User talk:MrSativa

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia! Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you!--MONGO 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:HakaindeHichilema.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Christine Maggiore. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference/source for the two billion pound figure (Lancaster House commitment)? If so, it would help. Babakathy (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Samuel R. Caldwell. Feel free to improve it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, MrSativa,

Thank you for creating the section, Ugandan Constitution of 1995, in the article, LGBT rights in Uganda. It is a valid point of view that should be present in Wikipedia.

I believe that you assert that protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex renders anti-homosexual laws unconstitutional. I challenge the assertion with my reason given on the talk page. Because of Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, I suggest that the assertion needs to be supported by a reference to a reliable source in order to be part of the article.

I welcome discussion about this.

• If you want to discuss this with me one-on-one, you could reply here.
• If you want to discuss this with editors interested in LGBT rights in Uganda, you could reply at Talk:LGBT rights in Uganda.
• If you want to discuss this with more editors, I suggest we could start a section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. The WikiProject has lots of editors who are enthusiastic about LGBT issues.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrSativa,

I reverted your edits to HIV, as they appeared to be your own personal synthesis of information, which is prohibited by Wikipedia's policy on original research. There might be room in in the article for criticism of the idea that circumcision reduces HIV transmission, but such criticism needs to be cited to a reliable source that explicitly discusses circumcision and HIV transmission. The article you cited did not mention HIV or AIDS in its discussion or conclusion, and did not mention circumcision at all. (Although it was an interesting article, and I'm glad your edit drew my attention to it.)

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the BMJ article to argue something not in the article - the article doesn't mention Bantu nor draw any conclusions about E1b1a not in the article. Please read WP:NOR. You also should read WP:WORDS. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrSativa (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Dear Doug Weller,[reply]

I did no such thing. The fact is that dr. Zahi Hawass signed off on the study in question (his name is at the top of the paper), and the study identifies the haplogroup of Ramses III and his son as E1b1a. The Haplogroup E1b1a is associated with the Bantu Migrations. That does not have to be in the article, it is a generally accepted fact (look at the E1b1a page, or at the Genographic Project). However, the Bantu Migrations are usually dated as starting around 1000 BC, but Ramses III reigned in the 12th century BC. (I would have linked to the Bantu Expansion page, but it is very apartheid era South African in tone.)

I don't understand what conclusions I drew that were not in the article. Haplogroup E1b1a is what it is, and the article states that Ramses III and his son's haplogroup are E1b1a.

No, you are suggesting something that is not in Hawass's article. Why are you even adding this? Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrSativa (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Why do you keep removing this information? You assert without proof that "you are suggesting something that is not in Hawass' article". What exactly am I suggesting that is not in the BMJ article?[reply]

Um, you made the edit, I've asked you why you are adding it, particular under a section about Hawass and Afrocentrism. Are you going to give me the courtesy of my answer? The article doesn't mention the Bantu.[1] nor does this report of the article[2]. What more proof do you need? That's original research. You can ask about this at WP:NORN if you think policy justifies your edit. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrSativa (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Dear Doug Weller,[reply]

Thanks for the extra link. You stated:

" The article doesn't mention the Bantu.[1] nor does this report of the article[2]. "

I think you are unfamiliar with today's DNA, and haplogroups. The article mentions:

" Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1.); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. "

It mentions E1b1a. E1b1a is the haplogroup that is associated with the Bantu Expansion. That is not 'my claim', that is the claim of everyone involved in genetics today. That is why I added a source from the Genebase Tutorial, but I could have added information from the Genographic Project, Wikipedia's own E1b1a page, or anything else.

What is E1b1a, other than THE Bantu haplogroup? What is E1b1b, other than the Afro-Asiatic language expansion haplogroup? I'm sorry that you are unaware of these facts.

I quote:

http://www.genebase.com/learning/article/2

" Genebase Tutorial - Learning Center

" E1b1a (M2) is prevalent throughout Africa, except in North Africa. It peaks in West Africa and is associated with the spread of agriculture or new farming methods by the Bantu to Sub-Saharan and Equatorial Africa regions, where it especially prevalent. The Bantu migration and dispersal of E1b1a (M2) appears to have reached as far as South Africa. "

None of that does anything to show this is not WP:NOR. As I said, you can go to WP:NORN about it. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrSativa (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I quote from the WP:NOR page you referred to: " Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] " Are you claiming that no reliable published sources exist for the fact that E1b1a is the haplogroup associated with the Bantu Expansion? Read the Genebase tutorial above. Do you have a source that E1b1a is NOT associated with the Bantu Expansion? I would say I have provided ample links that it is. I don't know what your argument is. Is it that the article doesn't mention E1b1a? Or that E1b1a is not associated with the Bantu Expansion, as the Genebase tutorial states?[reply]

You didn't see "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."? One source doesn't mention the Bantu, the other doesn't mention Ramses III. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrSativa (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Are you saying that the Hawass article doesn't state that Ramses III and his son are haplogroup E1b1a? Or that the Genebase tutorial doesn't say that E1b1a is associated with the Bantu Expansion? Both positions are "clearly advanced by the sources themselves". The equivalence is mentioning that the sun rises in the east - and also sets in the west. Ramses III is E1b1a, and E1b1a is the haplogroup associated with the Bantu Expansion. That is not new analysis or synthesis, it is merely underlining the obvious.[reply]

Then take it to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 13:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the end, sir. Please sign all comments at the end. We know where they start. Please sign at the end! 13:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC) [how wonderfully ironic. I used an incorrect number of ~ characters. My apologies. Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lefkowitz on your watchlist? I assume Black Athena is but her article doesn't seem to have many active watchers, and I think needs more given today's edits. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove an image from Human skin color with this edit? You didn't provide a reason so I reverted it. If you reply and don't get a response, please add a {{whisperback}} to my talk page, as I'm using a computer that others have access to. --  Kethrus |talk to me  12:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image, because old Apartheid classifications have no place in a modern article about DNA. Coloured was a designation for anyone who did not fit into the other Apartheid categories of European, African and Asian. Which would include most South Africans, because the Apartheid ideology in 1948 was trying to re-write 300 years of South African history. There is too much old thinking allowed in this article on the breathtakingly new science of human genetics. Can you justify a South African era classification in a page on dna and skintone in the year 2015? Including an image of a South African extended 'Coloured family' does not show where their genes come from. It also tries to re-introduce or continue Apartheid classifications and ideology which should be dead and buried by actual genetics. Why not include Eugen Fischer's photographic 'studies' of the Coloured populations of Namibia as well? MrSativa (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the hatnote on the Coloured article, and the comment on the image you removed "NOTE: "Coloured" does not mean the same thing as "colored" in this case; check the respective Wikipedia articles for further detail". Also, in future please don't assume bad faith, thanks. --  Kethrus |talk to me  12:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will 'presume' bad faith, whenever anyone tries to resuscitate Apartheid jargon and ideology in a scientific article. What other conclusions do you think people would draw. What is next, a section on Eugen Fischer in the DNA section?MrSativa (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting to sign, a problem I always have. Moved your comment to the bottom and dealt with all those references. Doug Weller (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy Doug Weller seems to wish to hide the data on Ramses 3. From what I am learning this was not his first attempt at excluding this info. Allanana79 (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I have been trying to get the FamilyTree DNA data about Tutankhamon included, but it is also getting excluded for there allegedly being 'no peer review'. That is the first time I heard of that requirement. They are actively excluding anything that doesn't maintain the western mythology about Africa, no matter what the evidence says. MrSativa (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What can we do? They have now taken the data off of DNA history of Egypt. Including Ramses 3 DNA results. I'm new to this. Editing Wikipedia. Allanana79 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. It only proves that their is a conspiracy at hiding this information and always has been. One can see this in real time by observing Wikipedia. Thus this validates the Afrocentric claim that there exists a conspiracy. I wish I had a computer I would be on top of this all the time. Allanana79 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I thought conspiracies were supposed to be done secretly? Doug Weller talk 19:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's not like you are gonna say "I'm doing this because...." It just feels like you know the truth but are actively hiding it. That would be secretively. Allanana79 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are very fond of the 'Greek Miracle', which is an ex nihilo version of history. When they really can't get around the precedence of Egypt, they invoke a 'categorical difference' (Bloom, Lefkowitz) of anything Greek. They don't want to admit that a) most culture around the Mediterranean was borrowed from Ancient Egypt - and I do mean across the board, religion, philosophy, architecture, mathematics, language, dance, politics, statecraft, were all borrowed from Ancient Egypt. And that b) this civilisation was a Black African civilisation, right down to their language (Afro-Asiatic which originates in East Africa, and yet there are also linguistic and genetic links with Bantu language families whose E1b1a also originates in East Africa), their genes (E1b1a - the haplogroup of the Bantu Expansion, shared by Ramses III and his son, extremely likely Tutankhamon too). The people who live in say the Delta today are not necessarily the same people who lived there 3,000 years ago. And we can know this from looking at both's DNA.MrSativa (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about a 'Greek Miracle." As for linguistic affinities, "Egyptian belongs to the Hamito-Semitic family of languages.3 It has affinities with Hamitic languages such as Beja, Berber, and Oromo, and with all the Semitic languages, including Akkadian, Arabic, and Hebrew."[3] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Douglas, there is no such thing as a Hamito-Semitic language family. Unless you live in the 1950s. There are or were no Hamites. The language family is called Afro-Asiatic. Afro-Asiatic is South-, Central- and East Cushitic, Omotic, Beja, Semitic (in East Africa, the Sudan-Somalia-Ethiopia region), Hausa (West Africa), Berber (Northwest Africa) and Ancient Egyptian (Northeast Africa). Of these 9 language families, only Semitic is spoken outside of Africa. In fact, Semitic is most complex and therefore older in East Africa, less so in Southern Arabia, less so in the Levant, and the least complex in Mesopotamia. This clearly shows that Semitic is an Afro-Asiatic language of East African origin, like the other Afro-Asiatic languages. Not coincidentally, haplogroup E1b1b spread with the Afro-Asiatic languages, the way E1b1a spread with the Bantu languages. MrSativa (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bantu peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shona. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that we don't interpret our sources or add material not in them. Even our article on the Haplogroup doesn't call it the "Bantu expansion haplogroup", as I obviously said in my edit summary. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And when I added several different sources for both widely established facts, i.e. that Ramses III is haplogroup E1b1a, and that E1b1a is associated with the Bantu Expansion, you still called it 'original research'. It sounds to me that you are trying to withhold from the Wikipedia reader, the significance and context of haplogroup E1b1a. Just for clarity, are you saying that haplogroup E1b1a is NOT associated with the Bantu Expansion? Are you a science denier? And since when is it the standard that everything has to be in the same article, or it is 'original research'? I need to talk to another administrator about this. MrSativa (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Randi Rhodes, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 21:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Rhodes birth name was Buten, not Bueten. How is correcting this fact 'not constructive'? Your removal of the change is 'not constructive'. How do you know her name is Bueten, and not Buten? MrSativa (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cro-Magnon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you can't show that the source says "black" then you are at best adding original research - but since you were already reverted before with an edit summary saying the sources don't show "black"..... Doug Weller talk 20:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrSativa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was the wrong page. I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Doug Weller and responded. I don't think you ever noticed that I put the E1B1a information into his article a year ago. In the context of the report, which is how it should be done. Could I suggest that if you have read WP:NOR and still think it's ok to add Bantu, that you ask at WP:NORN? That's the best way to handle this sort of disagreement. Doug Weller talk 22:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop this. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, you need to chill out. The fact is that E1b1a is today associated with the Bantu Expansion, and it is nearly exclusively found in what is called Sub-Saharan Africa. WHAT PROBLEM DO YOU HAVE? Other than that it might 'imply' that the Ancient Egyptians were Black, of course. So let's ignore the fact that they have the same haplogroup as 90% to 100% of the population of the West Africa, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V38#Distribution You are the one who needs to stop this. MrSativa (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is original research. You can't combine sources to make an argument, read WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CITE THE RELEVANT WP:NOR TEXT IN CONTEXT. MrSativa (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you are making up interpretations of Wikipedia rules as you go along. Quote the relevant section of NOR. MrSativa (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what NORN and No-SYNTH are not - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not First, let's make something very clear. When one study says that Ramses III and his son have haplogroup E1b1a, and other sources say that E1b1a is mainly found in Sub-Saharan Africa, and that it is associated with the Bantu Expansion, that is not a synthesis of sources, nor is it original research. It is simply the statement of two true facts, used to clarify and contextualise eachother. You may not like the context, however you cannot claim they are contradictory, exclusionary or two different points of view.

On why NOR does not apply in this case:

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.^[1]

There is no "C" in the statement of two facts - haplogroup E1b1a for Ramses III and his son (A), and the spread of E1b1a today (B). There is no A and B, therefore C conclusion.

Wakeup call for Doug to remember:

"SYNTH is not an advocacy tool

If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be." ^[2]

-- MrSativa (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add this excellent treatise on Wikilawyering.

" Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of justifying Wikipedians' actions. It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices, including:

- Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy

- Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles

- Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express

- Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions "

^[1]MrSativa (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Ancient Egyptian race controversy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering - is DBachmann a sockpuppet of Doug Weller? D would be Doug, and Bach or brooke is another name for water, like a well (Weller). MrSativa (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Doug is a long time admin and sitting member of ArbCom. I suppose if you wanted to continue down this silly line of reasoning you could ask him to Checkuser himself. Capeo (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither a yes or a no, however I'll presume you mean no. See more here ^[2]

- MrSativa (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at Talk:Black Athena is clearly not discussing the book but your own ideas. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Talk:United States Constitution. As you have been told about this before, I'm including the standard warning template before so you can re-familiarize yourself with the guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you should clarify yourself. As I've 'been told what before'? What about the US Constitution? Do you mean this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Constitution&oldid=prev&diff=777514372 ? I just added an addition to the talk page to clarify why I made the adjustment to the page. You are saying this is violating the rules?MrSativa (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear <cough> what your comments were referring to. Out of context, they appeared to be another forum-type comment, which is what this section is about. Next time, please clarify <cough> what your referring to, as not everyone will connect an article edit with a talk page comment. Your edit had been reverted by the time checked my watchlist, so I didn't have a clue what the comment was about. I'll remove the warning below as unwarranted. - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that was a mistake. If not it was a very bad idea. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doug. I am not in conversation with you. When I edit Wikipedia posts, I don't appreciate your commentary, especially considering you had nothing to contribute to the conversation. Then, you have not apologized for using the NOR charges to wikilawyer. You never defined NOR, and when I went to check, it had nothing to do with what was published. When challenged to provide the exact quote and relevant text, you just withered away. Now, do you want to threaten me with what is 'a very bad idea'? That's a veiled threat. MrSativa (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to remove other user's comments, unless it is blatant vandalism, trolling, WP:NPA violations, etc. Doug's comments are none of those, so please don't remove his comments. See WP:TPO for more information. SkyWarrior 20:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sky, is there any way to make Doug Weller go away. He seems to think that I am in some kind of personal conversation with him, when in fact he has nothing to contribute to any discussion on Ancient Egypt or anything else - notice his posts. For someone who routinely removes posters contributions at a whim, he seems to be very sensitive about anyone else changing or removing his comments on a whim. He is a well known nuisance. [redacted] MrSativa (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the text on that page has suddenly disappeared, however it was saved on the Web Archive:

[redacted] MrSativa (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I've been a pain in the butt to fringe archaeology pushers, Creationists, racists, homophobes, etc online since even before the Internet. As a result I've been the subject of a lot of online harassment, even going so far as to involve my wife. And now you've joined in by posting a link to an attack page, condoning such behavior. We don't, however, and posting such links is generally considered a breach of our harassment policy. Can I remind you that you have made less than a thousand edits, and I've made over 170,000. I've also been elected twice to the Arbitration Committee, so I must be doing something right.

As for not being in a conversation with me, you clearly are given your comments after that statement. I really did think it might have been an error, but I can see that I was wrong. But I'll tell you what. In the future I won't post informally to your talk page unless you mention me here. I certainly won't reply here to your comments above. I won't take any Admin action against you as I'm involved. I will however post formal warnings if I think them appropriate. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text on that page was deleted because of you using it as a tool for harassment. Please stop doing this - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks removed under WP:RPA. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's 'a tool of harassment'? I just referred to the relevant page. To my surprise, the content had been deleted. So I simply replaced the link to a page archived by the Web Archive. It seems to me that you are the ones who are overstepping your bounds. Remember, I did not request for Doug Weller to leave comments on my page. :) MrSativa (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... have YOU 'redacted' my posts on this page? Perhaps you should be blocked from editing Wikipedia... Because I clearly remember leaving a page to the RationalWiki page of Doug Weller. MrSativa (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Remove offsite attack]

I would concur with that opinion - Doug Weller does not have the requisite knowledge to say what is good or bad. He also knows nothing about genetics. Notice that he tried to shoehorn the charge of NOR into a post made based on an article in the BMJ, namely that Ramses III has haplogroup E1b1a. When the same is said in an article by DNA Tribes, he claims that DNA Tribes 'isn't peer reviewed', a charge he of course cannot make about the BMJ. In other words, he picks and chooses which opinions should make it into Wikipedia, which he has no qualifications to do. MrSativa (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you and your little buddy 'moderators' have just erased Doug Weller's page on Rational Wiki, which I linked to. However, you cannot censor everything, and the Web Archive lovingly preserves that page. [Link to attack site removed again] MrSativa (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's clever. You're blocked for personal attacks and you continue them. Why Tryptych was being so silly I don't know, but as I said, I was dealing with fringe archaeology way before I was even on Wikipedia. Which is why Archaeology Magazine listed my website[http;www.ramtops.co.uk] calling it "An excellent collection of links to sites that dispute pseudoarchaeological theories."[4] And why archaeologist Kenneth Feder mentions it.[5] Or here in a 2008 list of resources. Ah well, don't let reality get in your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if I'm not allowed to post facts to Wikipedia, I would rather be banned like Abby Martin. [remove another offsite attack] Remember that Wikipedia depends on trust and goodwill, and not just from the users. MrSativa (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see the previous section. Bishonen | talk 14:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MrSativa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This actually is the typical bullying tactic and harassment that is typical of tinpot dictators like Doug Weller. For years and years, I have had no problem posting anything about Africa, Ancient Egypt or similar topics, and all of a sudden, every time I post something it is removed by Doug Weller for some spurious reason that is never defined, but on closer inspection, never holds up to scrutiny. For instance, he is fond of exclaiming NOR, which means you cannot join A + B = C if there is no independent source verifying C. However if you only state A + B, there is no original research, because there is no (unsupported) conclusion. For years Doug Weller has blocked simple information about the Ancient Egyptians from being posted on this spurious argument and abuse of the moderation process, also known as wikilawyering. He and his buddies seem to be on a crusade against what they call 'Afrocentrism', which however only is a desire to continue the notion of white supremacy, no matter what the evidence says. I will however refrain from removing Doug Weller's contributions, if he gets the hell out of my face. :) MrSativa (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You are blocked for your own actions, not for Doug Weller's. That's what you'll need to address. Huon (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MrSativa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So exactly what were those 'actions'? All I did is take out one spurious, content free comment on a conversation I was having on a talk page. I am not in a personal conversation with Doug Weller, and I do not appreciate his incessant comments on conversations I have with other people. If this was anywhere outside of Wikipedia, like Twitter, or Youtube, or anywhere else, I would have him blocked for being a troll. So you can claim these are 'my actions' all you want, but this is not the Wikipedia of old, where trolls like Doug Weller would never make it to be 'moderators'. Wikipedia is based on goodwill and trust, and Doug Weller's sneeky wikilawyering is the antithesis of that. I think these problems had been pointed out as early as 2009. MrSativa (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's quite enough. Talkpage access removed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 07:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Note: MrSativa took the opportunity to reinsert some offsite attacks yet again, just before he had tpa removed. I've removed them, hope I didn't miss any. Bishonen | talk 09:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]