Talk:Douglas Weller

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Doug Weller's additions to our article

The guy himself has shown up on our Wiki and made some changes to the article on him. Anybody more familiar with the topic at hand care to address his concerns? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked on the internet for him hes a classic crackpot theres been a lot of criticism about him, apparently he sits on wikipedia nearly 24/7 arguing with people and trolling history forums claiming he is qualified but he has no qualifications in history or archaeology.DinoCrisis (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, if his edit is the truth, then the article is no longer notable so should be vaped. Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Bad Faith (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, so where are we leaning here? I'll grant the dude that he's retired, so him being a "troll" on Wikipedia is probably inaccurate. It's just his hobby with all his free time. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
He's a well known troll on Amazon (both com & uk) [1][2] He pretends to be a rationalist but ends up giving rationalism a bad name, he is most likely a YEC or something in disguise. He one line reviews creationist or pseuoscience books, leaving personal attacks which actually gives credit to them (perhaps that is his goal). Boglin (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
So he's bad at what he does. Nobody said a Rationalist has to be Carl Sagan. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
edit conflict, replying to DinoCrisis but this is also a response to Boglin, look at the links, I'm obviously not a Creationist, I'm recommended by some clearly non-fringe sites. But I guess if these people like me, I shouldn't worry about what fringe people say.
In other words, you looked at the fringe sites and took their word for it. You confused sci.archaeology, sci.archaeology.moderated, and my personal website. Do you really think Ed Conrad isn't a troll? He never had a post accepted at sci.archaeology.moderated. And the bit about being addicted to Wiki? Why that link, why not And really, Garry Denke, who claims to own Stonehenge?[3]
G-D owns Stonehenge, the Heelstone, and Ark of the Testimony (Covenant) below it. Queen certainly is a C**t in my Book old chap. Your obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is quite sad; Helen, intervention works. Love, G-D
Yes, I get criticised by fringe people, and as an Administrator at Wikipedia I take a lot of flack, that goes with the territory. But what is it that makes me a crackpot? Not believing that aliens built the pyramids? Not believing in Atlantis? My website has had praise, I've been mentioned in Ken Feder's Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology, my website is mentioned at [4], [5], [6], and [[7] and many similar sites. I'm mentioned in this book [8]m etc. Yes, despite all my degrees and having been an academic for 10 years I have no qualifications in archaeology or history (although I took a number of history courses at Yale), but so what? I rarely post on history forums or anywhere else for that matter any more. I'm retired so have time (if not 24/7) to do a lot of work on Wikipedia. If I were a troll or crackpot I wouldn't be an Administrator there. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the pet shop thing is just nuts, I've never owned any kind of shop. My wife and I have 3 dogs and I used to hava a blog about them. We run them in agility races, etc. You really should have a way of preventing lies about people in biographies. Again, we'd never allow Usenet to be used as a source (I mean, the Doug Weller there could be anyone, couldn't it?). Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And thanks, without this nonsense I wouldn't have found [9]. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it is the Doug Weller from the Usenet forums, the same Doug Weller who on the Prophecies group used to be a crazy attack dog for "internet seer" aka huge conman Sollog.Here. Sorry for my inability to use Wiki sites, just thought you guys would be interested. (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted

I've deleted the article. It was mostly inaccurate garbage and nothing more. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the pet shop stuff but I think what was written on the article was accurate regarding the sci stuff becuase if the man is qualified then why has he not shown his qualifications? He reminds me of the creationists who pretend to have degrees but this time it is a bogus skeptic. Just becuase the man is an "admin" on wikipedia and spends all day on there means nothing, the owner of wikipedia Jimmy owns a porn website (see the wikihive website) thats how "rational" wikipedia is theres cranks and crackpots all over wikipedia, just becuase one user may have some authority on there doesn't make them immune from criticism. The question is why would doug pretend to have seven academics reviewing his skeptic website when in reality it is only him reviewing it and none of the academics exist? That is kook behaviour. Also you can't claim to be a "professional" archaeologist if you have no education whatsoever in the subject. But who cares im sure theres other websites exposing the kook already perhaps hes too minor to be on rationalwiki. DinoCrisis (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen Doug Weller step in and help out on some of the pages I watch on Wikipedia. I don't remember any signs of crackpottery, and that kind of stuff gets my attention in a memorable way. I'm willing to call the man level-headed and useful. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
He certainly has seemed so in person. I reserve everybody the right to individually prove they are a crazy person, and so far he has responded very reasonably to his criticism and made a good case for why it was bunk, which earns many respect points in my book. I'm going to need significant evidence to be convinced of kookiness, rather than aspersions of doubt and uncertainty. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 15:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually disappointed, I thought we'd get some good popcorn moments out of this. Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, Rational Wiki was rational? shit, does that mean I *can't* drink? --Green mowse.pngGodotIz a sekret Kristian 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Basically this happened. -> ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on confusion over my website and the moderated Usenet group

As I've said, although I've taken courses at the University of Birmingham in night school (the equivalent of 1st year University courses) and history at Yale, I'm not qualified in those subjects, but how does that matter at all? In the UK at least amateur archaeologists are highly thought of, some even run fairly large excavations. Jimbo doesn't own Wikipedia, it's owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. He doesn't run it either. How I can be a kook and have my website on academic websites, etc. is a bit beyond me. And where did I claim that anyone at all reviewed my website? No one reviews my website. I think you are confusing it with sci.archaeology.moderated whose original moderators are below (note how I'm described). Sorry, I've struck the original list which was the first list, we had further discussions and the final list is at [10] (we managed to get Nigel Strudwick[11] on board). Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Leakage from Wikipedia

Just added factual data to Semir Osmanagic WIkipedia page and this internet troll who is neither a geologist nor archaeologist speedy deleted all my info including recent articles of the Dr.'s latest findings at the pyramids in Bosnia. I emailed Doug Weller and he refuses to reply. I also submitted an appeal to the deletion. He claimed i added copyrighted data which i did not. The guy is obviously an skeptic and wants to kill any new findings that disturb his narrow world view. Here is an article about him that wikipedia banned me from posting on the appeal. No doubt Mr Weller had a hand in that too- he's been a wiki editor for 7 years and if you google him he comes up on several skeptic sites- Id like to add that i do have a degree in archaeology. He has messed with the wrong guy. — Unsigned, by: Vasalloe / talk / contribs 19 March 2014‎ Vasalloe (UTC)

You have picked the wrong place to complain. We don't think high of the Osmanagic's claims either. is a self-publishing source, not a respected news service. It's essentially a glorified blog hosting.
America Unearthed peddles pseudoarcheology, so whatever Scott Wolter is complaining about is probably justified.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I found this article on him after he deleted my factual information on recent discoveries and scientific analysis on Bosnian Pyramid site...Mr Weller immediately deleted everything i posted and most were actual links to articles on findings. This guy is unethical period. He is not a neutral wiki editor by any means. i tried to post this article to appeal his deletes and Wiki said its a link on their banned links list which im sure mr. weller had a hand in- — Unsigned, by: Vasalloe / talk / contribs 20 March 2014‎ (UTC)
Zooguard already pointed out that is an unreliable source. You are complaining in the wrong place here: the talk page of a deleted RationalWiki article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Cobb WP article

The Wikipedia article on Craig Cobb was slanted so that, instead of being Neutral Point of View, it gave undue weight to the opinions of persons who were hostile to Craig Cobb. It was one-sided, and it was partially implicitly false. I supplied corrections that seemed necessary, the knowledge to do which came from videos made by Cobb/Dutton and from discussions on forums that are friendly to white nationalists. Doug Weller removed those corrections on the grounds that they weren't properly sourced. Cobb was, more or less, the victim of intimidation and extortion under color of law, by a conspiracy between the local civil authorities and residents of Leith ND. Craig Cobb isn't the only subject of the kind of bias with which Wikipedia treated him. I observed it, also, in the treatment of April Gaede and her daughters about 2006-8. Wikipedia is a good resource for researching math, the physical sciences, or technology, but it sucks wherever Leftists have an interest in a false narrative, whether the topic is historical, or whether it involves genetics or current events. There's a kind of elite censorship squad that imposes reversion to the false narrative in such cases, usually under the hypocritical pretext of improving accuracy or returning to a Neutral Point of View. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools