of birth). Since anyone can register and edit this database per WP:UGC, I would consider that website as reliable as Wikipedia for that type of information and doubt that such information would satisfy WP:VERIFY.

In particular, an editor removed my {{CN}} tags that I had just added in a similar case for Edward M. Lerner. Was the editor incorrect for removing my {{CN}} tags as he/she did in Special:Diff/915698809? Was I correct to question the inclusion of the year of birth in the article in the first place? What is your sage opinion on this matter? Thanks you in advance. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, although I'm not sure I deserve them at least here. The issue was raised some time ago by User:Mike Christie[1] who makes some good points. There does seem to be some sort of editorial control, but is it good enough and complete? It's mentioned here. But if you read their faq and look at the bits that mention verification[2] and at how authors are added[3] I'm thinking that the verification process does not include biographical details, which means probably usually ok for bibiliographical details but not biographical. Take a look at Robert Heinlein's author page[4] which shows no sign of verification, but if you look at one of his book pages[5] it does. This probably needs to go to RSN but I think most would agree with me unless they can find evidence to the contrary. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your very clear and detailed reply. It is especially great that you are able to remembered these little tidbits of useful information which I would never find on my own (especially since I was not there for those discussions). I agree with you that ISFDB should be considered as a verifiable source for bibiliographical information, almost in the same respect that I consider IMDb a verifiable source about released TV/film productions since it is relatively easy to verify publication information for works that were released to the general public for purchase. The question that I propose to you is how does either ISFDB or even IMDb obtain and/or confirm birth information of an author in cases where the author (or the author's parents) had never publicly released such information (i.e., on their personal website, in their books, in a published interview, in a newspaper article concerning the person in an unrelated event, etc.)? Did those database contributors go to the state/county registrars to obtain birth certificates (which may not be legal in certain locations)? Illegally obtain medical or credit information? Sourced from the dark web? In an age of identity thief and criminal stalking, most people have a right to not publicly disclose identifiable information. Should Wikipedia propagate birth information from either ISFDB or IMDb if such information cannot be independently verify? How do we know that either databases had not originally obtained information illegally? Do you think it is worth our effort to have these questions concerning biographically information discussed on those forums that you had mentioned above since it would be nice to have published guidelines on which databases can be used as a source of verifiable biographically information. Thanks again. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I agree with Doug that ISFDB should only be used for bibliographical information. The biographical data could come from almost anywhere, but we should not treat it as reliable. For example I put in the correct date of birth for myself and my wife -- I'm not sure there's any other reliable source for that information. Of course we're not notable enough for a Wikipedia article but the biographical data for other writers may well be just as inappropriately sourced. For pure bibliographic information I think it's completely fine, though I would not use it to source a negative such as "this story has never been reprinted" since it does (rarely) miss an obscure or recent edition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: thanks. I think we should go to RSN now to get agreement, which hopefully we'll get. Thoughts? Doug Weller talk 11:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but I've tried twice and had no response. I'll comment there if someone else posts, but as it stands I am using it until someone objects. The use of ISFDB has passed muster in some FACs, if that's worth noting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Thank you for participating in this discussion. Is it normal for admins on administrative noticeboards to ignore some discussions and not make a comment one way or the other? Do those administrators require more examples before they deem a noticeboard request worthy of a comment? Or does it require more editors to make comments just to start those discussions? As for your self-editing your DOB on ISFDB, do you think it might have been possible for you to change the date to make yourself appear a few years older/younger than you really are? Would it be possible for someone to verify what you had added without resorting to checking your credit and medical records? -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
There's no requirement for anyone to participate in any particular discussion, but if someone had a strong opinion in either direction they would probably say something if they saw the posting. It's not so much about requiring examples, more about whether anyone has an opinion or is interested. Since all three comments so far have been positive about the use of the bibliographic data I would say we can continue using it unless someone else objects. Yes, I could easily have given the wrong birthdate there without anyone knowing. You're welcome to try to find my date of birth (or that of my wife, Sherry Coldsmith, who was a slightly more successful writer than I was) on the web; I'll be impressed if you can find a reliable source that gives it -- I only ever sold one story and Sherry sold a handful, so we're not covered anywhere (though I did get a tiny mention in SFE3, perhaps only because I know some of the compilers). I wrote many of the help pages for the ISFDB and I know that much more attention is paid to verifying bibliographic data that to verifying biographical data, which makes sense if you think of the mission of the site -- they're never going to be the SF Encyclopedia; they're just adding that data as a convenience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Thanks for the interesting info. For anything other than Wikipedia, lazy me would just get your DOB from ISFDB Face-smile.svg. Just out of curiosity, how many of the listed authors in ISFDB are yet to be identified pen names? I would expect a small handful of person who do not want to have their hobby of being a minor SF writer than never appear in public interfere with their real life and would just add biographic information to provide better cover. Since IMDb is a similar type of database for the film/video industry, I have noticed that there has been over a dozen noticeboard discussion, but no real discussion directly about biographical information in particular, just a recommendation that appears to full of weasel words. We just now have to wait and see how the ISFDB noticeboard discussion is going to turn out. Thanks to both of you. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
No idea what percentage of the names in ISFDB are unidentified pennames, but it's only a tiny percentage of the fiction -- I can't think of any prominent author for whom the real identity isn't known. There are certainly people who used a pseudonym for the reason you suggest -- Eric Temple Bell , Alice Sheldon, and Paul Linebarger are examples -- but usually the real identities are known. There's a book called "Who's Hugh?" by Roger Robinson which cross-references all the pseudonyms known at the time of publication (1987); it lists ones for which the real identity is unknown, but there aren't many of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: do you intend in joining in the RSN discussion? Doug Weller talk 12:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I did post a short note there agreeing with you, and it looks to me as if there's sufficient comment for us to say that there's a consensus to use bibliographic but not biographical data. Do you think further discussion is needed there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Roger Robinson's publication sounds quite interesting. I wonder if his publication also includes authors of short stories that were published in magazines or other anthologies who never published a book. I would assume that this group of writers would represent the bulk of the authors that might be included in ISFDB. I wonder how many women authors who might have used male names in the past when the publishing industry was overly white male dominated and those women authors did not have live long enough to reveal their true identities during more tolerant times. Michael Crichton had used several pen names when he needed extra money while attending medical school. (Those early works are definitely not his best works.) I think he only publicly revealed his involvement with those early works after he quit medicine and became a famous writer. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
"Who's Hugh" does contain pseudonyms used only for short stories. There's no question it'll be missing some, for the reasons you suggest, but for the period up to 1987 it does a pretty thorough job as far as we can tell -- that is, there are very few writers who are interesting to historians of sf for whom the true identity is unknown. I can think of other examples of writers who wrote pseudonymously early in their careers -- John Brunner and Barry Malzberg come to mind, and in some cases not all early pseudonyms are acknowledged. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Squatting position[edit]

I have started a discussion at Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies. It is about much more than "unencyclopedic trivia, poorly sourced, highly excessive image galleries, etc.". You need to understand the subject in detail. I suggest it is not polite to delete text which is being discussed on the talk page. People casually looking at the article are not likely to bother with doing a diff to view your deleted text even if they did look at the talk page. If you understand the subject it is most definately not trivial. I am very against trivia on Wikipedia and can point to many trivial and obscure articles or text on Wikipedia which should be deleted. The point about highly excessive images is not valid there are quite a few articles on Wikipedia with more images including B8 polytope with 2,429. WP:IGNORE exists for a reason and if you understood the article more deeply you are likely to understand my perspective.--Penbat (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Penbat: and I replied. Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy thus it is absolutely correct to remove it. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Squatting is an odd scientific blindspot. Yet we all do elements of it every day - it is hardly obscure or trivial. Young children for example do it instinctively. The images do not lie. There is no research available to refute the images.--Penbat (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles have vast swathes of uncited material. I am sure I would not be allowed to go around Wikipedia deleting every bit of uncited text in sight and then say "Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy". Please give me policy link. If it was that simple, why is there not a bot to delete all uncited material automatically. You have not taken the context into consideration.--Penbat (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Why aren't you using the article talk page? And it wasn't old unsourced material that was deleted, it was new, and that makes a difference. If you want further discussion use the article talk page so that others can see your concerns. Doug Weller talk 21:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You triggered my response here because you made a response here "@Penbat: and I replied. Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy thus it is absolutely correct to remove it." in response to my first paragraph basically telling you that there is a discussion at Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies. Incidentally I have no idea what "it wasn't old unsourced material that was deleted, it was new, and that makes a difference." means. It was not new, most of it was years old, but I am not sure what your point is. You have done it again, you have made a further point here triggering me to respond here again instead of the correct place which is Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies.--Penbat (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Weasel words: [6][7]. Haven't checked his other edits but they need to be checked as well. Puduḫepa 04:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: no recent edits though, let me know if there are more problems. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sadly I have to ask advice again[edit]

User:Mcrt007 and User:Springee are an... interesting coincidence. Especially the way they both attack Arun Gupta, who is a longstanding journalist. [8]6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

6YearsTillRetirement I'll repeat here what I've mentioned on Ngo's talk page: you have linked to a muckrack page to present Gupta's credentials.
  • 1) That page contains false positives which inflate the number of articles attributed to Gupta (in Reliable Sources), by orders of magnitude because it can't differentiate between different individuals having the same (Arun Gupta) name. Here are some examples of articles wrongly attributed to him, in the RS from the list you linked to: in the New York Times which talks about a different Arun Gupta, just like Chemical Science, inc42, O'Reilley, Pediatrics, and others.
  • 2) Gupta does seem to have lots of articles in:
  • Counter-Punch which seems to be a rather questionable source (with some history of smear and disinformation per Wikipedia),
  • Telesur, described by wikipedia RS page as "Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered.",
  • Raw story, Alternet, etc.
The Intercept profile you list here says he has written for The Washington Post as well. He only seems to have one article there and that one is about food. In Jacobin (to which you linked first in the discussion) he has 2 anti-Ngo opinion articles and another article on some food-chef. Claiming he's a reliable source for being a "longstanding journalist" or for publishing in Jacobin is not reasonable. Gupta is primarily a food-journalist (graduate of the French Culinary Institute in New York) who writes opinions about what he reads and it's not justified (undue weight) to create an entire section (17-18 rows), on Ngo's Wikipedia page, based on his Jacobin article. Mcrt007 (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Uploading an Image to Wikipedia article "Susya"[edit]

Hi, Doug. I wanted to ask you about the Wikipedia article Susya, an article describing a historical site with a rich post-Temple Jewish history, but also an article which falls under the category of those articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Because of its historical nature, I wish to upload an image of a mosaic discovered at this site and which you can see here. The one problem is that currently there is an outstanding ban against my engaging in edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, until the current ban will be rescinded, hopefully, in due time, after I submit an appeal to my topic ban. So, my question to you is rather simple. Does my topic ban include the prohibition of posting an image or images to articles that fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, can I ask someone else to upload the image(s) for me, for the improvement of those articles? Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I got your message. No problem, Doug. I'll just have to learn patience and respect the rules here on Wikipedia. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Isaiah 3 sons[edit]

You state Isaiah has 3 sons in Wikipedia.

Isaiah: 9:6 For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace)


Isaiah- "the prophet" Wife - No stated name. Simply designated "the prophetess"

Carefully note even the chronological order of verses leading to 9.6. with the application of simple logic and biological factuality.

Isaiah 7.3 - Here we see Isaiah's FIRSTBORN SON. Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and "Shear-Jashub your son", at the end of the aqueduct from the upper pool, on the highway to the Fuller’s Field,

Isaiah 7.14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The "virgin will conceive" and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. ( So here Isaiah prophesied what MANY can't understand to this very day. )

Isaiah 8.1 Then the LORD said to me, “Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary stylus: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. ( Here YHWH gives him the " stated "name" of his SECOND SON to come..in advance..as yet UNKNOWN to Isaiah.)

Isaiah 8.3 And I had relations with the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. The LORD said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz." ( What was Isaiah to name HIS SECOND SON? It's unequivocally restated as his name to be given. You must agree it was ISAIAH that had relations ie sexual relations with the stated "prophetess" his " wife " )

So..Can you explain how the "prophetess".. Isaiah's "wife"..became a "virgin" AFTER HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS AND SLEEPING WITH Isaiah prior and ALREADY bearing the FIRST SON Shear-Jashub ??

Isaiah 8.5 -9.6 And the LORD SPOKE to me FURTHER (Incidentally these leadup verses God is speaking through Isaiah prophesying the coming of the Messiah) .... Here YHWH is on about 7.14 AGAIN.

I shall put it to you that Isaiah only had TWO "physical" SONS in his breathing lifetime. I shall put it to you that nowhere in the entirety of ALL scripture can any woman be or suddenly become a "virgin" AFTER a FIRST BIRTH. So unless it's contended it is possible for that to happen, then it must be conceded that "the prophetess" is NOT the prophesied "virgin" that shall conceive. I shall put it to you that the "virgin" prophesied of was Mary, Mother of Jesus EXACTLY as stated in scripture. I shall put it to you that the NAMES in the entirety of scripture are HIGHLY SPECIFIC and that no ' son of Isaiah by HIS physical seed' would remotely bear the title "Mighty God" or "Possessor of Eternity" I shall put it to you that YESHUA is the one prophesied of that bears these titles and EXACTLY as in the entirety of ALL scripture has numerous "Names and Titles"

Thanks. If you could kindly correct the Wikipedia would be great. Nevi Gabriel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.99.133.76 (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nedochan:, please use your account to edit. What you are doing here is forbidden by policy - see no original research. And I never wrote anything about him having two sons. However, a quick search shows that this is a disputed area, which some sources saying two, others at least two, and others three (with names). [9] This Cambridge University book An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures by Thomas Hartwell Horne , Samuel Davidson , and Samuel Prideaux Tregelle[10] sayts " We learn from various passages that Isaiah was married and had three sons (vii. 3., viii. 3. 18.) with symbolical names, Shear-jashub, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and Immanuel.". So our article needs to say that the number of sons is disputed. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

11 years of adminship![edit]

Wikipe-tan mopping.svg
Wishing Doug Weller a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee
WikiThanks.png
Wikipedia Administrator.svg

Wishing Doug Weller a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- PATH SLOPU 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator.svg Wishing Doug Weller a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
This is for your outstanding performance in Wikipedia as an administrator. I appreciate your selfless effort in serving Wikipedia. Your efforts are really grateful. Your quick troubleshooting abilities are a gift for Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Sorry Doug, I somehow tripped the rollback on your alert at User talk:Morningrat and the filter interrupted my first self-revert. Home Lander (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Home Lander: not a problem, I didn't notice it and was able to give the new editor some advice without any problems. --Doug Weller talk 16:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sergeant Stubby[edit]

Ok Doug, you are an administrator so I have no choice but to do what you say, but can we come to a consensus on calling Stubby a Boston Bull Terrier and leave the 8 verified sources there for further reading? I took a look at the Boston Terrier page and that's exactly what Stubby looks like, but the Bull Terrier pictures look nothing like Stubby so I hate to say Stubby was a Bull Terrier in any manner when so many sources say Boston Terrier or Boston Bull Terrier and only one or two verified sources say Bull Terrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profpedia (talkcontribs) 22:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Bornanomaly and Cahokia, again[edit]

Per {this message I left them https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABornAnomaly&type=revision&diff=916642066&oldid=902894171}, I'd appreciate your keeping an eye on this situation. It's one thing to remove valid material, but to call other editors "racists" while doing it unacceptable. It's an old edit, I haven't been on in several months as it was a busy summer work wise and only now noticed it, so no use in dragging them to a board now, but I get the feeling they are WP:NOTHERE. Heiro 22:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Native American pyramids[edit]

I meant to sort out what was valid and useful from this edit[11] but didn't get around to it. I noticed the other deletion but just couldn't find the sources to help. Lack of time I guess, I never have enough time. Recently I've been listening to Ancient Civilizations of North America' by Edwin Barnhart.[12] which I got as an Audible book, not that silly price. He pushes hard for noting that the "mounds" in North America are pyramids and that the word mound diminishes them. I went to Category:Pyramids in the United States and found only modern buildings - you can see I've added the category a few places but not nearly enough, and I'm wondering if we should be doing more, maybe starting with Mound builders. He also notes that the oldest pyramid in the world is in Brazil. See this but I can't find any academic literature for it. Interested in helping? Is it worth adding something to a couple of Wikiprojects about the issue? Doug Weller talk 08:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I see why, I just added two tags to Category talk:Pyramids in the United States - it was only about architecture before. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that one earlier as well. I literally haven't logged on in months, sometimes when I've been away for awhile I check on the usual targets just to see if an instance has slipped by everyone else when I was away (invariable a few have here and there) and immediately noticed the edit summary at Cahokia. I didn't even remember who the editor was for a minute or so. At least one of the cites for the Adena material is good, an academic source discussing precolumbian art. I decided I didn't have the time to delve either.
Almost all of the contemporary academic literature describes the "platform mounds" as pyramids, as they have more in common both in construction and function with Mesoamerican pyramids than they do with earlier Woodland Period mound constructions in the eastern US. I'm sure Tim Pauketats (he really should have an article here) work must discuss it somewhere if not multiple somewheres, but I'm tired after a long day in the studio working on a project (it's 4:30 AM here and I just knocked off for the day, lol ) and my brain isn't currently firing on all cylinders. I've tried to reform the moundbuilders article over the years, and at least managed to shift it over to discussing the actual cultures instead of the 19th century monomyth (last time I checked it anyway). It's been hard enough just getting the term "moundbuilder" removed from articles discussing archaeological sites that are widely disparate in time, geography, and culture and whose only similarity is having a "mound" (and I never fully succeeded at that). And there are literally several hundred articles about sites with platform mounds. If I can, I'll try to see what I can find on the subject.
As for Ancient Civilizations of North America', too bad you didn't get the whole thing, they licensed almost 2 dozen of my illustrations for the video part. But then again you have probably already seen most of them, ;-). Hope it's good, it sounded like an awesome series, and I've listened to other of their lectures before and loved them. Heiro 09:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, this article by David H. Dye and James Brown literally discusses the them of decapitation and trophy taking in Amerindian societies within Mississippian culture and at Cahokia specifically. I linked it for the editor the first time they went on their deletion spree, it's still on their talk page in the very first message I left them. It even has a photograph of the repousse copper plate the illustration they object to is based on. Heiro 09:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Email.[edit]

Check yours, Heiro 21:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Alleged Edit Warring[edit]

I must say that I am a little worried than a user who has supposedly been and admin for "11 years and 4 days" is unaware what edit warring is and what is and what isn't constituted such. In most cases the three revert rule applies (3rr), but in the case of vandalism, such as removal of content including refs which is where such pointless warnings are supposed to be used, "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring." The three edit rule is impossible as I have not even made three edits to the article in question according to the last 999 edits as as shown by my summaries, I reverted vandalism in both counts. Even if I had broken the 3rr, the exemption covers me even if having meat puppets pile in is the generally preferred option.UaMaol (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Uamal: indeed I did make a mistake, for some reason I thought you'd made 2 reverts on the same article. However you are confused about what is exempt and I guess I should thank you for bringing my attention to your edit summaries. First, you used Twinkle's 'revert good faith edits'. That's an announcement to everyone that you were not reverting vandalism. But your edit summary at National Front (UK) called the edit by User:Midnightblueowl vandalism. Since their edit was clearly not WP:VANDALISM that's a personal attack. As is your nonsense about meat puppets. Make sure that if you ever decide to call people meat puppets you only do that at WP:ANI. Your other revert didn't mention vandalism at all so I can't see how you think it's exempt. I'm going to copy this to your user page because they are important points. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Kush[edit]

In a manner very similar to how the Noba and Nobatae established dominance over the former Kushite empire, multiple groups of Blemmyes temporarily established successor states over formerly Kushite territories. This is commented on in books like Torok's handbook to Meroitic-Napatan civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenHistoryPedia (talkcontribs) 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)