Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Christopher Riordan Jones

Hi, Honestly I didn't know there was a Conflict of Interest issue on Wikipedia (I didn't read every guideline). Should I just take my entry down? I figured most authors just posted info about their work where it applies and set up their own bios (since they know the exact dates when their works were copy-written and published and such). I'm not sure what to do now. I only just created an account today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawnoftyphon (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Spawnoftyphon. Thanks for this, thanks very much. Sadly I don't think you meet our criteria at WP:AUTHOR. And we don't add self-published books to articles, or in fact almost any books unless they have their own articles or the author does. I see you have found out how to ask for your article to be deleted, and as I am an Administrator I can and have done that. I really appreciate your attitude and cooperation. Now I am not saying that you are Christopher and it would be improper and very much against policy for me to try to suggest who you are in real life, but Riordan? Do you know if Christopher Riordan Jones is related to Rick Riordan? Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Ping Spawnoftyphon. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I am Christopher Riordan Jones, and no I am not related to Rick. I would be very sad if I was. He is the antithesis to everything I strive towards as a writer. Rick Riordan claims his works are devoted to preventing bullying and supporting those who are different, yet his books are devoted to the perspectives of blind demigods and gods who go around slaughtering monsters (specifically tragic creatures who have had their perspectives denied). Monsters have their perspectives in my books at least. I take some solace in that. Spawnoftyphon (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Ref the Fried Bread page source for "fried slice" the article you have linked does not give a source for the use of the word "Fried Slice". If you read the article, the author is not calling fried bread fried slice - "for those of us who like to laugh in the face of heart disease and add that pièce de résistance, fried bread. Personally, I never truly feel I'm eating a full breakfast without a fried slice (of bread)."

The "of bread" should be added. I have never seen the term fried slice used in the UK to describe fried bread. You can, of course have a fried slice of bread, but the term a fried slice is not used.

Hope that helps

109.153.178.238 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

human history correction

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/18-million-year-old-skull-indicates-there-may-have-been-just-one-human-species. Hello. This is a link for you to check on what you called my misunderstanding of the discoveries last year. I apologize for not including the dates and names or other facts. I thought I was posting for your review only. You have educates me on the use of your system. Thank you. As well the american cival war is incorrect in it claims. The southern states receeded because of the north was keeping their slaves. The south was the French run quarter and the north belonged to the English. The English won of course. I think it was dumbars proclamation that started it off. Not the emancipation proclamation. I hope I am replying to your message to me. If I did it wrong I apologize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Any rism (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


The National Alliance still exists. See: www.natall.com The new Chairman is William White Williams. See article by the SPLC called "Triumph of the Will" and stop reverting edits that you have no idea are valid. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.131.84 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced claims about living people can and often should be removed, see WP:BLP. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar duck again

Hey there, I think it's duck season again. New account Special:Contributions/SM2468 as compared to previously blocked Special:Contributions/468SM. Notice the lack of imagination with the name and similar pattern of editing on the same area of articles. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of imagination, good judgement. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you delete some last versions of History of Brahmin diet? They ripped off [1]-[2] Bladesmulti (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Awakening Records

Hi Doug, need some admin assistance on this page again, another user adding things to the page without being aware of Wikipedia guidelines on what is acceptable to be included. Thanks in advance. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Are

you following this discussion? Saw you among the few editors on the short list of dog editors. We are not many; some are interested in animated Disney films and some just happen to own a dog ... or just love them. Hafspajen (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

--శ్రీధర్ బబు (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

How it is no appropriate of the image please explain

but what about book--శ్రీధర్ బబు (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at శ్రీధర్ బబు's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In the loop

I blocked the IP you reverted here for block evasion. This is the verbatim text Shylocksboy edit-warred and socked previously to force through. A cursory look at the contributions showed it was clearly Shylock evading their block. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I should have guessed. This is also clearly him. And I see the IP you blocked was very busy the last few months. Thanks very much for this. What a pain! Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Creation myth

Doug, the phrase "creation myth" is not only an opinion, it is an offensive opinion. You did not address the logic behind my edit, you merely asserted your opinion. I am surprised that an administrator of Wikipedia would argue by assertion, using argumentum ad populum in support of this assertion. There are millions of people in the world who would make the opposite assertion, but unlike you, they have Genesis to back up their assertion. If you are not able to open mindedly consider the opinions or beliefs of others and allow them to be expressed, you should not in my opinion be an administrator. It is more accurate to say that some people believe the creation account in Genesis is a myth than to assert the offensive opinion that it is a myth.

Regards, Martin Glass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherofmen1967 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No the term "creation myth" is not an opinion. It is the scientificand objective way to refer to religious narratives of creation. Indeed it is the only term that is neutral in that it applies equally to the creation narratives of all religions, without privileging any over the others.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

Yozer1 and his battleground attitude

Per this statement by Yozer1, I believe this is a gross violation of his restrictions concerning Wikipedia:AA2, per "5) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable."


Considering that Yozer1 has continued to violate his AA2 sanctions,[3][4][5] I see no reason why he should not be blocked, again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Wikiisawesome's talk page.
Message added 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

wia (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancient warfare

My editing of the Ancient Warfare page in regards to the Roman-Persian wars was only meant to rectify the fact that "Persian Empire" linked to "Achaemenid Empire", which was of course long-defunct by the time of Persian conflict with the Roman world. I see that this has been fixed and thank you for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.142.210 (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Proxy

Hi. I want to edit through proxies/vpns, because I have a lot of troubles to access some articles and images. What should I do? Details and instructions. Would you please reply on my talk page? Thanks a lot. --Zyma (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Happy Easter
Happy Easter ... mmm a new client, I notice. --Hafspajen (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Strictly theoretical question regarding a strictly theoretical possible ArbCom case, ...

he lied. ;) Let us assume that there is an editor who has displayed, over the years, a rather noticeable tendency to go into periods of attacking editors with whom he has disagreed with, particularly in venues beyond the actual disagreement itself. Let us further assume that his comments in these venues can more than somewhat obviously cross the line of acceptable comments. Let us further assume that there is at least some indication that the individual may have indicated some form of paranoic views regarding those with whom he or she or it (this is of course, all theoretical ;) ) has had disagreements, to the point that at least one of those peripherally involved believes some form of i-ban might be appropriate for some of the previous disagreements regarding this person. The question being, if the behavior were to continue, as it (theoretically) has, across multiple discussions, and in relation to more than one editor, in the future, and the peripherally involved party might have as a primary interest trying to, basically, keep further incidents from happening, does ArbCom have any sort of effective way to prevent such future misconduct? Basically, is there a sort of "future i-ban's by motion" quick-trigger option in such cases, to prevent unnecessary escalation and decrease the likelihood of those with whom the editor has been in conduct, in some theoretical cases, potentially retiring? John Carter (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Too new at the job to know, I'm afraid. Ask one of the experienced Arbs.Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Appreciate the feedback for our critical race theory course, will do. DaneAmanda (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Tanbircdq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tanbircdq (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar! I don't exactly know what it was about but I am assuming that our initial interaction was that you objected to my edits as a result of WP:NPOV violation and then I made a decision to self-revert these edits on my own. We are humans and we make mistakes from time to time. Anyways, I appreciate this. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Druze

If you have time, could you review this edit to Druze [6] and others made just previous to it by the same editor? I don't know about the others, but "The civil war of 1860 cost the Christians some ten thousand lives in modern day Syria" doesn't quite make sense. CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Anon IP in Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Idunno, maybe we should take this to arbcom ourselves, anon's getting awfully close to 3RR themselves, and as far as I can tell, you and I are squeaky clean re: 3RR and Bold-Revert-Discuss etc. It might be a good outcome, though kind of a headache and annoying.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Shibbolethink - I think you mean WP:ANI, it's not a case we'd accept at ArbCom (I'm a committee member). The IP should have been given a 3RR warning earlier and is at 4RR, but I've given them one now. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Just so you are aware, I am planning to pursue disciplinary action against you for Wikihounding. I have ample evidence to illustrate that you and one other wiki editor are hounding me in violation of wikipedia policies. See WP:Hound What's more, you have repeatedly violated the three revert rule WP:3RR and engaged in edit warring. That said, you can stop it now or I will be posting on the warring notice board you or the other editor's next attempt at conducting yourselves in this manner. It does not improve Wikipedia, in fact, you are doing more harm than good by disrupting the neutrality of the articles by allowing your personal biases interfere with your editing.66.190.249.59 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Go for it, it's your right. Consecutive edits count as one, and I was at 2RR and still am when you sent me this. I warned you after 4RR (and reported you this am). Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Find My Past

Hello Just wondering why I have seen in a couple of places findmypast is not a reliable source? It uses birth and death certs and takes you to a photograph of each page. I would have thought that since wikipedia's ethos is verifiability not truth it would be the prefect source. Tia --Doris Kami (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Doris Kami Take a look at [7] and [8]. The biggest problem, especially when dealing with living people and our WP:BLP policy, is being certain that the person in the article is the same person as on findmypast without doing original research. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks for the response. --Doris Kami (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Long-term abuse: Now edits as anonymous editor

Banned editor (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34) returned to targeted articles: Scythian languages, Alans, other articles. [9], [10], [11], [12]. Now edits as both IPv6 and IPv4. What we should do? --Zyma (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Zyma report to WP:ANI. In fact, I'll copy this over there. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I submitted a page protection request for one of the targeted articles, because of over 35 disruptive edits on that article. It seems that he decided to start his pov-pushing quest again (by using IPs and new accounts). His case (Long-term abuse and SPI archive) needs a serious admins' attention. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Most major publications are still using U.S.

Regardless of what the Chicago Manual of Style says, most major publications are still using U.S. with the periods. For one thing, it's a lot easier to parse and read. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the NYT and the government uses U.S. User:Coolcaesar, that's why I said you aren't exactly right. I don't think it's actually worth reverting over, but then it's not as bad as reverting because someone has used a z instead of an s in a word, since both are used in both American and British English. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You can thank RPOD for that.

Used to be a section on it at Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience, but he took it out because it was unsourced, while leaving the redirect. I suppose if I really wanted to I could scour the internet for hours looking for reliable sources on this peculiar man's rather unique take on reality, or you could delete it. Which would you prefer? Serendipodous 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirected it to Nuwaubian Nation. Serendipodous 18:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's got other meanings, but ok. I could G7 it. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Settlement of the Americas

I think we should take over this rewrite...things were looking good ...but I am concerned with the tone and some of the sources. IP has a good grasp of the topic but looks like they are writing an essay of this vs that. Going to follow this approach what do you think? -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Moxy Hope you saw my edits. The IP is now trying to use the talk page to argue his point, I'll tell him I'm not going to do that. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Megatrend University

Respectable sir, somebody again removed material which is critical to the Megatrend University and replaced it with material from Megatrend web site. With kind regards, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.241.232 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for the editing feedback and the cookies!(Wikkwriter (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC))

My thanks (again)

The Admin's Barnstar
For your great work as an admin regarding the mess created months ago by others. You're making a huge difference here with your efforts, by which you definetely set yourself apart from so many in here. My thanks again.

Nine-tenths of wisdom is being wise in time. - T. Roosevelt
LouisAragon (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion about this book by Farrokh

Hello Doug, ;)

I know Kaveh isn't officially an historian, but I wonder what you think about this particular book of his; [13]

I want to make a start in further expanding the Battle of Krtsanisi page and this book of his (right on the page I linked it) has perhaps one of the more (if not amongst most) detailed contemporary descriptions about the war and the re-occupation of Georgia.

I'd like to know your opinion about this. Can we use this book as a reference? He uses references so I guess in the worst case we could just use the references he links at the end of the book instead of linking this book itself?

Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:LouisAragon Long arguments about this in the past. At one point Kaveh (we are on first names basis, at least in email) thought I was pretty bad, having bought into some of the nastier stuff that's been posted about me. But he is a very reasonable (and nice) guy and we're friends. We can't use his references without reading them (and that's the best option - he's an amateur historian, no matter how good he might be). If not, he'd have to be attributed by name in the text. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Dougweller, thanks for your prompt response. That's exactly what I secretly expected to hear. I didn't expect to hear that your initial talks with him were unpleasant though. You probably confronted him with his self-presentation of being a historian or?... ;) Yeah, he's a very good amateur historian, I can't deny that. I've read 1-2 of his other works. He should definetely get a degree in it in order to be used as a solid reference himself. Anyway, I'll indeed follow up the work in those articles per the way we both had in mind. Fortunately he has used the references right on the statements where I need them. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Without details, he initiated the encounter. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

CRV

Harry Soyster

Cited as Major General, replacing Stubblebine Or... Retired as Lieutenant General ???( per bio ) No explanation ...72.107.72.255 (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure I understand this. Where is the mention of Harry E. Soyster that you are asking about? Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

I appreciate your acknowledgment of my efforts. I was just on the way to KM to do another self-edit when I saw your message.75.111.54.141 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

impersonator, her actual self, or a sock?

Hello Doug. Any opinion about this? ANI or?

In my opinion;

1) either we genuinely got this notable Iranian-Assyrian woman that's born in Iran being an ethnic internet nationalist here. Which, admirable of course, still is not a rationale to push ethnic nationalism.
2) a sockpuppet of any of the people who reverted the same edits prior to this brand new account
3) An Assyrian diasporean who impersonates mrs. Malek-Yonan simply to push an ethnic nationalistic pov. Which again, would lead us eventually (at least in similar cases I think) close to option numero two.

Anyway my feeling goes towards the second one, but I wonder what your opinion is. If you agree with me this should go to ANI, then I'll just probably do that after your response.

Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

2012

Hello, in 2008 you protected the page 2012 with the reason "...if any page qualifies this one does (although in 2013 it can probably be lifted!)". This is the only year that is indefinitely semi-protected, showing that it's not a trend, do you think we can give it a shot at un-protection? Thanks in advance! Kharkiv07Talk 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cite isbn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Cite isbn. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

article Khaba

Hi there. Could you please keep your eyes peered on the article? Some user had put in a 1:1 copy of an web article into the section "quesna tomb". I had to wipe it out of the article, but I'm a bit afraid besaid user could put it in again. See article history. Many thanks. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the "1:1" phrase. ;o) We Germans use it to describe a perfect copy of something: "1:1" = one-by-one = word-by-word. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nephiliskos: sorry, I read it as 1.1, if I'd read it correctly I would have known what you mean. Blame the iPad, I'm fine on my widescreen monitor. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Aahh, that's why.^^ No problem. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

David Pakman

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems quiet. I don't see the need at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

104.35.41.35 SPA ?

I do get the impression, this IP user solely exists to mess up infoboxes of ancient chronology articles : User contributions of 104.35.41.35. There are too many edits for me to clean up. Could you have a look? ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Phantom time

Sadly I deleted the additions. For your interest, here is a fascinating paper discussing the connection between reported and actual eclipses in the Chronicle. Clearly there were many errors made by the scribes, but these are errors of detail, a day or two. Nothing that would explain 300 missing years! I am fascinated by PTH, nonetheless. The sheer audacity of it. Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

New suspect

Was checking the page history someday ago and recalled [this edit today some time after I would read this one. Can you check 468Shahi? Account was created today and it sounds similar to 468SM. I also think that there are probably more accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mount Ararat talk page

Hello. Could you please take a look at the edit history of Talk:Mount Ararat. Appears you had mistakenly left in/restored some advertisements. Recently, an IP added more spam to that section. I chose to revert to the revision one earlier than yours in order to remove the section entirely, but that action reverted the archive bot. The threads in question are currently still in the archive. Will this cause any problems the next time the bot tries to do its job? Should I now manually remove those sections, or is it okay to just leave it as is? Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:CS1 errors

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:CS1 errors. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Concurrence, reversion on Ainu page.

I'm not aware of any academic source, least of all C. Loring Brace, calling the Ainu Eurasian in origin. Australic populations did migrate to the Altai region by 40ka. The original Ainu strain is believed to be derived from that group. One qualifier is that some Ainu populations did experience later admixture from eastern Siberia (Nivkh etc.). I don't know what the heritage of those contributors might reveal.75.111.54.141 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Another Badmintonhist sock IP

68.0.207.169 (talk · contribs). Geolocates to the same place, makes a beeline for an article I just edited and to another article that Badmintonhist spent a lot of time on before. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Did you see[14]. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I'm the one that filed the SPI :) Thanks for blocking BH's new sock. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

104.35.41.35 again

Hello, I have now repeated my notice about 104.35.41.35 at ANI, in case you are interested. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Til

Yes, I'm 99% sure it's him, but he's playing the innocent. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ainu

Hey Doug, you accuse me of vandalizing the Tibetan and Ainu pages, but you seem hardpressed in denying Caucasoid or Europoid heritage to the Ainu (political reasons?). I removed the sources claiming Australoid relations because they were not hyperlinked and also when I googled the studies I got no results or I just got pay-per-view articles which most ordinary folks cannot access. I may have bee liberal with the term "eurasian" by Brace but that was what was inferred. Just do the basic research on the professor and the Ainu. Brace believes Caucasoids, Ainuids, and partly also Polynesids and Indianids (Native Americans) are interrelated through some early paleolithic caucasoid ancestry. And through the Ainu these genes were passed onto the Samurai class of old Japan. And (to him) the Ainu seem intermediate in features between mongoloids and paleolithic caucasoids. Many studies that do not genetically show Ainu European ancestry are partly compromised. because 1. Many Ainus of today have lost some or all of the typical Ainu traits through intermarriage with Japanese. 2. They are based on y-dna or mt-dna single-gene haplogroup frequencies and rarely autosomal dna, and if they are then it often does not include west eurasian populations in the analysis. As for the Tibetans having a branch of Y-DNA D-M174 unrelated to the Ainu or the Negritos (both groups that have the same D Y-dna macro haplogroup). that is a fact... And it is stated in wikipedia's own article about haplogroup d-m174. Not sure how that's vandalism. Also the Tibetans do contain a very minor "turkic" or "tajik"-like strain. that's not "fringe" thought. Some tibetans have closer set eyes, an elevated nasal skeleton as well as iris pigmentations that go beyond the range of both northeast asian and southeast asian mongoloids. And that is evident in the pictures that you have of some of them in your wiki page. Thank you for your time. This is your guys website, but I hope you can see my case as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgonVonEickstedt (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem really confused. The whole Asia-Pacific branch that includes everything from the Ainu to the Aborigines is descended from the out-of-Africa migration that, if anything, preceded the migration of of the group that became Caucasoid. It is equally logical to make the inference that Caucasoids are descended from Australoids as the one you chose to make, although neither is true. Do not try to blame your incorrect inference on Brace. It's a good example of why inferences tangential to what primary sources say do not meet WP standards.
Your self-imposed limitations on accessing primary sources are not a valid reason to delete them. The abstracts of subscription articles have value. References to subscription articles can be used to find professional secondary sources that refer to them, or sometimes full articles on the author's webpage.
Sure, Jōmonoid genes were passed to the old Samurai class just the same way they were passed to virtually all Japanese. So what? The Bronze Age and the more sophisticated social structures associated with wet rice farming were brought to Japan by ethnically Chinese migrants during the Yayoi period. Early Japanese leaders considered themselves vassals of the Chinese emperor. Were you trying to attribute the rise of Japanese culture to a group with Caucasian genes?
If you're concerned about Mongoloid admixture obscuring the heritage of the modern Ainu, refer to recent studies of fossil mtDNA from Hokkaido Jōmon skeletons that precede potential Mongoloid admixture. They are firmly within the Australoid group. Sakhalin Ainu are an admixture of the older Jōmonoid strain and Siberians, so don't get too excited if some Eurasian genes got thrown into the mix the way they have been among Tibetans and Mongolians.
The reasons why determination of an Australoid heritage for the Jōmonoid - Ainu lineage would be politically motivated escape me.75.111.54.141 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


EgonVonEickstedt, bottom line is that the material that you said wasn't in the sources was in the sources. You've even admitted that you couldn't read some of them. Sources don't have to be online, and many will indeed be behind a pay wall, but they are still acceptable. In any case, at least one of the sources you said didn't contain the cited material was online and clearly did contain that information. Sources must also directly back the text for which they are used, and the sources must discuss the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

For you

Long live the Poodle
Long live the Poodle! Hafspajen (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Dogs at Halloween
 Our dogs last Halloween
Waiting for their Halloween treats! Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof

Comments welcome Peter Damian (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:)

Look, another good little Marxist. Bawlix (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, another Metapedia visitor about to be indeffed...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been around this site much longer than you, just check my userpage history. I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade though. Trust me, you slimy fucks will all have your day. Bawlix (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

PR request

I'd like to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. RO(talk) 16:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You are probably too busy to do this due to your ArbCom role but it was me who suggested that the article could do with being PR'd by someone with a decent understanding of archaeology. I'm sure Rationalobserver would be grateful if you were able to suggest someone. The talk page of the Archaeology project looks fairly quiet. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Rationalobserver, User:Sitush, many apologies. I just don't have time I'm afraid and haven't really done much PR of articles. I can't think of anyone offhand. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries. RO(talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Racial bias

Hi Dougweller. You may be interested in this. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


Seaver and the pygmies

The problem with that section is that it's all made up. There's no argumentation for the thesis that makes the least bit of sense.

What does Homer and Alexander Ross have to do with the Vikings? Nothing. She might as well cite classical Chinese writers. That the Norse should have based "monster races" on Pliny is absurd. It's unlikely that any Norse ever read a single word of Pliny. She writes: "they were quick to label these new people as Pygmies". This is (I'm sorry, but there's no polite way to put it) bullshit. Where did they label the skrælings pygmies? Nowhere. To claim that "skræling" is a translation of "pygmaei" is ridiculous. Where is the connection? The Norse didn't speak Latin, none of the peoples they traded with spoke Latin, and "skræling" has never meant pygmy. So why make this claim? There are perfectly good explanations for the term already. What's the use of making one up out of nothing?

The whole thing is just a hodgepodge of insinuations, every single one of which is deeply unlikely. So this whole section is just noise. It adds no value whatsoever, and is, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

If you seriously believe this adds value to the page I would really like to know why.LarsMarius (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC) 

: I'll look at Seaver tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
: : Any progress? --LarsMarius (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Hello, excuse me but what exactly I need to se in the talk page? And it doesn't matters because it has no source, the "citation needed" was there a long time, therefore probably is an original research. if you have the source please add it. If not it must go (WP:OR). Rupert loup (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Rupert loup, no it is not OR and you really should have read my comments on the talk page, which included sources. Did you even look for sources? Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's not OR must have sources. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. See WP:OR, Unsourced material is against WP:NOT policy and it has no place in Wikipedia, you need to prove that is not original research with reliables sources WP:PROVEIT. Rupert loup (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is not the place to put the sources, it must be next to the text. Again if you have the source please add it. Rupert loup (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If sources are presented on the talk page, one must either explain how they are inadequate or else acquiesce that they support the statement. If one accepts that they support the statement, removing the material instead of citing the sources comes across as petty. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: I don't care, It's not my problem, the "citation needed" was there for a time, you (the people that edit the article) should put the sources instead that wait that someone delete the text, in fact the person who should put the sources was who write the thing. I'm not an employe of Wikipedia and no ones pay me to put sources, so I don't care what you think is petty. Rupert loup (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: Unless someone has "WMF" at the end of their username, they are not an employee. By editing the article, you have as much responsibility for it as we do. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson:And that means? I know that I have responsibilities for my edits, if I do something that it's against the norms there will be consequences, but I didn't. So I don't know what are you trying to bring. You should express better. If you want that something stays in Wikipedia you need reliable sources. If there is no sources it will not stay here. I don't have any obligation to do something that you want, if you want something you do it, don't expect that other do it for you, because certainly is not my job. Rupert loup (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Doug's contribution page indicates that he clearly had logged out shortly after commenting on the talk page, so that meant he was in no position to add the sources. I had no involvement before now. As such, you were the most invested editor. You knew that there were reliable sources available, but chose not to use them. You did not have to add the sources, but removing the information when it was just as easy to source it using existing citations was irresponsible and (assuming good faith) lazy. You then tried to shift the blame onto others as if they had more responsibility. How is that reasonable behavior? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: The blame of what? Responsibility for what? What are you talking about? What responsibility gives to me the number of my editions in the article? Please could you talk clearly and stop misrepresent me WP:TPNO. You seem don't understand that I don't care what do you think of me or my behavior. I don't have any responsibility to do something that you two want, to search for the sources o put the sources of things that I didn't write. If I do it is because I want to do it, I saw that Dougweller had the will to complain in the talk page and put the sources there, when he totally could have put the sources in the article, so I didn't want to waste my time in that and there is nothing in Wikipedia against it, If you think is irresponsible or lazy I don't really care, regards. Rupert loup (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't have the time and still don't have the time. Unsourced but sourceable material is definitely not what WP:NOR is about. Our editing policy is at Wikipedia:Editing policy - Rupert loup, you should read it. You shouldn't be deleting non-contentious and sourceable material. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Sorry but how do you don't have the time? You replied me here two times instead of add the sources, and you still have the time to respond me here and search and put a policy and you had the time to put the sources in the talk page, like said the Policy you show me said you don't need to add it perfectly, with a citation template. With throwing the links with the "ref" boxes was just enough. I don't like that attitude and I certainly didn't want and wont encourage it. If you want something don't expect that others do it for you, I said before, I not your employee and I don't have any obligation to do something that you want. And about Wikipedia:Editing policy, I considere more important and that will improve the project to not feed unhelpful behavior WP:IAR. Rupert loup (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia is not a forum, so how there is nothing more to talk about the article and I don't care why you did what you did, it's irrelevant at these point, these conversation is over. Regards. Rupert loup (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

But I should clarify that I did not notice that you had put the sources after you post here, I did search in the talk page after read your summary but I thought that was an old discussion and didn't search in the bottom of the page, that's why I asked "what exactly I need to se in the talk page". To think that the sources weren't there, made me be more firmly with my position, I didn't want to search a second time but again it wasn't my obligation to do that, if you had the sources you should have put them in the article and not expect that I should do that for you. Rupert loup (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert Loup: Doug only replied here once before I added the sources. His edit history clearly shows that he logged out for some time shortly after making his first response here. You appear to be confusing either the order of events, or me with Doug. Many users have lives outside of Wikipedia, and it's up to them to decide how they balance those lives with Wikipedia, not you.
Doug is quite familiar with policy here, so I doubt he had to "search" for the policies he linked. That you assume he had to search for them is probably an indication that you know less about policy than he does. For the record, if I'll admit that he's one of the few users who could get me to stop doing anything on the site if he said it might be against policy until I hear out the explanation.
WP:IAR is not to be used as a double standard to prevent one's actions from being held to scrutiny while attempting to condemn others with policy. It is a one-size-fits-all policy that says that one should focus on improving articles instead of rules. It is not a trump card to "win" any argument, nor an exception from accountability, and should not be cited out of laziness.
Two editors who collectively have about twelve more years Wikipedia experience (and 174,000 more edits) than you think you made a mistake. They do not think you need to be punished for it or harassed about it, but it does not make you look good at all when you look for any excuse to "win the argument" (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). You have the completely valid option of just leaving Doug alone and not responding to this further. You've had that option for a while, and it's only become a better option since sources were added.
I could see this discussion being useful and in good faith if you had not said that you don't care what others think but that's what you said. I could see this being useful and in good faith if you didn't disguise accusations as questions and then aim to have the last word (which is the only impression one can get from you asking questions about another editor's choices right before declaring the conversation to be over). Neither behavior is conducive to being a productive and cooperative editor, but instead toward becoming a drama queen. If you were asking questions in good faith, then you'll pay attention to responses instead of just looking for something else to argue over. If you truly believe this conversation is over, then you won't post here again over this issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson:There were two times, one here and one in the article talk page, and I don't want to keep discussing these because is pointless. The text has his sources and thats what I care, discussing why we did what we did is irrelevant to this point, I didn't even want to discussing it in the first please, I keep argue because you misrepresent me and you were uncivilized saying that that what I did was across as petty and later call me irresponsible and lazy (and now calling me a drama queen)WP:UNCIVIL (and I don't know why Doug, being an admin, still allows it), you should read these WP:APR. Even if what I was doing was vandalic is not an exucese for such behavior WP:BNTV. And what I don't care is what others think of me and my behavior is related of what you think of me. You are misrepresenting me again, please stop doing it. Is what how do you see me what is unimportant to me, if you want to think that I'm lazy or a drama queen, I don't care. If would I care, I would have filed a complaint. Although I admit that is starting to bother me these responses. I will not considering these conversation over if you keep responde me in such manner. I said before that I don't want to know why he did what he did because I assume good faith and I will think that he surely has reasons, maybe try to make a point, but could be better that he asked me "hi, I don't have time, could you please add these sources [insert sources]" and I will do it. I don't have problem with that. I asked him if he could put the sources, there was no rush to his response, the text was not deleted of the internet, it was still in Wikipedia in the history of the article. And you came here making these big and look like if was something terrible, wich is not. It seems what I did was not the best neither, I was expecting a calm chat with Doug and try to solve the issue in a civilized manner, and it ended like these, I'm sure that wasn't Doug's intention neither. You are not trying to resolve the issue you are trying to make a fight, and to win these fight. You responded all my responses with unclear things, with irrelevant things like the years you have in Wikipedia or what is a Wikipedia's employee, and made ad hominem attacks and assume things about me. I don't know what you are trying to make of all of this, but it doesn't seem productive or cooperative. And it's funny because I was about to thank you for add the sources before I saw your comment here.
@Dougweller: What we did was wrong. I just read WP:POINT. I'm sorry for what I did, I saw what it seems that you were trying to make a point, and I did the same in response, I shouldn't enter in these game. I didn't thought that it will ended like these. In the future I will address these kind of issues directly. Regards. Rupert loup (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: Thank you. Although I do delete material that has been uncited for years at times, that's only when I can't find sources and the text is dubious. In this case I knew there was another related article about this and that the Protocols are still currently taken seriously in parts of the Arab world. I also think you are a bit overeager on citation needed tags, and certainly at times should consider just tagging a section or the article without multiple cite tags within the article unless you think that something is contentious or just plain wrong. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And typing a reply is, at least for me, very quick. Proper sourcing needs more time and often requires rewriting. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I find it somewhat problematic that you as an administrator seem to say that proper sourcing is irrelevant as long as you personally know that somewhere out there sources exist. It is bad enough that WP is built on authority-based sources instead of evidence-based sources, but that administrators now vouch for sources is new. Over 8 months of a missing source in a problematic article is problematic, do you not agree? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Never said that, not my position, and the text is sourced. Easily sourceable text should be sourced, not deleted. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Richard La Ruina

I'm not sure whom to direct this complaint to. Perhaps you can advise? (Still a novice at editing wiki pages).

The entry on "Richard La Ruina" is nothing but self-advertising and should, I believe, be entirely removed. Although this is not stated in the wikipedia article, I suspect it might be linked to a somewhat questionable web operation called "Stealth Attraction" http://getherwetwithwords.com/videobc2 /video-bc2.php. Sjjvdberg (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sjjvdberg, As Richard La Ruina is a biography of a living person, you could take your concerns to WP:BLPN. I think it meets our criteria for what we call notability - see WP:BIO, but it may be unbalanced and too promotional. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed

Oh dear oh dear[15]! That answers my question as to whether I should buy an iPad! :-)))) --Phil Copperman (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Phil Copperman fingers are too clumsy to reliably use on a watchlist. I should have been using a stylus. As an aside, my next table will probably be Android. Using a PC is much more efficient as I can hover over a diff and see the first bit if I'm using popups. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Edit warring"

Hi Doug. I only have one question: was this message computer-generated, or is somebody with some editing experience reading the actual edits? I have little to add to what I've put into my edits. Once somebody takes the time to read what the definitions are, all else becomes redundant. If one insists to call the day dark and the night bright, just because democracy allows you to and two votes are twice as many as one, this might indeed lead to "edit warring" :) I'm so out of here... Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Unless an edit is vandalism or a BLP violation, the content is immaterial, and obviously other editors don't agree with your content. That's why you were blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about LB case

Hi Doug, I'm concerned that Hell in a Bucket is posting to the workshop about LB, despite their IBAN, which was long overdue when it was imposed. I see that IBANs were lifted for the evidence phase. Does this extend to the workshop too? Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes this has been covered. I am not directly responding to her or engaging her on other pages. Are you saying there is something problematic in what I've posted? I'll be happy to refactor anything that you can reasonably explain as offensive. I feel that I'm being fair and civil and quite in line with the guidelines specifically 1,2 and 4. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin did you actually read the template? Because a lot of this confusion on your part may have been avoided had you done that. Specifically number four which I alluded to above here's the link [[16]] might take thirty or so seconds to read but if you take that 30 seconds I'm sure it will clear up the momentary confusion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin Yes, the Workshop pages are treated the same as the evidence pages in respect to IBans. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Doug, is there a way to appeal that decision? HIAB's behaviour toward LB has been somewhat intense for a long time, and to see it resurface is a concern. I can sort of understand it re: evidence, but when it comes to the workshop I can't see how it benefits either party or the committee, and it must be extremely disconcerting for LB to have this start up again.
It's worth noting that I haven't discussed this with her. My concern is a general one about the position of women editors during dispute resolution. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Again is there anything that I've posted is in anyway offensive or uncivil? Has there been anything at all in my comments that have been problematic at this case? I guess I'm also curious are you somehow inferring I'm a danger to woman editors? I'd surely appreciate you spelling out your issues with me here and now especially given the claims you are wanting to make. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller I have left a talk page template for a response on User:SlimVirgin page. I've asked for a clarification of her comments "position of women editors during dispute resolution" which I feel may be targeting me. It may not be at all and I would only like what the complaint with me is discussed and I will refactor anything that was inappropriate. If she chooses to ignore that will you please remove the last comment as an oversight as grossly degrading offensive or misleading. I am not a danger to any editors on this site and I find it highly offensive to be connected to that. I am prepared to wait a reasonable amount of time for her response but short of that clarification of her meaning I'd appreciate action in the form of a revdel or suppression. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • HIAB has asked me to clarify. HIAB, the main point is that you really need to stop talking about LB in her, your and the community's interests. And if the IBAN has been relaxed for the workshop, that doesn't extend to user talk pages. As for my general point about women and DR, that wasn't a reference to HIAB, but a general one. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin Thank you for clearing that up but if you are going to discuss me and it involves arbitration or adminstration with that IBAN that is an allowed exemption per WP:BANEX which states "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" This apparently is the forum that is appropriate as it has been chosen by you, an admin, and therefore I would consider a legitimate dispute resolution attempt, one that you decided to notify me about. If I understand correctly you are further stating that I have not added anything inappropriate to this discussion on this case, so where's the beef? Don't you think that you should've assumed good faith until I stepped over the line (assuming that I would in your view). So now your objection extends to me defending myself here with all of those facts? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy Namechange Day!

Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I always thought his name was D. Ougweller. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Information icon 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. --SineBot (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, yes, welcome. I hope you decide to stick around for a while! :) --NeilN talk to me 12:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail from Technical 13!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Your signature

Hey Doug, your signature appears to be broken right now. Could you take a look? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed I hope, struggling but I think I've got it now! Doug Weller (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made'

Hi Doug,

I've changed my proposed amendment on the Wikipedia 'crop circle' page to the following:

“Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon claims its possible to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron which are commonly available in microwave ovens.[17]"

This will correct the wrong information currently in the 'How They Are Made' section.

I've put this information on the 'Talk' section for the last few days and no one's objected to this change. Is it ok for me to do this change on the main Wikipedia page now?

ThanksCardiff2015 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Uysyn

The article Uysyn has been created and largely copied from a suspicious website run by an editor who seems to have a close connection to Anatole Klyosov. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn could benefit from your attention. Krakkos (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

artin Mehraban

if I violated something just delete it. If I created an article that is copy pasted and violates something. Then delete it. But do me a favor and do not delete the Median symbol. It appeared on the tomb of Cyaxares and though it's probably not a flag it's definitely a national , dynastic or Imperial symbol of some kind and she stay on the Medes empire article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin Mehraban (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a Zoroastrian symbol. [18] [19] [20] [21] - none of these are decent sources, and searching for images in books is pretty much impossible. Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Seddik

Hello Doug Weller, a dynamic IP keeps adding the redlink Ahmed Seddik to the List of Egyptologists. As you can see here and here, the page Ahmed Seddik was deleted multiple times due to lack of notability and then salted in order to prevent its recreation. That was in 2009 though the deletion page has been vandalized recently. Today this Seddik does not seem to have increased his notability so much, so I'm keeping to revert the IP insertion in List of Egyptologists. Do you have any suggestion? Shall we protect this page, or maybe I am wrong and the guy deserves his article? Kind regards, Khruner (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

KhrunerNot sure if it's the same person due to the geolocations, but I added the AfDs for this tourist guide (studying Egyptology doesn't make you an Egyptologist) and added his AfDs to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences. Also removed his name from 2 other articles. I can find some quotes from him but no discussion about him. Thanks for raising this, but I don't think protection is needed. The page is on my watchlist now. Doug Weller (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Political correctness" revert - June 11

@Doug Weller: In response to your welcomed & helpful comment -- "thanks, but without reliable sources linking his ideas to this concept, it's original research" -- concerning my edit(s) to the article on "Political Correctness", I have added citations to 3 sources which discuss the linking of Orwell's idea of "Newspeak" to the political correctness concept. Thanks much for your help. Appreciate it.Professor JR (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Doug Weller for coming onto your talk page, Professor JR I have also just reverted you, your text does NOT establish a connection between 1984 and PC. Clearly 'Newspeak' is a connected concept and we therefore link to it in the 'see also's. We also discuss an author who makes such a connection, however your text is about Orwell himself and his experience of 'thought censorship'. The connection to PC, no matter how obvious it may seem, is not being made by the source and is therefore OR (and slightly 'off-topic').Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This conversation continues here:my talk pagePincrete (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Huffington Post

I didn't appreciate your edit summary at Jason Colavito telling me to "search before deleting" when there was no citation attached [22], and you know very well that anything tagged for needing a citation, particular over a long period of time, can be deleted without discrimination, per WP:RS and WP:BLP. There is nothing in WP policy or guidelines demanding that editors do a search on the Internet before deleting something that has been tagged as needing a citation for so long. You also made your edits so sloppily, you didn't double check to correct your error in making your edit. Perhaps you should double check your edits or add sources to tagged items needing citations instead of condescending to other editors in your summaries. Laval (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Laval Sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention. Yes, you can delete in such circumstances. Should you do it without checking to see if it can be easily sources? I don't think so. Is there nothing in policy that demands editors do a search? No, since you worded your question "demands", a word that you probably can't find in any policy. If you had said "recommends" then I'd say yes, there is, WP:Preserve. That says consider "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" rather than just removing material. And when I have time I do add sources to tagged or even untagged material. I did yesterday in other articles. And yes, I should have checked my edit there. However, I didn't name you in my edit summary whereas you actually criticised me by name in yours - which I gather you think is fine while condemning my edit summary.
To recap. I am sorry that I offended you. I admit to having a "thing" about easily source-able material being removed. And thanks for your comments at WP:Talk:Baghdad Battery. Doug Weller (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Cavalierman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Cavalierman. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon edit

Hi Doug, thanks for your recent thanks! It was important for me to ascertain the accurate date of the migration of anatomically correct humans into both Europe and North Asia - both around 45,000 BC. Shortly after, around 40,000 BC, the Taymyr wolf (from north asia)/Gray wolf/dog diverged from a now extinct ancestor. No fossil of the ancestor has yet been found. I do not subscribe to the idea that humans were responsible for this divergence, but they now do appear to be well placed to take advantage of the newly-diverged dog! Regards, William Harris • talk • 07:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Anglo Pyramidologist/BookWorm44/Goblin Face

Anglo_Pyramidologist is Goblin Face, just recently banned on a major sock farm. There are his banned socks logged under the same name such as Anglo Pyramidologist Returns. He's been revisiting the British Israelism entry under different socks for years, and even speaking to you. The only difference is that he is now anti-BI, and people don't recognize this. Some of his socks that edited the BI entry: AncientScribal, PhiloSemiticGeek, HerodotusReader. Note he was also on the Chronicles of Eri as IrishBookofInvasons and on Laurence Waddell on WaddellSumerian, OldScrolls etc, as well as re-editing his old AngloP contributions such as Ethel Bristowe. As far as I'm aware no one has picked up on this, and not filed it under Anglo Pyramidologist. When this AngloP is banned he always uses the same excuse the socks are his brothers or sisters in his house. Its obvious though this is all one individual based on the edit history overlap. Also, between the Goblin Face and Anglo Pyramidologist sock archives, was another sock farm owned by AngloP: BookWorm44. If you look at edits, and account names they are connected. The only 'missing year' for AngloP is 2013. However it turns out at the start of that year he went to Metapedia, and became a sysop there for a short while (until Dec. 2013). On Goblin Face, various of his blocked socks have tried to remove the mention of "Atlantid" on the Metapedia entry here, including a sock called Atlantid. All the socks on the race talk page are the same person, i.e. AngloP (blocked under Goblin Face or "Quack Hunter" filed as a checkuser sock of Goblin) e.g. Ralph Roadrash, Palaeoresearcher, etc. Note Atlantid/AngloP's enemy is Mikemikev (formerly also) from Metapedia who he was debating on the race talk Wikipedia entry. In October 2014, it was AngloP on his sock FossilMad who reported and banned Mikemikev again for sockpuppetry. Atlantid/Anglo_Pyramidologist are confirmed to be the same editor off Wikipedia, but I won't link to anything. This though can easly be confirmed by running google checks on both names. JohnJons (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And another sock blocked. JohnJons is Goblin Face. Doug Weller (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Information icon 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. --SineBot (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

University of America California

I moved the following post from the top of the page and added the above title.—Odysseus1479 00:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr Doug , The name University of America california is not fit to be listed as un accredited institution : 1 because the individual who listed it has no single reliable source quoted to support the black - listing of this institution. 2. This institution is an international institution and have a membership in UN as international institution , because it is an international institution , it has receive three international accreditations , first with ASIC U.K , a U.K government recognised and Wikipedia listed agency and with the NBTE Nigeria in west africa , another regional accrediting government agency as well as by EBMA , a QAA trusted status agency , so singling this institution out anong all it united states ASIC counterparts, without following any Wikipedia stated rules , is being dishonest and unfair and inviting unecessary trouble for wikipedia.

I therefore ask you remove this institution from this list of unaccredited institutions because it is an accredited international institution having accreditation recognised by two legitimate governments and international status recognised by the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philsoter1 (talk • contribs)

ASIC does not seem to be a legitimate accreditation agency in the UK. There is nothing indicating that they are a legitimate accreditation agency on their website: http://www.asicuk.com/about-us/ They list membership with CHEA International Quality Group, which doesn't indicate accreditation: http://www.cheainternational.org/ And of course, the UN doesn't accredit anything. jfeise (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
More info on "ASIC International Accreditation" not being legitimate accreditation: http://www.asicuk.com/university-accreditation/ "ASIC Accreditation for the university education sector is a voluntary, 'non-governmental process that gives recognition to institutions that meet established quality standards." jfeise (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Further, this institution is not even registered with the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education: https://app.dca.ca.gov/bppe/view-voc-names.asp?schlname=university+of+america&Submit=Search They are registered as High School with the CA Department of Education: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/details.asp?cds=33752006142293&public=N in the Murietta Unified School District. Since this list is about unaccredited institutions of higher education, not about high schools, it belongs in the list. jfeise (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to emphasize the difference of locations, the BPPE registered "World University of America", which shows up in a search for the term "University of America" on the BPPE website, is located in Ojai, CA, northwest of Los Angeles in Ventura Country, whereas the High School "University of America" is located in Murietta, CA, southeast of Los Angeles, in Riverside Country. These are obviously two different entities. jfeise (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: Nubia oldest Monarchy edit

I will study how to properly cite refrences & how to edit in the proper fashion but I must state that your inference that my references are some how invalid due to the fact I cited a New York Times article dated from1979 is wrong. Your dating of Nubia is rooted in research done in the early to mid 20th century. The refrence is dated to 1979 becuase the discovery was made near that period of time I emphasized in my edit that the artifacts were found in the "area" of Nubia. Perhaps i should have emphasized these artifacts date to the A culture of Nubia. These artifacts prove not only did Nubia have the institution of Kingship before Egypt but that the Egyptians were influenced by this & used similar symbolism in there early seals of Kingship. Again this was achieved by the A group which you write about later in your wiki article on Nubia. Ive presented information about Nubia that has been overlooked for decades. In the interest of historical truth i hope you see fit to allow this information once ive presented it in the proper format. For now here are links to the University of Chicago's Nubia Salvage project brochures from 1987 (i hope this is not to old for you) https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/special-exhibits/nubia-salvage-project-1 (see figure 1-which is an image of the symbol of Kingship dated to 330 b.c.)

here are links to the original New York Times article

New York Times article Nubia oldest Monarchy

New York Times article Nubia oldest Monarchy pt2

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughCipher (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A quick search turned up this article: Bruce Williams, “The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia”, Archaeology, Vol. 33, No. 5 (September/October 1980), pp.12–21. I haven’t followed up on this work’s reception or how it’s regarded at present.—Odysseus1479 00:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Some back-and-forth: William Y. Adams, “Doubts about the ‘Lost Pharaohs’”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp.185–192; Bruce Williams, “Forebears of Menes in Nubia: Myth or Reality?”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp.15–26.—Odysseus1479 01:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
User:HughCipher, thanks to the clues offered by User:Odysseus1479 I found Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History by Susan E. Alcock, published by Cambridge University Press. She says "The radical hypothesis of Bruce Williams (1980) - that the pharaonic monarchy first appeared in Nubia during this period - has been rejected by the majority of both Egyptologists and Nubian archaeologists. There is now more material from Abvdos that predates the Nubian material Williams worked with. Indeed, the archaeological material from Abydos, Hicrakonpolis, and other sites further north is forcing a complete reevaluation of the emergence of the pharaonic state. Nevertheless, Williams was certainly justified in revising the earlier model that saw A-Group society as non-hicrarchical. It is clear that during the period of state formation in Egypt, Nubia was undergoing a similar process. This was probably due in large part to increased economic contacts between the two regions. By the time of the unification of Egypt there were three principal powers in Lower Nubia - and they may have been united into one state based at Qustul. However, we have no documentary evidence to illuminate this, and the evidence at present is derived from the cemetery sites of Scyala (H. S. Smith 1994) and Qustul (B. B. Williams 1986, 1992)."
This is an example of how fast archaeological conclusions can change with new discoveries, and why we should always look at the latest research. Doug Weller (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
And "At the time of Williams’ argument, the Qustul cemetery and the ‘royal’ iconography found there was dated to the Naqada IIIA period, thus antedating royal cemeteries in Egypt of the Naqada IIIB phase. New evidence from Abydos, however, particularly the excavation of Cemetery U and the tome U-j, dating to Naqada IIIA has shown that this iconography appears earlier in Egypt."[23] Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

TheRedPenOfDoom

Can you tell me anything about TheRedPenOfDoom? I ask because I see your name on the user page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He may be along soon to tell you himself. A very experienced editor, does some work cleaning up fringe and BLP articles, upsets people at times. Of course I do all those things too. Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That sounds about right. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help with Race (Human Classification)

Greetings, there is an aggressive editor, Captain JT Verity, who is constantly changing the Race (Human Classifications) article without regard to WP's policies (e.g., consensus, reliable sources, etc). Given that you have interacted with this page in the past, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a gander and adjudicate. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page - you're lucky you edited last after I read this. Wait, I expect other editors will come along. Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I really appreciate it. I really didn't want to engage in any edit conflicts but to engage in discussion until a consensus is reached. And I am hopeful that other editors will chime in. Again, thanks for being responsive. danielkueh (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: As you might already know, the discussion on the Talk: Race (human classification) page has become heated again, with editors having very different views on what the lead definition should be. I have tried really hard to reach out to another longtime editor but I have not been successful. I'm not claiming that the views of one editor trumps another. But I do want to express my concern that once the protection status of that page has been lifted, there might be potential edit conflicts. I really don't think this is productive and I really believe consensus is important so that any major edit would be lasting. My view on the matter is that at a minimum, there should be an RfC or similar, and that no edits should be done until consensus is reached. Ideally, more editors should be involved in the discussions. I welcome any advice you might have on this matter. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As you noticed.

Doug,

I noticed that you have been talking to User:Artin Mehraban several times now as well both through edit summaries and on his talk page that he needs to cease this OR nonsene. I have left him several times as well a note both on talk pages (including his own) and through multiple edit summaries that he should cease adding self-created maps to articles, self-fabricated theories to articles, apart from adding info without attribution. I believe he's just sincerely interested in this stuff, but its really annoying for other people, as we have to revert his edits and tell the same thing over and over (e.g please stop spreading WP:OR info/maps, etc.etc.). Even after your message of yesterday he just won't stop as he created another self-made production without any reference or any source. As he has not ceded to do so, despite a message by you yesterday and me respectively yesterday and today, I was on the brink to bring it to ANI, but decided not to just in case they'll treat him too harsh. This stuff anyway has to stop right now, I mean we can't mention to him over and over that his activities violate many WP's, most notably WP:OR. Maybe a last final warning by you could solve this? If he still continues spreading OR and self-created nonsensical maps after that, well I guess some blocks are needed really. I just reverted several of his OR edits again.

Edit; ok, its completely out of hand now. He still continues with that habit of setting up self-created OR thoughts into articles. [[24]] I've just created a section on WP:ANI.

- LouisAragon (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Good that you could leave a prompt reply on the ANI page. I had left him the ANI notice throughout my sentences on his page, [25], but I believe that a separate section with the notification added again is perhaps more helpful. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like he has responded and said he's sorry. But I'd feel better if he'd offer to delete his bad files. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
He's been sorry and saying over and over and promising over and over that he won't do it again. As we speak, he just did it again [26] I have no objections against a block now. He just uploaded again another pic from Pinterest without any references and sources and claims it to be representing a historical figure. He just doesn't grasp it with normal explanations. Apart from giving other people extra nuisance, I don't see any usage of such edits which are textbook WP:OR violations to the max, over and over again.
- LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Seems to be using a Pinterest account to ‘launder‘ or obscure the source of this image. See here: very unlikely to be own-work as claimed.—Odysseus1479 23:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He's been adding another washlist of copy-vio violating pictures as well as violating WP:OR through edits in the last few hours. Honestly, how many times have we asked him now to read the policies? To consult the Teahouse? To understand that he's to cease this? I've just reverted another spree of his nonsensical edits, and people are busy already deleting his uploaded pics, once again. Honestly, he has to get a block. Not just to protect Wiki's integrity and from it getting infested with more OR violating/copy-vio material and articles, but also that he might perhaps understand that he's been busy doing blatantly wrong stuff. Perhaps he will really change after he gets back from a short-term block, cause I do think he's not a bad "editor". Just this has been going on for a while now. A while too long I believe. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, and he goes on and on.... [27] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Kennewick man as ancestor to all living humans

Why did you delete the reference to the National Geographic article where it is stated that skeletons as old as Kennewick man (but he is not mentioned particularly) is the ancestor of all humans alive today. The point is that either Kennewick has no descendants today or everybody on earth are his descendants. This is an important point to include in this article due to controversy about the rights to the skeleton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.15.134 (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It didn't mention Kennewick man. 2. It's nonsense - it and similar sources assume that there are no groups that have been completely isolated for long periods of time. The National Geographic is not always a reliable source by our criteria. And it's trivia. If he is so is everyone else who lived at that time. Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is not nonsense. Here you have another article: RECENT COMMON ANCESTORS OF ALL PRESENT-DAY INDIVIDUALS, Joseph T. Chang, Department of Statistics, Yale University. The issue here is that most people (you included?) do not grasp the great implications of only a few people moving within a generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.15.134 (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See Human Y chromosome much older than previously thought: "our results suggest that there are pockets of genetically isolated communities that together preserve a great deal of human diversity." All of these studies are based upon the assumption that there are no genetically isolated populations, eg Human populations are tightly interwoven "Rohde's simulation aims to include everyone alive today, and therefore relies on the assumption that no population has remained completely isolated for any significant length of time. Rohde is confident that this is the case; even Tasmania, once thought to be isolated by choppy seas, contains no people with purely Tasmanian blood." That paper says about 1500 BC. T
Not that it matters, as I've said, it would be trivial if it were true for a huge number of people. Doug Weller (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Odia alphabet

Hi, Odia is now the preferred term as per this decision. After the move, I also moved Oriya alphabet to Odia alphabet. Kwamikagami, one of those who opposed the (Oriya->Odia) move, reverted this move and also added an edit to the page, preventing me from reverting his revert. The consensus/agreement on the use of Odia has already been reached. Thank you. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk)

Missed that. There have been undiscussed attempts before, good to see this was done properly. Doug Weller (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you like me to make another CSD request? Or will you be able to take care of this without one? Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Cpt.a.haddock Sorry, I'm otherwise occupied. Many apologies. Doug Weller (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

message to Doug!!!

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gratuitous bias, defamation and the private demons of Doug Weller.

Doug, you can revert my edit about David Duke if you like. After all, you're the "administrator" here, right? (Imagine the power!) But that doesn't change the fact that what you are doing in this instance is defamation, not the neutral presentation of information which should be the goal of any true encyclopedia. And I don't mean defamation in some narrowly technical sense, where it might be shown that, yes, David Duke has indeed said things in support of various individuals charged with "Holocaust denial" in the past and that therefore a case might be made that it is not defamatory to say that he may (!) in some way be a "Holocaust denier" himself. No, what is defamatory about it (in a broad sense) is just the way it seeks to prejudice the reader against Collins Piper and Duke by calling them silly names, rather than simply presenting information about them in a neutral manner and letting the reader make up his or her own mind. You know, the way a real encyclopedia would.

I'm used to the bias of Wikipedos (hah! there, how do you like it?) and I mostly ignore it when I see it, but the gratuitous nature of the slander here was simply too glaring. The article is about Michael Collins Piper, not David Duke; the article itself goes on to deal with the question of Piper's own publications on the subject (which is a perfectly legitimate line of enquiry in this instance), and anyone following the link to the article on David Duke can also discover the (much flimsier and tendentious) accusations of "Holocaust denial" which have been leveled at him. So the bases are covered really, and the only reason I can see for throwing "Holocaust denier" at Duke into that introductory paragraph is that someone has an axe to grind.

Would that someone be you, Doug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky Starfish (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, pretty sure I didn't add that to the Piper article. Yes, anyone can go to Duke's page and find out about his anti-Semitic, white separatist, views. It wasn't slander, and if I were going to give Duke an adjective I probably would have picked a better one. On another note, our role is not to present a neutral presentation of information, read WP:NPOV more carefully. And WP:NPA. Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hallo Doug, I need your advice about recent edits on the Armenia article. Can I put on his talk page the advice about the existence of discretionary sanctions for this article, or this has to be done by an admin? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can do it, Alex, anybody can. You need to use the official template, {{subst:alert|a-a}}. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks! I am slowly getting superpowers... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Gog and Magog

On Gog and Magog, an anon ISP insists on adding material from a non RS that doesn't appear in any RS I've come across. If you agree, could you consider making the page registered editors only. Thanks PiCo (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. René Guénon's "The Reign of Quantity and The Sign of Times" is a reliable source, translated in many languages, internationally reknown, and which has a full chapter on the subject of "Gog and Magog". Just have a look of the results done by a simple google search on the title, or a search with the keywords "The Reign of Quantity and The Sign of Times Gog and Magog". And the Wikipedia page on René Guénon acknowledges the reliability of the source. 193.50.110.189 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette

In my appeal to ArbCom titled Talk Page Etiquette, you mention that you are noting that this should not have been brought to ArbCom. I will just mention that i had asked the closing Admin at ANI on his talk page as to whether there was any other mechanism for appealing his decision. Had he mentioned Dispute Resolution i would have surely gone there instead of ArbCom, but he did not mention Dispute Resolution. This is the relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philg88&diff=669598778&oldid=669598601 I thought it appropriate to mention this to you because i do not want you to hold my action of bringing up this matter in ArbCom against me in future. Soham321 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC) @Soham321: No problem, it was an error of inexperience. I won't hold it against you. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Factchecker atyourservice/Innuendo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Factchecker atyourservice/Innuendo. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeframe

Is there any idea when the proposed decision will be out for the ARB case? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, every time anyone suggests a time something happens, sometimes in real life but more often to do with the committee. I had no idea how much time is taken to deal with non case-related stuff, or case-related but not to do with drafting, etc. As Roger has said at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision#Chess section we are trying to make this case relate to issues wider than just LB - which has been on reason for the delay. No guarantees though about that, it's complicated. I hope we can get this out in the next 7 days, but who knows what else will happen? Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that comment by Roger was somewhat odd: the scope of one open case (AE) is being made very narrow and the scope of the LB one appears to be increasingly broad. (Reply not needed: just an observation.) - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Arb

what did I do wrong that you reverted? DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
DGG Damn, sorry about that, must use a stylus with my iPad. I've lost my cable connection as the thunderstorms that hit the UK Friday night fried my modem. I've reverted myself. I'm able for very short periods of time to link my phone via USB to my PC but concerned about running up huge data charges! Doug Weller (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
& thanks for voting. Doug Weller (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vordrak (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

What is a bce article?

My change was reverted (link - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigveda&oldid=670018195&diff=prev) and the reason cited was "not needed and this is a bce article". The article was referring to a date, 10th century where it is actually 10th century BC. So I added the missing "BC". I do not understand what you mean by a bce article. Simply 10th century always means 10th century AD. BC has to be mentioned explicitly. It makes a huge difference of 2000 years. Other dates in the same article mention BC dates as BC, so this one should too. Please explain your revert or un-revert it if it was a mistake.

Hari6389 (talk)Hari6389 — Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Hari6389Looking at the history, the BCE's were all added fairly recently without the discussion required by WP:ERA. However, 10th century doesn't always mean AD/CE here, it depends upon the context. You don't need to write 20th century AD if you are writing about WWII, for instance. I've restored your addition although I think the context makes it clear it couldn't be 10th century AD. Thanks for posting here as I saw so many BCEs when I searched I made the wrong assumption. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Category "historical people who were reconstructed!" etc

Actually, now that you mention it, the category should probably be given a name that is more inclusive. I merely wanted to differentiate between the reconstructions of unidentified cold cases and people who were reconstructed purely for the purposes of science. Do you have any suggestions? Asarelah (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Shipwrecks in the 17th century

Re this edit, wouldn't tagging with {{Unreliable source?}} have been better. The entries have gone from having a reference to being unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots I think no source may be better than a bad one, especially since the bad one confused the name of a type of ship, a 'tartana',[28] with the name of a ship. I've removed that and added a source for the other. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I think not until a need is shown, then go to WP:RPP. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you very much for making a note for me. Which I was trying previously by reverting it and the guy was out of query. My points on your answers : 1. I know, Wikipedia is a very collective information based on real references. As concerned with prophets & their prophecy, please do not include any images depicting their selves (as no one pictured Prophet Muhammad S.A.W, even Islamic scholars also avoided to draw their image). 2. Yes, if you found any image on the internet/books (not related to Islam) I would like to recommend you avoid it, as I am seeing much information written on the Wikipedia about Muhammad is not accurate. 3. If you continue to place this image on Wikipedia, I am afraid that people will start misusing it. I know the rules and unbiased system of Wikipedia, but its a humble request to remove the pictures of Prophets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.rahim29 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute: Please write your comment

Hi. An editor continuously adds Azeris to Iranian peoples article. I've opened a section on talk page: Talk:Iranian peoples#Azeris. But it looks like involved editors can't reach a consensus. Please write your opinion. Also, where I can request third opinion? Regards. --Zyma (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OK

OK fine then, but remember, its really bad people that people start doing anything thing whatever comes to their mind. I see how much excited you are place the picture (while picture does not matter at all for viewers). And I think I should stop editing wikipedia though.... It's bs. A.rahim29 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (history). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Apology

Sorry for deleting your edit to Talk: David Icke. I was attempting to add my own edit and undid yours accidentally.65.209.62.115 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Different points of view about Creationism in Wikipedia

Dear Sir:

You have flagged me for [disruptive editing] the article about [Searches for Noah's Ark]. I believe religious views of [Darwinism] should be SOLELY kept for articles relating to evolution and the [Big Bang]. On the other hand, all articles relating to Biblical events should reflect a purely creationist point of view.

Neither theory (or hypothesis) can be fully proven as an absolute fact of history. People who DO carefully study the case, discover Darwinian evolution or Creation is 100% faith. From your comment I can tell you are an evolutionist. You believe evolution and the Big Bang are an ABSOLUTE FACT. Therefore, the removal of my content from your part, does not reflect the neutrality of Wikipedia. You believe in the religion of evolution. Yes, a religion; for it is a theory with tremendous controversy. I believe GOD created us. Please stop YOUR [vandalism] against articles concerning the [Bible]! You make [Creationism] look like a myth. Yet science on a pure neutral level favors Creationism. [Darwin] thought he could explain the universe through naturalism. But scientists who DO study the case, figure Darwinian evolution to be a myth.

I beg you and the entire Wikipedia community to keep in their zone of belief. Let the evolutionists edit articles concerning [naturalism]. And let creationists edit articles pertaining to the Bible. Wikipedia does NOT reflect neutrality in these areas, but it SHOULD! Evolutionists live for self, but I live for the One Who made the universe. Evolutionists are so religious--they have a blind, but BIG, faith. People like you think putting creationist points of view into CREATIONIST ARTICLES is "disruptive editing." But YOU, are the disruptive editor in this case.

Please dare to figure out for yourself what caused the universe to exist and what caused the fine-tunning of our precise and constant physical laws that govern us. Then stand for what you believe sounds more likely according to our modern science. Figure it out for yourself, but keep an open mind. Otherwise you will start "religious." Keep it neutral, as a good civilized Wikipedian.

I took the courage to write this because our Wikipedia Community needs to change. Evolutionists need to learn to be respectful and open minded. I would rather be banned from the Wikipedia Community for the sake of improving the quality of the point of view from creationist articles than do nothing about it. May Wikipedia reflect TRUE neutrality.

P.S. Read the book, [The Case for a Creator] or [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor David (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor David Basically you are saying that several fields of science, including but not limited to biology, physics, and geology are wrong, and that all Christians and Jews are Creationists although in fact Creationists are in a minority (or else you are saying that non-Creationist Jews and Christians should not be allowed to edit biblical articles). And Wikipedia does not claim to be neutral, it reflects what reliable sources say about a subject, and for these subjects these sources are always going to be mainly mainstream sources that disagree with Creationism. Our policies make it clear that a neutral point of view does not mean giving minority or fringe posisionts equal wait. You're also pretty insulting, suggesting that those of us with a scientific view of the world are by definition selfish. I note that you don't suggest that you have a moral goal of doing good, just one of living for your God. Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I like the suggested rename even though it's a bit clunky. Doug Weller (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Slander

You are obviously slandering Dr. Yosef ben Jochannan by attempting to make Mary Lefkowitz a pure idiot in the field that has now all but disappeared from the field seem credible in her refuting this mans work. Ill be sure to contact the people of his estate about the blatant slander that is written on his page. I will also continuously re-edit this page even if i need to program a bot to change it after your edits. You obviously do nnot know the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:9F08:D00:B1AB:C963:8FC3:49AA (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the statement the editor will use a bot, probably a sock making legal threats. Doug Weller (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert M. Schoch

FYI, I'm working on this fellow's article, and trying to be meticulous about citations, etc. Your recent edit to the introduction came in the middle of this effort. The intro, as I understand it, should summarize the main article, and previously it didn't. (The college wasn't in the main article.) The Teaching section now has the details of his college, etc., and I might have put it back in the intro myself. It's a very fine point, but as I understand things, if the link to the college is in the main article, it needn't be linked to in the intro. I might be totally wrong, of course. Lou Sander (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Lou Sander - we generally try to make sure the lead doesn't have too many links just to keep it readable, but we also recommend linking a subject the first time it's mentioned, and if that's in the lead, and it would help the reader, the first time it's mentioned in the body of the article. It's frustrating that there are practically no independent sources on his life outside of academia, other than blogs and we can't use those. Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
"Environmentalism" section: I don't want to argue, and I won't disagree with your reversion. At the same time, I feel compelled to say 1) The deleted section was a 69-word summary and very careful paraphrase of a 210-word "About the Author" section of a textbook; there are only so many ways to say that stuff. 2) The source is textbook content, not marketing material. 3) As I understand it, legitimate publishers are considered to be independent of those whose works they publish. I will now shut up about this. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Khojaly article

Can you please lock the Khojaly Massacre article? IP addresses keep edit warring. The addition of the term "genocide" has been discussed numerous times in the archives and all have come to the same conclusion that it should not be added. Also the source added for the claim that Kurds as well as Meshketian Turks were massacred comes from the hill, which allows anyone to contribute an article and therefore is not reliable source. Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Also here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Khojaly_massacre --NeilN talk to me 19:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
User:NeilN Thanks for dealing with this. Couldn't find it at ANI for some reason. Doug Weller (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Already been archived: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive891#Khojaly_massacre. --NeilN talk to me 12:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Really no time to deal with this one, User:NeilN. Others are involved there and it's not something I know a lot about. And I need to see if an SPI is needed for the matter below. Doug Weller (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Colon-el-Nuevo 2 \ 10 years on wikipedia

The person who continues to vandalize the page "Origin theories of Christopher Columbus" is always Colon-el-Nuevo with his fake profiles. If no one will block this Portuguese from Wikipedia, he will continue to write his "bizarre ideas". Colon will continue to create fake profiles - one per day - Thanks. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

1RR violation on Planned Parenthood

User:1517today may have violated the 1RR restriction for Planned Parenthood with this revert [29] followed by this other revert [30] within a 24 hour period. Also note that before the second revert, I provided an explanation supporting User:Binksternet's position, as well as my earlier edit a few days earlier.Mattnad (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, as you've reverted him, he can't revert himself as Binksternet suggested. However, he's clearly violating NPOV in other articles, ironically with in one case an edit summary saying "NPOV violations". Doug Weller (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I was unaware of Brinksternet's talk page entry when I saw the change in my watchlist. Let's see if keeps it up.Mattnad (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Colon-el-Nuevo is back

I did a thorough search on Colon El Nuevo [31] and other profiles created by him. This is the complete list:

The same change to the text of the Wikipedia page:

  • Colon El Nuevo [42]
  • 46.53.176.253\Colon-el-Nuevo [43]

It is an encyclopedic article and it must be written within the guidelines laid out in WP:NOT, and WP:V. He uses Wikipedia as a forum or a soapbox. Thank you. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm copying this to WP:FTN. Doug Weller (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't take Colon El-Nuevo's word for that. He is prone to make arguments like this based almost exclusively on controversial interpretations of primary sources, and his favourite historian the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Daedalus&Ikaros Some of them are Duke University IPs, where Rosa works. At least one IP uses an internet supplier in the same city. But a couple of IPs are in other countries, so I'm not convinced they are the same person. Let me know if any of the accounts that haven't been editing recently edit. In the meanwhile, I've found a couple of sources as you've seen, and will add them where appropriate. Doug Weller (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is it allowable to copy and entire sentence word for word from a source and add it to an article on Wikipedia?Such as this. According to Elizium23, "this passage is not long enough to violate copyright.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not like that. Although the excerpt is short enough to fall under fair use pretty easily, it should be in quotation marks, attributed directly to the author, and embedded in commentary for context. Standing in the article with nothing but a footnote makes it read as if in Wikipedia’s voice, which is misleading, and if there’s no particular reason to quote that author it should be rewritten instead. (How hard could that be?) In short: probably not a copyvio but definitely plagiarism.—Odysseus1479 07:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Notable people

Hi! Abraham Awada has an article in wikipedia in spanish, but not yet here. This is why I put him in the list. Regards from Argentina. --Incolam (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Incolam, but I don't see anything in that article that meets our criteria for notability at WP:PEOPLE. Different language Wikipedias have different policies. Doug Weller (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

usercheck

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)

Hi Doug Weller, User:SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits has recently made some gigantic changes to Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia). It turns out that a lot of what he added was simply copied from other articles (compare for example the section on music in the Early dynastic article with the article on Music of Mesopotamia. I left a note on SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits's talk page, where I saw that he has been doing this on other pages as well. Do you have any suggestions on the appropriate course of action here? Thanks! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Zoeperkoe I've also posted to his talk page. I wonder if he's started to revert himself, not sure how to interpret his recent edits. Anyway, ANI would be the next step, ping me if you go there. Doug Weller (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory revert

Is this revert the change you meant to make? The actual edit doesn't seem to match the edit summary.--Pharos (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Pharos Damn I must have gotten that wrong. Sorry. Away from my PC at the moment (not when I did that). I thought that the sources only mentioned Jees and was trying to get back to that and failed. Reverting myself won't help. Ah well, protection is always at the wrong version. Needs to be hashed out on the talk page I guess. Doug Weller (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Need Some Arbitration @ BCS

HI DOug, maybe u can help here. WE are having a problem with style/format/size on the Better Call Saul Season 1 page, over plot summaries (size & style). I am folowing the Smallville TV page example given by WIKI-

The previous ones were not thematical concise & more of a cookie-reciepe style i.e. Tuco got his gun & grabbed JImmy & held him hostage...

Note: each episode also has its own (separate) page summary, which is much longer...

Thanx Peace is contagious (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you've gotten dragged into this, Dougweller, but as long as you are, you really should have the whole story. You might want to review PIC's disruptive edit history from mid-April on the Better Call Saul article, for which he was blocked by Drmies on April 16. He's now resuming the same edit warring (currently at a long string of edits, then two reverts, no edit summaries aside from an utterly unfounded accusation of vandalism) trying to force in what are substantively the same edits, and refuses to discuss his edits on the article talk page. Somewhere along the line, as you can see from above, he's gotten the bee in his bonnet that the episode summaries for Smallville (see link above) are the "correct formula" for how an edit summary should be written, doesn't like what he describes as BSC's "cookie cutter" summaries (we'll leave aside the misuse of the term) and wants to provide what he calls "thematic" summaries, whatever that might be. The trouble is, as several of us attempted to make clear to him in earlier discussion that his summaries are incoherent and at times, WP:OR interpretation of what he saw, and that the Smaillville summaries have no special formula that must be followed. All this lead to a warning, then a block on April 16, followed by another warning by Drmies that further nonsense would lead to an indef. on April 17, none of which seems to have had any lasting effect.
Worse, as you can see above, when he does discuss, his writing is minimally coherent, lacking in civility (see the link to my talk page), and at times, impossible to understand. Moreover, your warning that he not call editors reverting him vandals seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as can be seen in the link above and on my talk page. We're headed right down the same road as we were in the spring. PIC's competence to edit was questioned by several editors then, and his return to the same failed arguments, same misapplication of policies, and same edit warring suggests nothing has changed. He doesn't respect basic editorial practice, doesn't communicate effectively (look at the chaos on his talk page!) or coherently, and lacks any willingness to work within a collaborative structure, as can be seen by his behavior in the last few hours. In truth, given what he's asked of you above, I don't think he understands the basic nature of how we work here; he's seems convinced an admin will tell him he's right, we're wrong and he's free to do as he wishes, unfettered. Something decisive has to be done to bring this disruptive editing to a halt. --Drmargi (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

RfAr question

Doug, I don't see any clerk active currently, but I saw that you edited five minutes ago or so. I've listed some diffs in a case request uninvolved admin's section. Is there any protocol on notification for the makers of those edits, or on whose talk pages those diffs are located? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:SpacemanSpiff Moot since it isn't an appropriate case and Soham321 was told to go to ARCA. I'm still learning about that protocol is, so I'd have to ask. At the moment I wouldn't worry about it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks, I'll try to figure out for later, never been much of a visitor to these pages, and a bit of light browsing didn't help. —SpacemanSpiff 18:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Misleading edits

Hi Doug. Can you please help me? There's an editor who keeps adding unsupported claims about David Cameron's ancestry into various articles. In short, he's bent on creating a ancestral link between David Cameron's ancestor, Ewen Cameron (banker), and a specific chief of Clan Cameron John Cameron of Lochiel. Not one source his cites makes the link.

Everytime I remove the claims I'm reverted. My objections are cast aside on his talkpage. Back in June there was a consensus at Talk:David_Cameron#Kinship_issues that he should stop. He was subsequent blocked for edit-warring. But now it's started allover again, and spread into other articles, and it's just me taking issue with it. I don't want to turn into an edit-warrior, but the inability to deal with these dodgy claims and watching them spread into other articles is totally disheartening.

Can you please read my comment at Talk:David_Cameron#Problems and lend your thoughts. Its about a handful of edits with unsupported claims and unacceptable references. If you leave a thoughtful note maybe others will too.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Katherine Archuleta‎

Did you follow me? Raggz (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Penwith blocked?

Hello

I am unable to revert your deletions at Penwith that were made without TALK. Have you used your Administrator privilege for this? Raggz (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, the page isn't protected. However, I've explained on the article's talk page why you shouldn't be replacing badly sourced material. Please don't do it, go to WP:RSN if you really want to say a source over 2 centuries old should be used, or why Cunliffe, who doesn't argue that Ictis was Penwith, should be used to suggest it was. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforced Sanction Against Soham321

Hello, sorry to bother you on your talk page but this is for you directly rather than ARB. I would like to respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision regarding Soham321. I have to ask you, are you aware of the situation over on the British Raj and Caste System of India articles? The guy has the patience of a saint dealing with what can only be termed as two or three dogmatic, ideologically-led editors. I always assume AGF but the reaction I received when first trying to improve the article was astonishing. Essentially three editors seem to believe they 'own' the articles and proceed to use any and all means to prevent the pages from being the independent, neutral and balanced articles they should be, articles that should be open to review yet are not due to their dated, ideologically-led stance. I have never come across such viciousness on Wikipedia and would personally warn them all to back off deleting other editors good faith edits, so I would ask you to review what you know about the issue and take a second look, best wishes.Twobellst@lk 10:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) User:Twobells, this is inappropriate here.Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, should I instead post this under your decline decision? Twobellst@lk 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Twobells, you can only post in your own section, so you need to move anything you've posted elsewhere. Doug Weller (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It is my first contribution to arbitration so could I ask you to forward me to the correct procedures, template and rules therein for Arbitration, please? Also, would you like me to delete this section? Twobellst@lk 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Twobells, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page, I receive a notification when my talk page is edited. No need to apologise though, you obviously weren't aware. This isn't an arbitration case but a request for clarification. Everything you need is in the boxed area outlined in red at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. For instance, in bold type, it says "There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section." Doug Weller (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks again, I will update, regards. Twobellst@lk 15:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Phoenicia

Hello again. Are you following me? A coincidence perhaps? Raggz (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Raggz, no idea what you are talking about. You brought up Penwith, I hadn't been aware of your additions there until you mentioned them. See my response above also. See my new edits - if you want to argue that your source that is over 2 centuries old is better than modern scholarship, then please go to WP:RSN, don't just revert. Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You made that argument for me. (See the strawman fallacy.)
Why don't you use the TALK page before massive deletions? Why shouldn't we discuss this there? Other editors use TALK, so are administrators exempt from discussion when editing?
You make up rules and then enforce them (also without discussion). You made up the rule that allows you to delete material (without discussion) because the reliable source is in your opinion, too old. WP:how old is too old? I don't believe that this rule exists. Please post it here. Is this a real rule or is it something that you just made up?
Is Strabo too old? I wrote to you about this on TALK, but you didn't respond. When the topic involves the translation of ancient Greek and Roman it matters if the author has strong ancient language skills. Please add the relevant modern material that you want to. I don't have this, but you do. If you have a more modern reference from someone who reads ancient Greek, PLEASE add it.
As an administrator are you directing me to not revert, and to leave your mass deletions as they are? Are you making this direction just as an editor? Raggz (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Page added to watchlist. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Talk Page Stalker. What's up? Have you and Doug Weller worked together before? Raggz (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Raggz: DW alerted me to this discussion (I reverted you on Mount Batten back in March). Having read your recent posts, it seems to me that the point you're overlooking is that we attribute statements made by authors that don't reflect the current mainstream position – see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Also relevant are WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. The answer to the question "how old is too old?" is "it depends". But, taking Penwith as an example, modern scholarship doesn't hold that the Phoenicians were regular visitors to what's now the UK; so instead of what you wrote, it would be necessary to say something like "Christopher Hawkins, writing in 1811, expressed the then prevalent view that the Phoenicians were ..." – if (and this is where WP:UNDUE comes in) that is considered important enough to be included in the article (and two of us don't think it is). I hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  12:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That is a most useful response. My frustration is that Doug Weller did not just state the current mainstream position with a reliable source in TALK, he just deleted it in total and without discussion. Doug Weller's style is authoritarian and not collegial. There is no rule to restrain his authoritarian style but the article would be far better if he contributed the the current mainstream position. I enjoy getting into topics where I have limited training, but I expect collegiality from the real scholars with subject expertise. Thank you for yours.
I am of course fine with the use of an attribution, but is it a rule? May editors with a different idea follow their personal style? If we go to a controversial subject, say Climate Change, must one side use attributions and the other not? Of course not. I don't mind being edited and educated and I thank you for helping here. These articles are of course not Climate Change, attributions here are most appropriate, but rude authoritarian administrators however are not.
(“All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than Doug Weller.” ― George Orwell)
OK Doug Weller, you deserved this, but I have made worse errors. All is forgiven. 05:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Raggz (talk)
Raggz Thanks for the forgiveness, but I don't understand why you think I've been authoritarian. Maybe you missed my request (with the word 'please) to go to the reliable sources notice board so that you could get other people's opinions and didn't have to take my word for it. I certainly was not ordering you not to revert when I wrote " then please go to WP:RSN, don't just revert." Do you know about assume good faith? I didn't actually follow you to Penwith, you discussed an some text at Penwith which is why I took a look at it. You suggested I misused my administrator's privileges by editing through protection, although the article wasn't protected. You've accused me of making up rules instead of asking me about our policy and guidelines.
Yes, I didn't discuss my removal of the edit at Penwith on the talk page. It was badly sourced and seems to have included some original research. See WP:BURDEN which says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." I now see that it's material that you added yourself, something you didn't mention when you brought it to my attention at Talk:Phoenicia when you copied the entire text there. I assumed you were using it as backing for your claims and it was a surprise to find it was something you wrote.
You ask about attribution. There are two basic reasons for attribution. One is to avoid plagiarism and is discussed at Wikipedia:Citing sources#In-text attribution. The other is I think they type you are thinking about, and is discussed at WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements although I admit that is pretty sketchy.
Sourcing and original research - these are tricky when things aren't black and white, and I think that you still aren't as familiar with our policies and guidelines as you need to be. Even with my 140,000+ edits there are still things about Wikipedia I need to learn, so it isn't surprising that you aren't completely familiar with them. Have you actually read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR? Some basics - sources must discuss the whole subject, you can't put together arguments from different sources. So CUnliffe needs to discuss Penwith, etc to be used. Claims about why the Romans invaded Britain should be sourced to reputable, mainstream archaeologists and historians, not books about tin, as those authors won't be experts the subject of Roman Britain. But all of this takes experience and discussions with other people. If you want, it's possible to get you fixed up with an experienced editor who could help you.
Again, object to the personal comments you've made about me and think they are inappropriate and inaccurate, but I doubt I can convince you. I've tried to work with you but it's been hard. And I completely don't understand " the article would be far better if he contributed the the current mainstream position." That's what I've been trying to do, I've been thanks for it and indeed one of my edits was copied into another article by another editor. Doug Weller (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Raggz. You may be attempting to make some kind of fresh start. If you are, that's good, but perhaps you should review the old discussions in which you were involved to ensure that you have learned all you can from them, especially how not to vex your fellow editors.  —SMALLJIM  09:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

RevDel

Could you take a look at this edit: [44] - we've already RevDel'd similar material, and I think this should probably go as well. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Done. Although Oversight would have been another way to go and faster if I wasn't around. Doug Weller (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. SAdly, the IP responsible has now chosen to dispute the matter on my talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
He's blocked, and if he restores it will almost certainly be blocked again. Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I saw that - do you think the posts he made to my talk page need RevDel/oversight too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's only the edit summary. I'm not sure, ask OS and maybe you'll get someone with more experience! Doug Weller (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Propaganda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Propaganda. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for keeping track of the puppets... Egil (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Callum Rzonca

Hello Doug, could you please delete this expired PROD.. Callum Rzonca when you have a moment. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo - done. Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron

Hi Doug. Mabelina's at it again [45], and not letting up [46], [47], [48].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh I see they has been blocked. I deleted something you wrote at Talk:David Cameron that they copied to their talk page, presumably without asking you. Nothing more for me to do there now but do let me know if there are further problems. Enough is enough, as others have said. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Thanks again Doug.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Revert regarding "ama-gi"

Hi! I've responded to your revert here. Gabbe (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DAB pages & references

Thanks for correcting my mistaken assumption. List pages DO have references and I got that confused with the DAB page. even though I've been editing for some time, I'm just a journeyperson. I still have much to learn! LiPollis (talk)

LiPollis - no problem. I have far more edits than you do and am still concerned about how much more I have to learn. This might interest you. Doug Weller (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Funny you should link to Jason's blog because I adore his site! His reviews of the Giants show episodes are both hilarious and a good example of how just a few minutes of internet research can knock down most of the pseudoscience claims made on the freakier "History" Channel "Reality" shows. These days, if you want any History at all you have to go to H2 but even H2 re-runs the nutty stuff from the primary channel. As an Anthropologist and Folklorist (among other collected degrees), I find this rise in pseudoscience programming somewhat fascinating, which is why I added that Giants show to the list of Giants. There was an earlier one as well from about 10 years a go, a 2 hour special that followed the Angels Good or Evil format. I believe it was called Giants: Friends or Foes. That show focuses on legends and didn't attempt to convince the audience that Paul Bunyan was real. Thank you for thinking of me and linking to a great blog. Others interested in Jason's tit for tat presentation of real facts versus TV claims about Pseudoscience should follow that link and go to his archive for some fun and education. LiPollis (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Lisapollison you might be interested in the forums at [49] and in particular the papers.[50]. Then there's the Bad Archaeology website[51] and blog.[52] and the Archfantasies podcasts[53] which archaeologist Ken Feder is involved with. Finally, still with some good links and papers, is my pretty defunct website.[54] Doug Weller (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Administrators' noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thanks. Schwarzschild Point • 20:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Medes

What would you recommend regarding the issue? A temporary ip protection on the article? Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ninetoyadome probably not at the moment, but you can ask for one if you wish. Doug Weller (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Race and genetics

Do you think semiprotection of Talk:Race and genetics for an extended period (weeks) would be appropriate? Sorry to bother you with that, but you recently reverted a banned user there, and I suspect that if I requested at WP:RFPP it would be hard to show an admin with no background that protection was warranted as it's just low-level CPUSH. Normally it would not be worth worrying, but I gather that an LTA is active and avoiding the drama of fighting over the RfC might be best—I reverted a drive-by IP who re-opened the RfC, but was reverted. Re the LTA, apart from recent activity here, see this post (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, forgot to reply. Probably not at the moment. Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Re your comment here: how can you not know who I am? I have been commenting in the AE thread for the past week, and am the same individual who originally opened the RFC on the race and genetics article, when I was using the IP range 192.253.*. It's been mentioned several times in the AE thread that I'm using this IP range as well. 107.6.114.71 (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment

You've gone out of your way to harrass me on my own talk page and wherever you could find my contributions. I've reported you to ANI to no effect but that won't stop me from reporting you for any continued harrasment. Whether your focus is against me personally or against some larger group I ask now that you please leave me alone. Schwarzschild Point • 13:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Schwarzschild Point I didn't go out of my way to post a 3RR warning on your talk page. You're the one who reported me to ANI hoping that another Admin would take action and then you denied edit warring, although it was made plain to you by other editors that the warning was justified and that you had hit 3RR (not breached it, the whole point of the warning is to stop you from breaching it and being blocked). You also made the false statement that "First he so politely warns me that two reverts on two different pages violate the three revert rule." I never said you had violated the 3 revert rule and it wasn't "two reverts on two different pages" that I was referring to. I don't know what larger group you mean (at one point it looked as though you meant Jews but that would be ridiculous). I guess yes, I don't appreciate people who try to push their views by edit warring. Or who make false accusations. I think the only other article where we've intersected is Yahweh (disambiguation), where I reverted the same pov edit you were making at Yahweh. That's not harassment or wherever I could find your contributions. I also realised that you might not understand that 3RR isn't an entitlement and explained that to you on your talk page. Too many editors don't read the links and end up blocked because they continue the edit warring after 24 hours. Finally, you need to stop calling other editors' edits on your talk page vandalism, see WP:VANDALISM which obviously doesn't say that ordinary warnings or posts are vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The larger group would likely be IP editors or former IP editors, as my comment on Yahweh Talk page makes clear. You agreeing with ScrapIron about my "obvious preaccount knowledge" seems like you have some animosity toward that group. However, you may simply be implying that I'm a sock puppet without evidence. Where your attitude on Jews comes in is anyone's guess. Schwarzschild Point • 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Schwarzschild Point I wasn't suggesting you are a sock and there are some very nice IPs editors. I block obvious anti-Semites on sight. I don't have a general stand on members of any religious group, that would be treating them as clones. Doug Weller (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
ScrapIron was pretty obviously implying that I was a sock and I took your comment as agreement with him. It's possible I was wrong and even likely that my ANI was submitted in ignorence. Being a newly registered editor I don't have a lot of experience with wikipedia talk page policies.
You could maybe view my discussion on Talk:Yahweh and see if you can understand my argument for a page move? I'm sure a move would bring the page closer to wikipedia guidlines though I may not be expressing it correctly. I don't see how two different forms of the same word should redirect to different pages. It would be like アニメ redirecting to Japanese cartoons before WWII and Anime redirecting somewhere else. Schwarzschild Point • 18:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Schwarzschild Point Thanks for showing good faith. I'll see if I have time tomorrow. Doug Weller (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Claimed notable resident

An IP has put his grandfather as a notable resident of Wednesbury without citation. I have twice reverted and he has re-reverted. Can you take a look? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As he's changing IP addresses we'll have to ask for page protection if he does it again. I probably shouldn't have reverted! If you use Twinkle it's every easy to do. Doug Weller (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

I wanted to know which changes I made that are considered vandalism? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.213.99 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The change I made were related to the fact that is is written that the dish originates from the Senegambia confederation, which is false, the dish is from Senegal and the creation of the dish is anterior of the confederation that was created in 1982 and that does not exist anymore. I also brought some correction to the Senghor page particularly tha fact that his father was from the Serer tribe. Serer people are not a tribe but an ethnic group, there should not be any need to correct those kind of terms nowadays. Thank you very much for your corrections, I do have an account at wikipedia, Next time I will take the time to login and also to examinate the sources more closely before editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.213.99 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will make sure to notify about any other derogatory or inaccurate vocabulary I may encounter in the future. The West African term for Jolof also works for me so far because the Senegalese origin is also mentionned, I will not make any change on that page about the origin until I've found a reliable source. I guess only English speaking sources are accepted for English wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.213.99 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Way of the Patriarchs

Greetings, Doug! You recently deleted 2 refs in the article Way of the Patriarchs. I believe that your deletion of ["bibarch1"] was unwarranted. Your reason was that it does not mention Way of the Patriarchs|fathers. However, bibarch 1 was placed after the first sentence referring to the existence of the route. I hope that you will see that it is valid in that position. Your other ref deletion puzzels me. I would like to restore the biblearchaeology.org ref. In your [summary] you stated: "biblearchaeology.org not a reliable source by our criteria." Specifically what criteria and who decides Please clarify. --@Efrat (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Atefrat Sources need to mention the subject of the article. We seem to agree that it doesn't so I don't understand how it can be a source for this. Creationist sources may be ok for articles on themselves or where there is a reason for the Creationist view, but not for this sort of thing. I hope you'll agree about that. WP:RS#Some types of sources is probably the most relevant bit of our guideline. Hm, thinking more about this, I can't see how BibArch meets our guidelines either. ". Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." BibArch doesn't seem to meet those guidelines - anonymous, etc. We may have to go to WP:RSN if you don't agree. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The BibArch ref does in fact mention the subject of the article as the ridge road. Perhaps it needs to be moved to the second paragraph. But then you wish to disqualify it as unreliable. I am at a loss as to how to proceed. I may have to resort to citing Hebrew language sources which, although permissible, is not ideal. Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #171

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nephilim deleted edit

You state reliable sources. The first part of my edit is that which is taught in college (you would know if you ever attended). It is taught in literature class. It is: When studying this passage, or any passage of the Bible, it is best to use the Exegetical method, which is tearing it down to the bottom and rebuilding it using 6 contexts. First, one must use the Bible to interpret the Bible. Second, using the 6 contexts, which are: 1. What is the context (main idea, or thought) of the Bible?, 2. What is the context of the book you are reading (Genesis, Exodus, etc.)?, 3. What is the context of the chapter you are reading?, 4. What is the context of the verse you are reading? 5. What is the context of the key words?, and 6. What is the historical context? How did the people of that time think, act, etc. An example, to name something is to place one's authority on it. A king of a city state that has conquered another city state gives it a new name, because he is place his authority on it. Two things to keep in mind for a sound, correct interpretation of this passage are: 1. Where is the beginning of the narrative; the pivotal spot? It is Genesis 3:15, which is a prophecy of Christ and the beginning of the battle between evil and good. It is followed by the first example the story of Cain and Abel., 2. In the original Bible there were no chapter or verses, these were added later to make it easier to find passages. The story of the Flood begins at Genesis 4:17 and goes to Genesis 9:7 (this story should have been 1 chapter). This aids the scholar attempting to understand and interpret a difficult passage. The next part: Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, William Wilson (MacDonald Publishing Co. ISBN 0-917006-27-5, New Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, William Wilson; Kregel Publications 1987, ISBN 0-8254-4030-0/ both page 185)renders the word nephilim meaning as to fall upon other in rapine violence and apostates fallen from true religion. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, James Strong (MacDonald Publishing Co. ISBN 0-917006-01-1) cites the word as a bully,tyrant, or dictator. Here is given references to where the data is gotten (even page numbers), but by what you say this is reliable or acceptable. Just what would be. The next part: One can get copies of the First and Second Book of Enoch, which one can read. Two such books are The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1(Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1983 ISBN 0-385-09630-5)and The Other Bible(Harper & Row, Publishers ISBN 0-06-250031-7)and there others. A WARNING. When reading these books keep in mind that they are non-canonical and are considered fictional; not God inspired and truthful. When one reads the Book of Enoch one sees a measurement for the offspring as 300 cubits. A cubit is 18 inches (check any Bible dictionary), or 1 1/2 feet. As such the offspring is 450 feet tall. This again shows where one can find the data. All these references are from PUBLISHED and ESTABLISHED books, that is accepted by college professors, but not by you. How did the article get on Wikipedia? Did the author bribe someone, or is it that they are a dear buddy? You may think this harsh, and it may be, but it is deserved. The reason why the information has been verified with published authentic sources that you refuse to accept. Then what needs to take place is that the articles references must be rejected as well for they are based on the same method and material. Why accept one person's references and not an others when both are from published established sources available to the public. Once before I attempted this folly on an other article and again nothing, not even a police report, was accepted. The only thing I can think for this is that Wikipedia employees are not getting their palm greased, or that I am not a dear buddy with an in. The reliable verified referenced attainable data is beneficial and helpful to the reader and scholar, but you and Wikipedia don't care, and spit on me, my effort to help, and the ones who would have benefited from it. Now you cam laugh and do a dance for you wasted my time and you have robbed the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphemil (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I started to post what I was laughing at, but then I realized that the OP should probably just back away from the computer. I think even my preacher granddad would be recommending that course of action. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


I gave him a final warning after this racist attack on an IP:
"I know why some of my additions were removed, but the addition concerning the Second book of Enoch, what was the matter with it? Were you to willfully brain dead to read it? Is it that you only use your brain for parties and sports, and not intellectual pursuits? One other time I gave article data and gave references, like a police report, but that wasn't good enough, or acceptable for you people. Now I guess the Second book of Enoch is not good enough. What would it take to be acceptable for you narrow minded, willfully, limited brain people to allow it to be used? Did you even graduate high school without bribes? I believe that if God, Himself, stood before you and gave documented data you would not accept it. Why don't you and your family go to Iran where your kind is and leave America alone?"
looks like the post by him to me awarded him with an indefinite block. Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What am I missing?

Hi Doug,

Here you say there are many reliable sources which dispute that the Newport Tower was a windmill. I went back through the sources we have for the article and have again come up short. Can you point me to one?

Thanks,

jps (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Bowing my head in shame, I misread that entirely. jps thanks for letting me know about my stupidity. I've reverted myself. Doug Weller (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

YGM - Revdel request

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir I've rev/del'd them and semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

About you know what ...

I did drop the page from my watchlist; I only just now went back to have a quick look. Know first, Doug: Based on my personal interactions with you, I will always assume good faith on your part. Never fear that.

The reality is: (a) ArbCom will do as it chooses on the title of the case, anyway, and (b) I'm not really in a position to demand anything. (I don't really wish that someone would walk up to their mothers and swear at them, either.) Obviously, I was being hyperbolic. But ...

  • Partly I was steaming then.
  • Partly, I felt that it was the equivalent of kicking a man while he's already down. (Well, "piling on" is what I really thought, but that's an American football expression, so ...) They just didn't need to say what they said; it didn't change anything.
  • And partly, I wanted to make it clear that I personally didn't (and don't) think that what Malik did or did not do was even the main event. It was a consequence of the main event. But those two seemed to be making the consequence equivalent to the cause, and I wasn't prepared to let that go unchallenged.

Please forgive my hyperbole. But something needs to change. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Back when I used to annoy people at AE, I always thought that everyone, even admins, should reasonably be able to think that they were allowed a single mistake, even in areas in which they are subject to sanctions, before being sanctioned themselves, if they had made no previous mistakes in that regard and it wasn't clear to them by the previous history on that content that certain actions were already found to be unacceptable. There are a few comments elsewhere that Malik had lost his temper or been obnoxiously snarky before. But there is also easily available evidence at WO regarding all the insults that have been thrown against him. Personally, and I'm fairly sure GW will disagree, I have to think that having an emotional outburst for a single night, even if over the period of several hours, with provocation, if that person had not done anything similar before, could be allowed to go without sanction. I haven't reviewed MS's own history here, but from everything I've seen he has seemed to at least hold himself to a higher standard than those he has been in conflict with. It may be irrelevant, if he stays retired, but I would myself really like to see some indication that even admins can be allowed to make a mistake once in a while. And, no, this is in no way related to my own insistent demand that my adminship be ended; the terms I had offered for loss of tools had been met, and I abided by them. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Following is for both of you, and other good citizens of this land. (Doug, I know ArbCom will do its own thing, too. But we need some discussions and some ideas here.) ...
You are invited to join a discussion as to how to improve the Israel/Palestine topic area (and by extension, other inherently toxic topic areas). Please feel free to join us here. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments User:John Carter and User:StevenJ81. Steven, thanks for the invitationj. I'm going to be a drafter on the case and I hope you and others on that page will be providing input at the evidence stage. Doug Weller (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I intend to. Thanks. Certainly feel free to look in, anyway. I'm hoping we'll have some productive discussion in order to help feed the case evidence. 12:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Henrik Mkhitaryan

There is an edit war going on in the Henrik Mkhitaryan page. User PapadopulousStanis keeps adding obviously incorrect information and will not listen to reasons as to why it is incorrect. The article has one line where it incorrectly states Mkhitaryan has won the Albanian player of the year twice. I, as well as another user, have posted a list of the Albanian player of the year award winners but this user claims the list is incorrect. No other source makes such a statement. Can you please do something about it? Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Doug, it has just come to my attention that the term employed in the case was actually, 'sonny boy', sonny boy has no racial or negative connotations whatsoever, I've put up a short statement on the arb page but I wanted admin to be aware of this before passing judgement. If arbitrators were going to consider penalising Shabazz on the grounds that his language was 'racist' or had 'negative connotation' then they would be seriously mistaken. regards. Twobellst@lk 08:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Twobells. It was Dyer who used it first[55] and when it's not used among friends or acquaintances it is at best patronising and according to context could be racist. Doug Weller (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, there are potentially matters of local usage to consider. Malik lives in Cleveland now, maybe elsewhere in the past, and I don't know the local usages there. Also, knowing this a bit from my own personal history as a descendant of Germans, I know that if anyone today were to call me, well, any sort of "Nazi", there is a really good chance that I might note the use of that word and react less than positively more than the full context of the phrase. And, yes, I think that, in at least some recent circumstances locally, the word "boy" might be used in conjunction with other words to allow the individual to consciously invoke that slur, even if they could later claim plausible deniability based on it being part of a phrase with a slightly different meaning. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Sonny boy" is acceptable among friends - between others it is at best demeaning/patronising. Doug Weller (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello to you both! Ah, I didn't know that he was based in Cleveland, that clouds the issue. However, we always promote WP:GF, so should arbitrators practice what they preach and assume he meant no ill will? tough call for those involved. On a related issue, guys, check out this book by Mick Hume Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech, fantastic insight into where 'fear of offence' might be taking western, liberal democracies, best wishes. Twobellst@lk 18:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi. Please check your e-mail in a few minutes, as I haven't sent it just yet at the time of this typing. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #172

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Failure to give proper notice of discussion at NPOV notice board

You are required to notify anyone under discussion at the NPOV notice board when you initiate discussion. Given your long history as an editor here on Wikipedia and your numerous positions of authority, I am pretty sure that you already knew that. It looks like you acted in bad faith in this instance. Please don't do that again. I only stumbled upon the discussion by chance. I should be able to make my views heard without relying on fortunate happenstance. I still look forward to working with you in the future. Intermittentgardener (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Intermittentgardener Sorry, I forgot which should be obvious as I also forgot the whole discussion and haven't commented since. - although you obviously aren't going to AGF and accept that, given your accusation. And I also forgot to add it to the talk page, which I've done now. Doug Weller (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is kind of hard to assume good faith in this one instance due to your experience, authority, and the fact that the NPOV notice board has a bright red warning box instructing you to notify everyone that is a topic of discussion. Everyone makes mistakes though and you certainly contribute to Wikipedia in very valuable ways. Water under the bridge. FYI it is better to use the template they suggest at the NPOV notice board and to place it on user talk pages. Easier too. Have a good day.Intermittentgardener (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LaPorte Church of Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Order. 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) 09:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Melungeons, DNA, etc.

Hi Doug,

I don't have a strong opinion either way on the merging of Melungeons, whom I'd never heard of before this morning, into Melungeons DNA, which I haven't read yet. But I'm interested in the general topic.

As DNA studies go forward more and more interesting topics turn up, and one question I'm waiting for real information on is Africans, Jews, and Seventh Day Adventists.

My ex-partner, and mother of my youngest daughter, is Dinka, has said in the past that she is Jewish and that about 28% of the Monjiaang/Dinka are Jewish, by the famous, or perhaps folkloric, Queen of Sheba ~ King Solomon line, and now that we are separate (I am Modern Orthodox, by conversion in 1989) she worships as Seventh Day Adventist.

What is interesting about this is that there are a number of elite blacks -- and she is indeed elite; ex-husband a VP of the World Bank, her family's "Everybody gets an MD" rule amended in the current generation to "...or a PhD in a hard science; this includes the women." rule in effect -- worship SDA. Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson is one. The tennis champion Williams sisters are two. There are others; they don't make a big noise about it, but you keep runing across it.

And there is clearly some truth to the Solomon/Queen of Sheba story -- though my guess would be that when the good Queen went up to Jerusalem she probably went with some bodyguards, some family, and some lowly porters, all of whom would have been on the lookout for some fun, or even for serious marriages.

So. Something for you to bear in mind in your editorial concerns.

Cheers,

-dlj.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Doug Weller. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Megatrend University

Dear Sir,

I'm terribly sorry to interrupt you in your daily work, but I've noticed disputed neutrality box above article on "Megatrend University". Checking its Talk Page, I've noticed that only user Balancerx (or IP 184.145.137.152) had any remark on the neutrality, and that user's contributions were patterned under biased user's pattern. Also, one of the user's main arguments against neutrality of the article were broken links, but after those broken links were repaired, and new references were provided, all from reliable sources, user Balancerx (or IP 184.145.137.152) had stopped to put any contributions to the Talk Page.

My humble opinion is, as I had already wrote on the Megatrend's Talk Page, that dialog box should be removed.

Best regards

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.23.190 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Anglish Moot

Doug, Why do you think that Anglish Moot is suitable for expedited deletion? Is it that dangerous? What are you frightened of? If Wikipedia can have an item about language purism in English, why not something about its proponents? Egberht (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

]]User:Egberht]], you're being silly. We are a real encyclopaedia. That means that not every website, person, tiny group, etc can have its own article. We have criteria for what can have an article - I'll reply on your page. Doug Weller (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Of Rasgullas and Rosogullas

Reg this edit, the editor has posted two of their cellphone numbers, email id, messenger id, physical address, birth time and hospital etc on their user page, and that's obviously going everywhere now. I've been following this mess for a while now as I deleted a content fork that I came across. Just an FYI. —SpacemanSpiff 09:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SpacemanSpiff Thanks. Must check our policy on such detail for adults. Doug Weller (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I did that early on, and since this isn't his only contribution here, it's difficult to not allow that leeway however absurd it might be, but I let it pass. I've only been on this as an uninvolved admin, having deleted a content fork, but it's a big time sink, just see Talk:Rosogolla where despite hatting stuff, he continues to post there. —SpacemanSpiff 17:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Navbox

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Navbox. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_37&oldid=1090505484"