Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Which one of my edits are you changing?

The automated message doesn't say and I made several recently. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfieldman (talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I found what you changed. What I wrote was accurate and there are good sources out there, but I don't know them off the top of my head and I don't have time to find them. If you wouldn't mind leaving it in with a "needs citation" tag, that would be great. If not, I understand. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfieldman (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #279

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Rolled out more fine-grained usage tracking on Greek Wikipedia. This will lead to less irrelevant changes showing up in watchlist and recent changes on those projects. We're testing this on Greek Wikipedia to see if the solution we have scales before rolling it out further. (phabricator:T151717)
    • Adding an API module to copy a statement from one item to another (phabricator:T55619)
    • Working more on checking constraints also on qualifiers and references (phabricator:T168532)
    • Added support for the Creator namespace to the constraints check for Commons links (phabricator:T176062)
    • Fixed an error message on Special:GoToLinkedPage (phabricator:T176327)
    • Finishing touches on including full URIs for external IDs in the RDF export (phabricator:T121274)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

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) 04:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sock puppets?

P.S.:

What is a "sock puppet" and a "sock edit" or "sock ediitor"? Of course I know what a sock puppet is, as I used to make them for my kids when they were little. I still have one around her someplace. But this must be jargon exclusive to Wikipedia. I thank you in advance.Sciacchitano (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sciacchitano: the relevant policy is at WP:SOCK. The term is much older than Wikipedia in online fora such as Usenet, as a metaphor for a person participating in a conversation under multiple identities with deceitful intent—to create an illusion of support for a position, to express objectionable opinions without accountability, or the like. Where you see it in discussions here it has a broader meaning, more or less “abuse of multiple accounts“: not only the deceptive assumption of multiple personae, but also block evasion, for example. “Sock edit“ and “sock editor” require some context to be sure, but my first guess would be with reference to block evasion.—Odysseus1479 06:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
<joke>Not all sock editors are all that bad...</joke> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Various items

Heir Doctor Weller:

Thanks for your several comments on my editing.

I do my best but I find Wikipedia a rather difficult outfit, partly because I find some of the requirements less than comprehensible, and partly because in some ways they are arbitrary, and while perhaps seemingly logical to the person who made them up, they are not logical to me, or easy to remember for that reason. Nevertheless, I apologize for any omissions or errors, and assure you they have been inadvertent.

FYI, I have a particular peeve regarding photographs. I have several times had objections to my posting of my own photographs, in one case because I had already placed the offending photo online elsewhere (a personal page on a photo website). This being discovered, I was asked to give myself permission to publish my own photo in order for it to be acceptable to Wikipedia. This reminds me of the story told by Will Rogers about being asked by a bureaucrat for his birth certificate. He replied that where he came from, if a fellow was standing in front of you, you kind of assumed he had been born. Needless to say, I didn't bother. If I can't post my own photos on Wiki, then so be it. It had no substantive effect on the article in question.

I often find it too bothersome to make fixes, unless for an article which I have authored or changed substantially, and just let them drop if a robot or editor makes some objection or demand. For instance, with the article on Dudley Tucker, where I supposedly plagiarized something (I have no idea what, as I only read your note to me this evening and I hardly remember anything about the edits I made), my initial inclination was to let it go. I do remember that I made some corrections on the Tucker article, which I felt made it more readable, and I had to look up some sources on Tucker to make sure my changes didn't make the article less accurate. I noticed today that someone (you perhaps) had re-written what I wrote, to the effect that it still contains the same information I had added (to the best of my recollection) while being at least as readable, and apparently without plagiarizing, which I doubt that I did. So mission accomplished from my point of view.

But no point in beating a dead horse. I use Wiki a lot, but almost never look at my Talk pages unless I am doing some editing or writing and notice a complaing or comment there. Not very professional, I know, but then I am not a professional.

I hereby cross my heart and promise to do better in the future, however, and as far as possible not to trouble you another time. My activities on Wiki are only aimed at improvement and informing your readers. See any of my contributions or talk comments for examples. Cheers to you, and I appreciate you and those of your colleagues who work so hard to make Wikipedia a decent, accurate, and informative product.Sciacchitano (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sciacchitano: See the edits I've made to Dudley Gilman Tucker. When you have information you retrieved from the same source, it helps to use <ref name=SourceYear_Page>Source, Year, Page</ref>, and then when you link to the same page of the same source use <ref name=SourceYear_Page/>, that way you avoid repeating the same source multiple times (as was the case in that article). If you took the photos yourself or got them from another source, it helps to get the right license in and add them to the article; they are very informative. It can be a pain to deal with others who tend to delete everything they deem badly licensed, but just persist if your case is strong. All the best and happy editing, Tisquesusa (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

persistent new vandal

User:40.133.5.206 has been warned three times of the consequences of their persistent vandalism at Haiku. Would a warning suspension as promised be in order? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939 Not unless they do it again, they seem to have stopped. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How can I report an active sockpuppet on wiki commons?

Hi. This account (Hoze.hamar (talk · contribs) on En WP) belongs to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. He's stale on En WP, but disrupts the description of an specific image on Wikimedia Commons[1]. See his edits. I have explained the details on the talk page of that page. How can I report him? --Wario-Man (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I don't know what the formal process is for Commons, but I've passed it on to people who will. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

WEB Dubois

Lewis is a preexisting source of this Wiki page - do I need to write it out fully?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsarlls (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #280

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Added a css class to values that link to redirects so they can more easily be identified by editors who want that for maintenance work (phabricator:T70567) Thanks Matej!
    • Continued work on persistent editing of forms as part of the work to support lexicographical data (phabricator:T173742, phabricator:T173744)
    • Finishing touches on adding full URIs for external identifiers to our RDF export so we're good citizens of the semantic web (phabricator:T121274)
    • Added a new mw.wikibase.getAllStatements Lua function in addition to the existing getBestStatements, that returns all statements regardless of their rank (phabricator:T176124)
    • Looking into an issue where unwanted email notifications are being sent (phabricator:T174794)
    • Released version 2.1.1 of the base DataValues component

Sodom Gomorrah

about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sinsearach#Sodom_and_Gomorrah_.E2.80.8E_original_research

and yet, right there in the next paragraph is a sentence that relies on nothing EXCEPT a passage of scripture from the same site I linked. :( Sinsearach (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

One more thing..... (!?!?!?!)

WHAT IS THIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sinsearach#October_2017 I didnt do any such thing! You got the wrong guy :(((((( I have never even seen that page! Who were you trying to message?Sinsearach (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

WEB Dubois

Any reason for the silence?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsarlls (talk • contribs) 02:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dalai Lama

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dalai Lama. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to Bath School disaster

Whether to call this incident a terrorist or terror attack has been previously discussed on this article's talkpage (see this discussion and this discussion) Is it necessary according to WP's rules/guidelines to cite a source stating that Kehoe's acts were a terrorist attack, perhaps that Kehoe was a terrorist, or does the Category rely on editorial consensus? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: There's a similar issue with 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting which has not been called a terrorist attack (there's a discussion on the talk page). I'm with the editor who said "The only thing required to show that it was terrorism is to cite a source that called it terrorism. Our own opinions don't matter, and citing them would be original research." I presume this is why Columbine isn't in the terrorist category. Sadly these things seem to be part of the American way. Or at least they seem to happen mainly in the US, I don't know that much about crazed gunmen in other countries. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say that the consensus about what exactly constitutes terrorism has changed over recent years. The contemporaneous sources call the Bath School Disaster the "act of a madman" etc but I think the term as relating to acts of mass murder is of a much more recent vintage, probably dating more to the 1960s or so. I would have to find a more recent reliable source/expert source that describes the Disaster an act of terror. Heh, not sure I have the time but I do think I'll look it up - if only to see what the current consensus is within society at large. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Middle East conflicts detailed map

I want to confirm your impression that User:Niele~enwiki was indeed voting for a different template (which is the Syria war map). Also, I want to note that I have clarified things with User:xaosflux, who has now added the comment: “If there is no use for data on this (template) … then deleting as orphaned is fine by me.” Would you be able to put in a “delete” vote along with your comment? I am afraid that the discussion might be confusing to the admin trying to close it. Thanks. Tradediatalk 03:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Empire map problem

Hello, I was wondering if you can help me out. JavierNF96 has been lately changing the map in the Spanish Empire article. I've made my own map for it and edited it on to the article yesterday. But he keeps on changing it back to a (in my own opinion) more inaccurate map with really vague color codes. I'm trying to make the map JUST be a map of only the Spanish empire without the claimed territories, Habsburg dominions, and Dynastic unions.

Which one do you think is better in your opinion? Thanks. Empirecoins (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Empirecoins: -perhaps we should have a WP:RFC. Could you post to the talk page the differences between the maps and your reasons that yours is better? I'll take a look then. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: -Thanks for your suggestion. An RFC is made in the Spanish Empire talk page. Empirecoins (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideocracy article

Thanks for pointing out problem with current ideocracies section. Now corrected. 

Europe and US now placed in 'Potential future ideocracies' section, is this OK?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawiki (talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Archeo categories

Squads of them being created here- and sometimes older ones being removed. What do you think? Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: not sure, mention it at the Wikiproject. Ask him why the older cats are being removed, but the one I looked at seemed ok, I don’t like Stone Age that much as a category. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's been popping up on my watchlist too and they seem okay to me. Looks like they're mostly just refining existing categories. – Joe (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2017 (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) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions?

Hello Doug, Its not clear to me why you left a notice on my page.--Jane955 (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Wikidata weekly summary #281

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Breaking change: "wb_entity_per_page" table will not be updated and replicated on ToolLabs anymore
    • A mw.wikibase.getLabelByLang Lua function will be added (phabricator:T173262)
    • The mw.wikibase.sitelink Lua function will accept a second parameter with the global identifier of a wiki (e.g. "enwiki") to link to (phabricator:T142903)
    • Had to temporarily turn off showing Wikidata's changes on Commons and Russian Wikipedia because of database issues. We're working on turning it back on.
    • Continued work on persistently storing edits to Forms on Lexemes
    • Finishing work on checking constraints on qualifiers and references with the constraint checks gadget
    • Fixed a bug where notification emails for Wikidata changes were sent when they shouldn't have been (phabricator:T174794)
    • Full URIs for external identifiers will soon be in the RDF export (phabricator:T121274)

opinion piece in Breitbart by former editor name-checks you

In case you weren't already aware of this, thought you'd find this article informative. Or at least amusing. Rockypedia (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have seen some of your editing and comments regarding antifa Dougweller, IMOpinion an Arbitration Committee member should say away from editing in controversial content areas especially if they hold a pov in that area as I can only assume you do, you do. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rockypedia: Yeah, I saw it. I wasn't impressed. But what else would Breitbart say anyway? @Govindaharihari: Almost everyone has a point of view on the world and its various aspects. And every controversial area on Wikipedia has editors with a point of view. I'm not sure that our views on Antifa are that different. Anyway, many arbs edit in controversial areas. I was nominated to become an Administrator because of my work in controversial (read difficult) areas. It's the ability to edit and follow NPOV policy that's important. I revert stuff that doesn't meet our policy/guidelines or is vandalism even if I might agree with it. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I was about to suggest having their userpage and talkpage relisted for deletion discussion given this article and the tagline at the bottom that seems to be an admission that "T.D.Adler" is currently using sockpuppets on wikipedia, but it seems to be a protected page and I don't have the permission level to edit it to follow the listing steps. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Morty C-137: No, he means he isn’t using his real name on Breitbart. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Editing in controversial content areas is one of the things Arb:s should do, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Doug, I'm just glad the controversial area you edit is more "glamorous"(ie. more visible) than the controversial area I edit. Better they mention you than me! :) --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
By chance I have reviewed your admin interactions with some WP editors, blocked and active alike, and I keep being amazed by your equanimity and civility when dealing with them, that is with us. Zezen (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Query

I was curious about why my edit was greyed in the history after I said James Watson was harassed by Marxist activists and I found this:

Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Due to its potential, use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or Arbcom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool.

The emphasis is in the original. I guess this doesn't apply here. Perhaps you can explain whether this applies and why or not. Just out of curiosity. Rupert the Frog (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rupert the Frog: First, that section is about block logs of individual users, so it's irrelevant here. As an example, another Administrator accidentally blocked me when they were trying to block someone else, and immediately unblocked me and despite never being deliberately blocked I don't have a clean block log. It would be improper to remove that however. As for why I removed the text from the article history, as I tried to explain on your talk page the actual language you used was "A survey of international biologists would find something quite different, especially one where they could respond anonymously to avoid harassment from Marxist activists, like James Watson." I understood that as referring to Watson as a Marxist activist. And as I did say on your talk page, that's not relevant to improving the article. We use article talk pages to directly discuss improvements or problems regarding the article, not the subject of the article. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I see. I guess I confused the meaning of the text. As for pointing out that scholars suggesting genetic differences between races have their opinion silenced by harassment from Marxist activists, I think that's relevant. It's useful for weighing up where surveys of scholars will be more or less reliable. Rupert the Frog (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You wrote "content hidden ‎(RD2: Serious BLP violations)". That's not what the above is about? Rupert the Frog (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That's what it looked like. In any case, I still say that it's a forum style sentence and irrelevant to any WP:RS decision. Doug Weller talk 18:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ho people dispute has now reached ANI

Biswajeet34 is now defending his case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#EdJohnston warn me to block me. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Lol. That wasn't a good move. I guess the page can be unprotected now. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe of interest

Hello again. I've reverted what appeared to be peculiar edits at the user talk namespace template messages. Since I remember of an LTA (from Poland I think) often messing with these, I wondered if these new templates were not trolling (in case this can avoid the trouble of filing three MfDs). The templates are: {{Uw-veil}}, {{Uw-veilfinal}} and {{Uw-veilim}}. PROD appears to not be for templates, I didn't find an obviously fitting CSD criteria... And I'm not sure if this is in any way related to the LTA I was talking about (user is TomBarker23). It's strange when a new user boldly edits such areas and puts a bite warning on their talk page. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Very strange. But I think mfd is the way to go as that way you'll get more eyes. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I found out how to nominate multiple templates in a group for MfD and filed it. —PaleoNeonate – 08:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI on Canaan (son of Ham)

This is just FYI -- I'm not saying anything needs done, but I noticed that an editor at Canaan (son of Ham) is discussed in the most recent entries at the bottom of Talk:Esau. Just so you know what you might be dealing with here. Alephb (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2017 (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) 04:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Welsh mythology

Top right corner, there is a big box titled "Celtic Mythology".----217.248.11.88 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

(page watcher response) As the hidden note at the article says, Welsh mythology is essentially a subset of Celtic mythology, broadly construed. See also the infobox title ("Part of a series on Celtic mythology") and the categories at the foot of the article. Haploidavey (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your explanation at all. I have to say, it almost sounds as if you have not even read my point. Please elaborate.
Also, why are we discussing this here?----217.248.11.88 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Read this.----217.248.11.88 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The edit summary you left reads "rv unexplained addition of a formatting comment", referring to the hidden note. Please don't shout. Haploidavey (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
So? It was a formatting comment, and you shouldn't have reversed it. You also should have read my explanation on this page.
I shout to draw your attention to the fact that you shouldn't blindly revert anonymous editors. As you can see, my earlier comment remained unread. Also, quite petty, don't you think?----217.248.11.88 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't. I don't blindly revert any edit, whether from IPs or registered editors. I make mistakes, but always try to assume good faith. As here. Haploidavey (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Then please elaborate on your explanation above, practically repeating what I (succinctly) wrote here ("big box titled 'Celtic Mythology'", "See also the infobox title ('Part of a series on Celtic mythology')").----217.248.11.88 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I obviously mistook your meaning. I didn't know that hidden comments should not be used that way. This is a pointless exchange. Haploidavey (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Never mind the formatting comment, did you even read what I said on this page?----217.248.11.88 (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I reverted an unexplained deletion. Maybe I should have explained it, maybe I should know why it was unexplained. I normally write rv unexplained but once in a while I don't. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I was not expecting that the deletion of a redundant comment that also violates our guidelines needs an explanation. Once more, take more care when reverting IPs.----217.248.11.88 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Not everyone knows all the guidelines. I don't. I would have reverted it even if it was an account, unless I had some reason to believe the editor was probably correct. My slip was in not using an edit summary. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Tgeorgescu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to protect an article

Numerous users are persistently adding "under God" to pre-1954 versions of the Pledge of Allegiance (United States). Will you please lock the article to prevent that? Maybe registered users could still edit, as it's mostly--but not entirely--IPs that are creating the problem. Or maybe block the vandals? (There's a note, "This text matches the reference. Vandalism will be reverted back to the original text.") Thanks for your attention, YoPienso (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done by EdJohnston. Thanks-- YoPienso (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@YoPienso: yes, while I was asleep! Doug Weller talk 20:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Peeta Singh's edits

A few accounts and jumping IPs have emerged around certain Punjabi/Punjab-related topics, all of which are directly restoring the edits of User:Peeta Singh (PS), who was topic banned from this area of editing and further indefinitely banned for socking with User:Singh Azad.

It seems that even after a block the user is still around expecting us to keep going in circles. Is there anything that can be done to remedy this situation? Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Salma Mahmoud: I haven't caught up with this yet, but I think an SPI has been suggested, as the checkuser data is out of date. 1234getonthedancefloor probably is but hasn't edited for some time now. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Brutus of Troy

Hi Doug - if possible, can you intercede again on the Brutus of Troy article? That anonymous user will not stop edit warring and removing perfectly accurate, sourced material from a respected scholar. Cagwinn (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cagwinn: the editor has taken my advice to open a Talk thread. Reinserted the disputed content, too, but at least it’s some progress. I’m not enough up to speed on the issue to engage myself.—Odysseus1479 04:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not either, so I don't think I can help. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The material he keeps removing comes from a well respected scholar and the article itself is an important study of the development of the Brutus of Troy legend in medieval British historiography, especially the Historia Brittonum and Geoffrey of Monmouth's hugely influential Historia Regum Britanniae, there is absolutely no reason for this anonymous knucklehead to remove it, no less call it "inaccurate" (when it absolutely is accurate; it's not in the least bit controversial). Cagwinn (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I figured out what was causing the confusion - the Brutus article should have clarified that the legend was drawn from the "Frankish Table of Nations" (originally composed c. 520 CE in Constantinople, according to Walter Goffart); I have emended the article and also added details on the Frankish Table of Nations to the main Table of Nations article (which, strangely, lacked any reference to it). Cagwinn (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The anon. user continues to edit war and it is now clear from the comments he/she is leaving in the talk and in the edit summaries that he/she is not playing with a full deck and is totally clueless about the material that they are trying to remove. Can someone please help by putting a temporary edit block, or other admin. solution? Cagwinn (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Ellis

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the invitation to answer your questions about Ralph Ellis.
With respect to the blocking policy statement that If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block on WP:ANI. I certainly can't say that Ralph's block has been improperly issued at this point. So I won't be asking for any review at ANI.
I am still hoping that six months from now, or perhaps even sooner, some administrator will show mercy.

Did I really use the word amnesty?

Not exactly. But, at the recent SPI, I asked: Could you offer any advice as to how Tatelyle and/or Ellis can continue to participate in the discussion at The Exodus without being subject to immediate blockage? and you replied Ellis can continue to participate on the talk page but clearly has a conflict of interest about his works. Bishonen said I regard the old 2006 account, Ralphellis, as abandoned and defunct; no account should be blocked as a sock of that, eleven years later. I'd encourage the user to continue using the account Ralfellis.
For a moment I thought it was a done deal -- that Tatelyle was blocked, but that Ralph could continue to participate using the other account.
Unfortunately, Ralph didn't just take the deal and run with it, but instead he chose to continue the conduct dispute. Alephb requested the information from Ralph about the past usernames that had been blocked, which he naively provided. I felt it was rather unscrupulous that this information was used against him. Perhaps he should have been read his Miranda rights before questioning.

Why do you believe his claims in the face of the evidence?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be taking sides in this disagreement about what happened in 2006. Ralph thinks he was blocked, and I had guessed that I couldn't find the block log because I was insufficiently skilled at searching, or because perhaps the records were lost. But you might very well be right that the account was never blocked, in which case I'm left with the puzzle of how Ralph became convinced that it was. Maybe he lost his password, and imagined that he'd been blocked.

How does his excuse for using multiple usernames in 2010 hold water?

I'm not sure that it does. But in terms of a hypothesis consistent with WP:AGF, Ralph may not have understood that opening multiple accounts is considered such a serious violation of trust.
If indeed he was intentionally evading some block that we've lost track of, he may have created several accounts in order to prevent anyone recognizing his pattern of interests.

I've never used my Admin tools on any of his socks.

This may be true, but Ralph might view that as a technicality. You did open the 2010 ANI case, and I'm sure you've challenged many of his edits. And your remarks about his work as an author have been unkind and in some cases inaccurate.

As for his claim that his edits are all within policy, many, possibly most of Tatelyle's edits were unsourced, ie original research, which as you know is banned by policy.

I agree this was a problem with many of his edits, and I can understand that admins can only extend so much rope. But in The Exodus discussion, Ralph was making a sincere effort to come up with acceptable sources. JerryRussell (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) I am not answering in place of Doug Weller. However I would like to remind about Perhaps he should have been read his Miranda rights before questioning: Although the WMF is a non-profit organization, its resources are private property (although the content is licensed for reuse in many ways). When a user is blocked, no loss of physical liberty occurs or anything that dramatic. It only technically protects the private property from abuse (which is also legal by all means). Editing Wikipedia is not a right but a privilege which can be rightfully removed. —PaleoNeonate – 04:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I can say that there was no lost block, block logs don't go awry. Article histories are never lost entirely but can be hard to find if merges/forks/redirects have been done improperly. But not block logs. And anyone who loses their password gets a notice about it when they try to login and an explanation of what they can do to regain control of their account. I don't see the false accusations against me as just a technicality, especially as I'd tried to explain them earlier as I recall at Talk:Exodus. And then of course there's the really odd mention of brother on his talk page. "Ralfellis was my brother, not Tatelyle," while at Talk:The Exodus we had "Ralph is my brother, but since Dougweller banned him twice from Wiki, he cannot post anything. What does Doug expect might happen? Wiki should be based upon the facts, not upon censorship. Is anything I have said overly controversial or wrong? Have my posts been overtly promoting Ralph? Are you going to ban me too? Are you trying to win your case and assert your bias via censorship, once again? Tatelyle(talk) 10:36 am, 23 September 2017, Saturday (21 days ago) (UTC+1)" And so far as I can see Ralf and Ralph are the same person, see [2] and various other sources that show Ralf writing stuff that Ralph wrote. This is all extremely unconvincing. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and so much time lost for everybody involved already... The edits were more self and fringe promotion than constructive, making his conspiracy theories and justifications very implausible. —PaleoNeonate – 16:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for the ongoing use of time. I hope in the end that we will see it all as worthwhile.
I agree that Tatelyle must be Ralph Ellis. I believe he is probably denying this as a matter of English common law rights to avoid making self-incriminating admissions. Ellis is an airline pilot, not a lawyer and certainly not a Wikilawyer, and he's defending himself as he sees appropriate.
It would not surprise me if we can't find the alleged initial blocks because they were under additional undisclosed usernames. I've asked him about this, and he says he doesn't remember. He may not trust me with the information either. I mean, I'm on his Facebook friend list, I've contacted him off-Wiki and I've read several of his books, but he basically doesn't know me from Adam.
PaleoNeonate, I basically agree with your legal analysis here, but would like to add some nuance. As a non-profit corporation, WMF does purport to serve a publicly beneficial purpose. And it promotes itself as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. WMF terms of service also may create some sort of contract between the editors and the WMF. I'm not saying that the TOS creates any sort of absolute right for any user to participate. Under the TOS, the community is empowered to determine whatever measures are necessary to protect the encyclopedia from irresponsible users.
But, I still believe that under the TOS, some attention to due process seems appropriate. I have no idea whether there has been any litigation about such issues, and little understanding of the history of development of the existing processes. Doug may know much more about this, as a member of the "arbitration committee". That term "arbitration" looks like it comes from the legal art, and the arbitration committee seems to be the court of last resort within Wikipedia for such questions.
In his unblock request, Ralph Ellis raised three issues for the reviewing administrator to consider: (1) What he considered to be a pattern of harassment against him by Doug Weller. (2) That when he was initially blocked, the unblocking procedure was not explained to him, even when he wrote to WMF to complain. (3) That he only used multiple accounts to evade blocks which he considered unjustified, and for the purpose of continuing to make beneficial contributions to the encyclopedia; or to speak in his own voice when his work was (in his opinion) being slandered.
I believe Doug when he says he was just trying to defend the encyclopedia against bad edits. But I can also understand Ralph's position. As I said above, I believe Doug's comments about Ralph's work have been unkind and in some cases inaccurate. I don't see why it is considered disruptive that Ralph raised these issues in his unblock request, and I don't understand why it was necessary to revoke his talk page access. JerryRussell (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If I've said unkind things about him it's because I was/am fed up with his block evasions. And you've said what I consider pretty heinous things about me, worse than anything I've said about him, but there you are. Hopefully that's behind us. His reasons for using sockpuppets are simply not acceptable. If you think he was accusing people of libel (not slander, that's oral) then a block would be required for that, see WP:NLT. The Arbitration Committee deals with conduct issues that have gone through the various forums for resolving them without success, nothing to do with this. If someone has sued the WMF over such issues I certainly know nothing about it. I really don't think I have much more to say here. Except I still don't understand the odd claim that Ralf is his brother. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Doug, WP:LIBEL says that A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified. I do believe I've already apologized for a question that I posed while we were discussing Ralph's paper that was peer reviewed in China. I have just gone back and struck out the remark with a line-through, but if someone were to permanently redact that entire related conversation from the record I would be pleased to see it go. If there's anything else I've said that has seemed "heinous", please call it to my attention either here or at my talk page.
I must say I find it odd that blocks are viewed as such powerful tools around here, and that block evasion is considered to be such a high crime. I wouldn't be surprised if half the editors on the system are evading blocks or bans, but maybe I'm too much of a cynic. JerryRussell (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:NLT covers that but also accusations of libel, which is what I was referring to, not a discussion about whether something is libellous. "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording, such as “that statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected." Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." In other words, if someone is accusing others of libel, etc we should ask them to state clearly whether they are considering legal action. Yes, block evasion is considered to be a very serious problem. And yes, you're too much of a cynic. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The various statements that Ralph Ellis works are self-published, that his climate paper was not properly peer reviewed, and that he is a "climate denier", are false and damaging. I believe that for Wikipedia's benefit, they should be retracted.
I just recently saw the WP:LTA page. As cynical as I am, I'm amazed at what's going on. I couldn't make some of that stuff up. JerryRussell (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
When I first encountered Ellis his works were self-published. I can't be blamed for not realising that a fringe publisher had picked them up. And the only thing false is claiming that they aren't. As late as 2015 his books are still self-published on Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com[3][4][5][6] etc etc. So no, I won't retract an accurate statement. Sadly, too many papers aren't properly peer reviewed, including the in past some very prestigious journals such as The Lancet. You call Ellis an airline pilot, not a lawyer. I don't respect peer review that allows a paper by someone with zero qualifications in the subject to be published. Which I suspect in part why it doesn't get cited. And of course he's a climate change denier, "climate denier" was just a bit clumsy although it's a phrase used at times. See [7] and the support he gets here.[8] I'm not retracting anything. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Some of us spent a significant amount of time over a two-month period trying to patiently explain things to Ralph Ellis. Just out of curiosity, how many more months of explaining things over and over would be appropriate, in your book, before Wikipedia decides not to continue discussions with someone? Also, if you've ever volunteered at a non-profit, how many months of face-to-face discussion should that non-profit allow in its meetings before the that non-profit tells a dissenting member that they can either get with the program or leave? Wikipedia has 31 million registered editors, but only a little over 100,000 of them made an edit in the last month. So over the lifetime of Wikipedia we've retained something like 0.3% of all registered editors. Which is about what any other non-profit would if it was as tolerant as we are. Alephb (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I might equally say that Ralph and I spent two months trying to explain to the other editors that the hyksos=israelite connection is a legitimate minority viewpoint and that Josephus is the single most reputable source spokesman for that viewpoint. You couldn't win that content dispute in a DRN because the closing editor there sided with Ralph. You couldn't win the content dispute in the RfC because no one could argue that Josephus wasn't a valid source to represent his own opinion. You accused me of tendentious editing for sticking to my position, and I decided it was prudent to back down rather than go to an ANI case.
The only way you could win that content dispute was to turn it into a conduct dispute, and get Ralph Ellis blocked. Not for current behavior, but for a seven-year-old sockpuppeting case that you tricked him into self-revealing. Congratulations on your great victory, Alephb. And you wonder why editors get fed up. JerryRussell (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

He was just lucky not to get blocked for the Tatelyle sock puppetry, about which he was and still is being deceitful (the claim that he has a brother Ralf). You think it's fine to create socks, the community emphatically does not. Go ahead, take Alephb to ANI and see where you get. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it is OK to create socks. Ralph apologized for having created socks, and he apologized for recruiting his brother Ralf. Ralph also explained why he felt driven to sockpuppeting. Why has the only response to that been WP:ABF?
Ralph is a Freemason, and they call all lodge members their brothers. I think one of the tenets of that !religion is that one should be one's own best friend and brother as well. Maybe Ralf is Ralph's secret lodge name for all I know. Or maybe he's just sticking to his story because he's concerned about consequences of admitting the truth.
I should be my own best friend and brother, too. And on that note, I think I'm done with Wikipedia editing for a very, very long time. Trying to get fair treatment for minority views (aka 'fringe') is a form of self-flagellation that I can do without. JerryRussell (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jerry. As we have worked together in (I think!) improving Wikipedia, I would be a little sad to see you go. I was also a bit dismayed to find this discussion a couple of days ago. At the very least it has been tendentious. (Thank you, Doug, for your patience.) Worse, it seems to me that you've gotten rather "wrapped around the axle", in that you seem fixated on something most editors would probably find marginal. And while you have declared no significant COI, yet it seems to me that your ties with the subject are strong enough to color your views of these matters, and lead to frustration when you can't find concurrence. As a favor to you I would suggest: instead of a "very long" wikibreak, please consider stepping away from this discussion, as it seems unlikely to be resolved in the direction you seem to prefer. (And is getting to be a time sink.)
E-mail me if you want to discuss this further. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
"Ralph apologized for having created socks, and he apologized for recruiting his brother Ralf." Now that is a truly fascinating sentence right there. For some reason I'm finding myself picturing Twain's main characters in Those Extraordinary Twins. Alephb (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel

I remembered the article that I tried to remove Brigitte Gabriel from - when I first started editing ARBPIA I saw she was quoted in the Zionism article in the Christian Zionism section. I didn't know anything about WP:SYNTH back then, and I don't really feel like fighting over its removal now. There is a lot of productive work I have wanted to get done, that I have not been able to do, because of issues like this. Bat Yeor is another case - she is not an academic, she doesn't hold an academic position, she does not even have a college degree but we use her as a source for statements about the Ottoman legal system. The difficulty and level of specialization of the topic alone should be enough to treat this source as suspect. She's been acknowledged as an "expert" by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and she is in the same group as these other polemical authors. The fact that other editors I had respect for are acting on their own prejudices without even looking into whether my complaint has merit and are unable to give a reasonable and predictable response to my complaint (which is a serious and not frivolous complaint about bias in Wikipedia), is enough reason for me to retire. We are hypersensitive about some things and tell editors of other backgrounds that it is "not helpful" to talk about these issues, or even threaten them with retaliation. Cultural diversity and sensitivity training would help develop procedures and conduct guidelines that would make all persons feel as though their complaints are being taken seriously. That is the acceptable norm of conduct for any institution of significance in 2017. Seraphim System (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


C. W. Gilmore ban

Thank you for your input, and as per the terms of the ban, I have not, and will not violate it. Ban: "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" As you can see, the ban was only to the article and talk page, not to ANY pages beyond those or ANY topic discussions.

Your partial quote of mine: "I don't even mention the article from which I am banned, that is too close to talking about it, but you are helping out there to keep the excesses of one POV pushing on that article" was taken slightly out of context as it was part of a response to the harassment from Darkness Shines as he post on my Talk page and follows me around. I was apologizing for bringing DS onto Tornado chaser's talk page, nothing more.

Do you wish to change the terms and conditions of this ban? Please advise, but currently I'm being harassed by Darkness Shines and that is my immediate concern.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  • C. W. Gilmore, please see this. The worst thing someone under a topic ban can do is seek out the limits of the topic ban. It is not a fruitful pursuit. Also, please don't use the term "harass" lightly. If there's actual harassment, make a case and report it, but don't thrown the term around like it's meaningless. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
AS your note points out, I made the offer BEFORE the ban and it was reseeded from K.e.coffman's page with this note: "Sorry but I have been banned from all discussion of the subject that I can not mention, and thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" And I do not make the claim lightly, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to pursue it, yet; a note you may with to pass on to DS to reinforce that posts to my Talk page are not welcome. I will respect the ban, but not if the harassment continues. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Not only did Darkness Shine question my ability with the English language, and by mental capacity by calling me 'obtuse', but questioned my very integrity by questioning "Who are you sharing this account with?"; I have no desire to deal further with that lovely person. Yet repeatedly they post to my Talk page after demanding I stay away from their, then they follow me around wikipedia like a stocker. Give DS past record, I am a bit more than concerned and feeling harassed.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Now if you would please, I have segregated cemeteries and dry goods stores that need attention. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was posting the following and got an edit conflict. "You actually have to respect the ban, but I'll ask DS to stay away from your talk page." I'd have been happier if you hadn't added the last bit you added about DS.. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

On the plus side I've never given a shite 😁Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue was not the topic, but the other editor in question (example just above), and in that way I felt the ban a bit unjust in it's application. The ban would have been better placed as one to keep our interactions separate, rather than on a topic in my view. As an older person without great computer skills or much experience on wikipedia, this has been quite an off-putting experience. Thank you.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

7kingis

Hi Doug Your suggestion: 'change the article Atheism to state that it's a religion...'. Well that's a great idea, but I assume that you'll just revert it. Why don't you instead address the fact that most contemporary and past scientific leaders consistently refer to the miraculous as a necessary factor in their discoveries? I know your point of view is that there are no miracles, but hey, point of view isn't allowed in Wikipedia, is it? There is plenty of evidence in the literature attesting to marvellous, miraculous events / things. The giraffe's 'Rede Mirabilus' is a case in point: it means miraculous net (of blood vessels). In short, if you think it is the proper, logical, reasonable path, I shall indeed change the topic atheism to a subset of religion.(assuming my humble editing permissions allow it) But you'll have to address the fact that, contrary to the Wikipedia regulations against bias, most PhD scientists who are creationists have their work denigrated and misrepresented here, while scientists who are atheists apparently 'aren't being literal' when they talk about miracles in their published work. See the inconsistency? I appreciate your time :)

203.118.151.166 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@7kingis: Mīrābilis is Latin for wonderful, marvellous, extraordinary, amazing, admirable, strange, singular.[9] The Rete mirabile is translated as "wondeful net". Your translation might be convenient for but it's not the standard one. As for the word "miracle", it's often used in a context which doesn't imply something supernatural. Eg ‘A Formula One engine is a miracle of modern engineering.’[10] Or "miracle drug". Doug Weller talk

Bertrand Russell

hi again. Sorry if I get the wiki syntax wrong. About Bertrand. 'He once said he was an agnostic', which means, in common usage 'at some point he said he was, while at other points, he said he wasn't'. Conversely, 'he said he was an agnostic once' means he perhaps always was one. The NZ movie titled 'Once were Warriors' shows this: it means 'they used to be warriors, but now are just a bunch of thugs'. I'm pretty sure the reference I gave recorded him saying this: perhaps my wiki abilities were lacking there. He says, in the Impact of Science on Society, p59, that without Christian love there can be no intellectual honesty. Furthermore, in his autobiography, he confesses to the belief that mathematics would always be based on faith, that it could not be indubitable. This would be more than agnosticism, to the unbiased reader. Bertrand had a crisis of faith in his modernism and ended up, like CS Lewis, an unwilling believer, as his autobiography says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.151.166 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Wikidata weekly summary #282

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Adam and Eve revert

  1. No, the statement that you restored is not in the source (or in the Bible). Personally, I don't think that parentheticals belong on this page, but especially not speculation ("appears to").
  2. "Scientific theory" is more accurate than "scientific consensus". As it says on that article, consensus can change. That itself is reason enough – but the source used there is four years old, there have been discoveries since then that have changed many minds.
  3. Why would you do a complete reversion, while asking a question in the ES? That's giving a bad example to less-experienced editors. And when they do that, I tell them not to do that type of thing. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The source says "who was apparently party to the entire exchange between the woman and the snake." how can you say that " who may have been present at the encounter with the serpent" is not in the source? Did you check? And the consensus "that humans evolved from earlier species of hominids" has not changed. You seem open about your religious views and it appears that you aren't likely to accept evolution, and this attempt to change from "consensus" to "theory" is one often made by Christians who do not accept evolution, and usually reverted by those who accept the scientific consensus. Doug Weller talk 06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You didn't have to start a section on my talk page. You could just ping me here. (1) Of course I checked. Do you think I would lie about that. I clicked on the link in the reference. I didn't find that phrase there, so I tried searching the word "serpent", and still didn't see it. But it really doesn't matter much whether the phrase is found in the source; the main issue here is that "apparently"/"may have been" is all conjecture. One person's (unusual) opinion of how he reads the Bible – when the Bible doesn't explicitly say it – is not needed. And WP:ROWN, as you know, says: "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits." "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, you should not revert that edit." My removal of part of a parenthetical (which means, something added that's not necessary) did not harm the article (and I would say that leaving it does more harm). (2) Unfortunately, I haven't found the info I was referring to, but it isn't something that can be found in scientific journals because evolutionists don't want that revealed (as they have been known to do for over 100 years). Regardless, I still say that "scientific theory" is better wording than "scientific consensus" for an encyclopedia (and has nothing to do with Christian vs. non-Christian). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Indulging in paranoid conspiracy theories is precisely why you should leave edits about evolution to others. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Didn't ask your opinion and don't care to hear it. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) @Musdan77: Please note that WP:ROWN is only a user essay (the opinion of one or more editors), not a policy, explanatory page or guideline (WP:NPOV on the other hand documents policy). Scientific theories are also not hypotheses or "theories" but the best current models available to explain the observed evidence and make predictions. They are based on overwhelming evidence and work, so are unlikely to completely be dismissed tomorrow (unlike hypotheses when falsified). —PaleoNeonate – 19:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I know it's an essay, but there's a reason it's there, and is valid to use and follow. And the first point in WP:YESPOV says: "Avoid stating opinions as facts" (which is what I removed). (2) I'm not going to argue with you about that. Like Doug said (on my talk page), it would do no good here. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Along with Avoid stating facts as opinions. How do we determine which are opinions and which are more than opinions? Evidence and reliable sources. I recommend reading evidence of common descent which is a very nice article to start with. —PaleoNeonate – 07:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You keep changing the grounds on which you removed it. As I noted on the talk page, there is a dispute about this - it all relies on how you interpret the passage itself. There is no right answer and the article should say that. Of course, that can only be done by citing conjecture about what the writer originally intended. It would be nice if someone edited the article with sources describing the dispute about the text. Without of course suggesting that the issue is whether Adam was really there at the time, as that would be asserting as fact that a religious text is true, a violation of WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP of your recent talk page... "editorial comment"

It looks like that... nice... person's IP is from a school. What sucks is that the IP range of the school is large (128.41.0.0/16), and most of the edits appear to be from other people. Hopefully this won't continue, but if it does... we'll have to consider blocking subranges to try and stop the disruption. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like User:Biswajeet34 is back as User:Neurotm

Greetings. It looks like Biswajeet34 (talk · contribs) (aka another sock of User:Purty) is back as Neurotm (talk · contribs). He appeared right after Biswajeet34 was blocked. I notified Bishonen a couple days ago, she said it's likely, but to give him a little more rope to hang himself with. Tonight he is displaying the same behavior on Munda people, reverting and not responding to my invitations to discussion. Also violating WP:COPYWITHIN for which I warned him on his talk page. I am convinced this is him.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 09:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering yet another semiprotection

At Talk:Race (human classification), there is a small but annoying level of IP sockpuppetry. It is possible that a long semiprotection would be justified, but at the moment it is not *quite* bad enough. Let me know if you disagree. If semi is needed, I'd propose six months. The IP who is recently active is from 128.*. This is a different range from the 94.* we believed to be Mikemikev at this talk thread. I looked at Special:Contributions/128.41.0.0/16 and it is not all Mikmikev unless he has surprisingly wide interests. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Since 1 Oct. there are six registered editors on the talk page who appear to be socks: Rupert the Frog, KirkegaardEmil and so on. Semiprotection wouldn't stop these users. So maybe this is a temporary wave of activism and we just need to be patient. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Obviously Mikemikev is editing from the 128 range given his post here today. Semi-protection would stop him from using an IP address but as you say not the ones who become autoconfirmed. We just need to keep an eye on it. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: it's been protected. Can't hurt, not many new editors who show up there are really interested in the encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion?

Hello Doug,

I was wondering if perhaps you had a moment to let me know what you thought about a difficult issue on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017. I could say a lot as there is a lot of history, but basically the current dispute is about the proper use of the word "illegal" (indepth: here, here, and here, if you ignore the other stuff). Having previously referred to the referendum there as "illegal referendum", it currently stands at "holding the referendum on that date was illegal under Spanish law". Some editors have disputed the factuality of that; that's not my stance, but so far I have said that interpreting law should be done by legal experts/judges/etc not the voice of Wikipedia, so it's fine to say the word "illegal" but it must be attributed every time. I would imagine you're very well-versed in the application of Wiki guidelines especially for complicated and controversial cases like this, so I was wondering what you thought would be best for this situation. Hope to hear from you soon, --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. [I changed my username, you know me from the AE race controversy, Ingushetia and the Rally the Right pages in case that wasn't clear]

@Calthinus: I agree, we need to attribute each time in what is a fraught and confusing situation. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

that's very rude of you

I was taught in English language class that artifact and artefact are both legitimate words, with very different meanings. Artifact is a medical term that means, for example, something caught in your teeth. Artefact, on the other hand, means something of historical significance. There is a common misspelling to write artifact when you mean artefact. This is not a geographical abnormality but is rather an ignorance issue. This is not one of those things where Americans decided to rewrite the English language to make it easier for them, like with the case of colour (color). Rather, this is simply a mistake. All I was doing was correcting a mistake, and you choose to be a whopping great jerk about it. It is a very minor thing, but I expect you to correct that mistake, because otherwise you look like an idiot. Thank you for not being so rude and obnoxious. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good work by Doug, I'm afraid, and not at all rude, and explained by the nice people on your Talk page. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
They may be rude, but they are factually accurate:
ar•ti•fact or ar•te•fact (ˈɑr təˌfækt)
n.
1. any object made by human beings, esp. with a view to subsequent use.
2. a handmade object, as a tool, or the remains of one, as a shard of pottery, :::belonging to an earlier time or cultural stage, esp. such an object found at an :::archaeological excavation.
3. a substance or structure not naturally present in the matter being observed but :::formed by artificial means, as during preparation of a microscope slide.
4. a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory procedures.
5. any feature that is not naturally present but is a product of an extrinsic agent.
These terms are still in use, if not in common use. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. This is pretty ironic, considering that the editor's first response when I tried to explain it politely was "LOLWOT no. I hope you didn't change that lol." and then "It goes against everything written in any English language text, but if you say so, ok." @Mister Sneeze A Lot:, I'm not clear why my polite response was rude and your was not. My OED only has one meaning for artifact, saying it is the US spelling of artefact. No suggestion it is a medical term. You might want to look at our disambiguation page artifact which does mention "Iatrogenic artifact, a medical problem created by medical treatment". Hm, are we being trolled? Source for "something caught in your teeth"? Doug Weller talk 15:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
LOLWOT may have been a sneezing artefact. —PaleoNeonate – 17:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not impossible that "artifact" and "artefact" could have distinct meanings in different fields, or even the same one, while also being a pure ENGVAR matter in most other contexts. We'd need to see proof of that, though, and I cannot find any at all. A similar case that is actually easily sourceable is "provenance" versus "provenience"; these are synonyms in most contexts, but art history pretty exclusively uses the former spelling, while archaeology, paleontology, and related fields use both with a markedly different meaning for each (the provenience is exactly where/when/how an object was [re]discovered, while its provenance is its custodial history after that, as in the art history sense). "Artifact" and "artefact" are entirely synonymous in those fields, just being US/Canadian vs. UK/Commonwealth spellings, respectively.

Digging into my topical dictionary, encyclopedia, and style guide collection for a moment (and without duplicating what was cited above and at User talk:Mister Sneeze A Lot): Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology gives them as synonymous, but only provides a general definition, nothing field-specific. New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors has "artifact" as US spelling of "artefact". Scientific English (3rd ed.) doesn't address these words. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (5th ed.) gives archaeo., medical, histology, and communications definitions, all under "artifact", and doesn't include "artefact" at all. Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992 ed.) gives archaeo., radiology, and histology definitions, all under "artifact", with "artefact" listed as an alternative spelling. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (28th ed.) gives general, histology/microscopy, and radiology definitions, under "artifact", with "artefact" listed as an alt. spelling. American Medical Association Manual of Style (10th ed.) gives a medical statistics definition, as "artifact", and does not mention "artefact".

Hard to prove a negative, but so far that's a lot of evidence against the idea of "artefact" and "artifact" having distinct meanings as terms of art, ever, and zero evidence in favo[u]r of the idea. Mister Sneeze A Lot's "It goes against everything written in any English language text" when a quick examination of even specialist works in the fields he's talking about shows this assertion to be bunkum, is a strong indication of Dunning–Kruger effect (as is his username; anyone even cursorily familiar with works on English-language usage would know that the indefinite article is not capitalized even in the middle of a proper name). Maybe not a good use of my time, but I consider it among my duties here to knock "style warriors" off their high horses.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Great research, SMcCandlish!  – Corinne (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed. @SMcCandlish:, you might want to put this on the talk pages of Artifact (archaeology) Doug Weller talk 16:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Will do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
  • Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
  • Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #283

Wikidata weekly summary #282

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

I noticed your "Eguor admin" userbox ...

Hi Doug, call me Sam. I noticed your "Eguor admin" userbox and read the associated essay. I'm wondering what identifying as an "Eguor admin" may mean for you in practice? For instance if brought to your attention are you willing to preventatively step in and 'nudge' (mentor?, guide) problematic situations/editors before they overtly cross lines warranting 'bringing-down-a-hatchet'? Or, as with some other admins, would you generally prefer to stay 'hands-off' while waiting for 'a problem' to escalate to a point unambiguously justifying an immediate block or trip to the WP:AN? Personally, I feel the latter approach has significant shortcomings when it leaves the efforts of other editors retarded by ongoing degrees of intermediate disruption.

As a more specific example, how do you imagine you'd respond if some editor A, left a message on your talkpage noting that they'd been reverted by editor B a few times without any explanation in edit summaries or on talkpages—despite editor A having offered edit summaries and/or talkpage input theirself—and in response editor A had checked editor B's edit history and observed that editor B was regularly reverting others across multiple articles without explanation as well? Doug, do you think in such a case you'd be inclined to proactively intervene in some manner? Perhaps to offer editor B advice (from an admin) on preferred practice/relevant policy/general courtesy. Or might you instead feel inclined to tell editor A to engage (ie 'deal with') editor B directly on their own unless/until some sort of overt WP:3RR violation arises? Or ... ?

In elaborating as to how you're inclined to interpret, express, and apply "Eguor admin" concepts please feel free to respond beyond what I've framed above. I'm trying to get some practical sense so as to avoid placing false hopes upon pretty words (the Wikipedia:Eguor admins essay felt like a-dream-come-true when I first read it but then some mature wisdom piped up and reminded me I might well be largely projecting my own desires upon it; much of my editing stems from using the Wiki as a reader and thus tends to sprawl across topics with brief WikiGnome engagements; unfortunately such seems to trigger territorial responses at times from those acting primarily as editors with dedicated ongoing interests invested into specific areas).

Anyway, Doug, thanks for your time and attention and I look forward to your response, --196.251.124.24 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this. I don't have the time for a detailed reply. For your example, I'd probably start by telling A to try to engage with B, and if that failed offer B some advice. If that failed, well, editors need to communicate, this is a collaborative project. For a real example, there's a real editor[11] blocked some time ago who's made some pretty vicious attacks on me. He's done a lot of sockpuppet edits since evading his block. Recently a new account was thought to be one of his socks based on the behavioral evidence, which was fairly convincing, and was blocked. Til denied it was him[12] and I was able to use my tools to show the blocking Admin that it could not have been him, getting Til cleared of the accusation and getting an innocent editor unblocked. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Sam here again. Thanks for offering a response. So basically my impression is that as with most admins in my experience you feel inclined to leave editors to slog through ongoing low/moderate level disruption on their own rather than investing proactive effort into "reducing frustrations for reasonable editors"[13] in such circumstances. However, you do see yourself as inclined to step-up-and-step-in and offer additional consideration when it comes to matters of editors feeling they've not been 'given a fair shake' by previous admins regarding administrative judgements targeting them. Perhaps extending to a willingness to review a lack of administrative remedy being offered in some cases as well? --196.251.97.9 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the last question. I need to point out that although I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia I never have enough time. I have 13,456 pages on my watch list plus their talk pages, I'm a Checkuser and Oversighter and a member of the Arbitration Commitee as well as being an Admin. It's rare that I have time to do any unofficial mentoring. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

My apologies - I was using Twinkle and somehow our wires crossed at Mohenjo-daro. I rollbacked your rollback, and didn't notice at first that I was putting the warning template on the wrong talk page. Kbseah (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)?

@Kbseah: No problem at all. Not nearly as bad as the Admin that blocked me when he was trying to block someone else! Doug Weller talk 16:47, 24 October 2017 (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) 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jafar Dehghan (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jafar Dehghan (2nd nomination), since you nominated the article of deletion earlier.Regards:) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, any ideas about whether Leila Boloukat, created by the same author, passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG?Seems to have been subject to a withdrawn AFD!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)?

@Godric on Leave: I'd never looked at the author, and until a few weeks ago didn't have the script installed to see blocked editors. I doubt that it passes. I need to figure out if the editor was evading a block at the time of creation. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

More fried food

If you're going to eat fried food, get the best
Chicken fried bacon, Doug, it's the way to go. Fat covered in fat deep-fried in fat and served with a side of fat. It is the best. Also, happy birthday. Maybe I'll make corn dogs tonight in your honor. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy birthday to you!

  • Happy birthday to you!
    Happy birthday to you!
  • Some corn dogs for you!
    Some corn dogs for you!

(Really wanted to, modestly, avoid signing, to instead represent all anonymous admirers, but have to sign or the SineBot will get me! bishzilla ROARR!! 08:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC).)

Happy Birthday!

Dutch moorkoppen

I'm not Dutch, but they look good. Anything with chocolate is good.  – Corinne (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing

MikeInChrist leaving a message here because i don't see any other place to leave it. Okay then i've left the editing work to you i won't edit anything even if its wrong n am sorry i didn't know how to reply to you ,at the end of the day its just a site not life. I have clearly seen that you need more than just being a user to edit stuff keep up the work i'll just be a dormant user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeINCHRIST (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Wizard & The Commodore - Chathams Islands"

A full length 115min film which is screening in cinemas in New Zealand by, and including a noted NZ personality (The Wizard of New Zealand Queens Service Medal); concerning a nationwide issue, ie the Chathams Islands and Maori (indigenous people of NZ) & Moriori (indigenous people of the Chatams Islands) according to govt treaty (The Treaty of Waitangi) founding document of New Zealand.

This film which documents the Holocaust of a small Pacific minority Moroiri, and also Pacific peoples origins, is not allowed to be mentioned on Wikipedia; "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" Wikipedia

The film is the second film to be produced by Samuel A. Miller, and as such is not a "one off" film. "Charles Luney - Master Builder (CNZM QSO) being the first.

The film has numerous articles in local publications IMDB and TV shows:

The film is narrated by a published author (Davey Round) who has written many papers and books and is presently a lecturer in law at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Canterbury - the second oldest university to be established in NZ.

BUT WHY is a voice for the indigenous voiceless Moriori people, not allowed on Wikipedia, either on star of the films "The Wizard of New Zealand" page or on its own The Wizard & the Commodore film related page?

Are Wikipedia editors champions of free access to knowledge, or the opposite?

We all watch and wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fstopcinema (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fstopcinema: So long as it meets our criteria of notability. We are not here for paid editors to publicise their clients, however. I also note that I am not one of the editors who declined your article. The narrator, etc are not what we look for, we look for notability of the film itself. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Notability for giving a voice for the voiceless? the Film has a number of articles in Main Stream Media one of them being Fairfax Media in NZ, who's largest shareholder is the New York Life Insurance Company (NYLIC) which is the largest mutual life-insurance company in the United States. [[14]] Fairfax's news media outlet 'Stuff' and 'The Press Newspaper' The Press www.stuff.co.nz I believe are the main news sources for New Zealand. Of course this has only come about after Fairfax bought out the majority of media outlets in NZ. Possibly this is irrelevant for Wikipedia as the readership statistics are not for Northern Hemisphere audiences? does this affect notability? is there a Northern Hemisphere bias required? ie NY Times etc? Also the film does not have a paid publicist, as I imagine in niche films like this Love comes before money. Also as an Administrator who has also deemed the film article "clearly promotional" "18:30, 28 October 2017‎ Doug Weller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,022 bytes) (-1,711)‎ . . (→‎Film: clearly promotional, it isn't notable yet at least, editor's draft still hasn't been accepted but it's being added to multiple articles)" I would think that your job would be to smooth, and fix issues like this; where the topic relates to many other articles, and may be enlightening for many other genuine researchers? A voice for a voiceless indigenous people is so often overlooked, by those in positions of power. :@Legacypac: Submission declined on 25 June 2017 by Legacypac (talk).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fstopcinema (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #284

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Continued working on persistent storage of edits on Lexeme pages
    • Fixed an encoding problem in the SVG download of query results in the query service (phabricator:T178564)
    • Fixed a problem with change dispatching changes to Wikipedia and co, that sometimes lead to single wikis falling way behind. (T179060)
    • Added full URIs for external identifiers to the RDF export
    • You can leave feedback on how improved fulltext search result page should look like

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.



Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfC vote validity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfC vote validity. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #285

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • If you want to review what happened during the WikidataCon, here is the list of all the sessions, with slides, notes and videos, when available
    • Release of wikidata-edit v2.0.0: brings qualifiers and references support, and a few breaking changes. See changelogs
    • Release of wikidata-cli v5.0.0: brings qualifiers and references support, multi-entity summary|label|description|description requests, a new `edit-item` command, and a few breaking changes. See changelogs

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Your warning

My deletion of SummerPhDv2's comment was on the *exact* same basis as his deletion of my comment. He even used the boilerplate "Please refrain from using talk pages...for general discussion of the topic". Yet this is exactly what he was doing on the Talk:Stand (R.E.M. song) page. He's seen engaging in editorial commentary and extensive general discussion of the topic - part of which he himself explicitly calls "obnoxious sarcasm.." blatantly stating it as his opinion. He goes on to say how consensus and citations won't sway his opinions. How are his opinions cogent to Wikipedia? By all means, clarify for me how any of this isn't blatant hypocrisy. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page. Commentary including 8 citations is one thing, even if they also apologised for their sarcasm, a history of 9 years of using talk pages to complain about Wikipedia and its editors being leftwing/liberals without anything specific about the article is another. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nonconstructive behaviour by an editor

John Hill has been engaging in slow-burn edit wars to push some user-generated images uploaded by him on various WP articles. See for example[15]. I realised that the user has been continuing the same unconstructive behaviour on multiple articles. It would be nice if an admin warns the editor regarding the issue. Thanks. 5.3.211.141 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Questionable user

A brand new account is making questionable edits across multiple articles. Please check these edits: [16][17][18][19]. Some of his edits were removed by JamesBWatson [20] but the user continues the same distuption on other articles. Also, their editings suggest that they may not be a new user. 46.146.21.83 (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor that many of the edits look questionable. Also, although it is not certain, I agree that it doesn't look like a new editor. I reverted on one article where I happen to have enough knowledge to be confident that the editing was not valid. At present I am not taking action on the others, because I don't have enough relevant knowledge, and right now I don't have enough time to do the necessary searching and checking to be sure. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much outside my fields of interest. I've reverted a couple. Probably not a new editor. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Rasulid Turkic origin & claimed Ghassanid origin

Hi Doug, if you have time it will be nice if you can look into the reasoning of the claimed origin. The Rasulids were more than likley not Ghassanid, but why did they claim to be Ghassanid? The edits I made explained the rivalry in Yemen at that time (Zaydi state were Hashemites, Arabs of Muhammad lineage) & (Ayyubids were Kurds), so the Rasulids picked a Ghassanid origin (Ghassanids were related to the recently disposed Hamdani dynasties, so claiming a Ghassanid origin was a strategic move to galvanize Qahtani populations vs the Zaydi & Ayyubid). The edit makes sense Unless you are assuming the Rasulids were actual Turkified Ghassanids. Tiwahi (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Responding on editor's talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The Zaydi Imams in their records always called the Rasulids Ghuzz (Anatolian Turks/Kurds) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305272602_The_Political_Agency_of_Kurds_as_an_Ethnic_Group_in_Late_Medieval_South_Arabia. The official Arabic sources repeat the same Ghassanid origin of the Rasulids because the Rasulids wrote their own history & they produced most literature work from that era, the article should mention why would the Rasulids are suspected of a Turkic origin & why would they claim a Ghassanid origin. (All official source claims the Turkic origin is assumed due to their arrival from Anatolia, but all these references depend on Rasulid history written by themselves & passed down as the official lineage). Tiwahi (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nilotic Expansion

The word expansion hints that Nioltes expanded out of South Sudan, while the same source used indicates that they came from the Sudd Marsh (middle off South Sudan), central Sudanic on the other part (despite the misleading "Sudanic" refers to geographic Sudan which is another term). Anyways I would like you to consider the edits on Nilotes also, because the way its written now, it makes it seem that the Nilotes expanded into South Sudan (from somehwere else)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Conservative vs liberal

I added the "liberal" to only one page to test how others would react. It was immediately removed and confirmed my prior belief that there shouldn't be "conservative" on the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B5gram (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @B5gram: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your addition was to the lead, which should summarize the article body. The claim was in a WP:BLP, which should therefore also be well sourced. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind wieghing in?

Darkness Shines has reported me again for violation of TBAN.[21] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #286

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

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Edit war notice

Thank you for the edit war notice on my talk page. Yes, I'm aware of the policy re edit-warring. I noticed that you did not place the notice on the talk pages of the other participants, Corkythehornetfan (talk · contribs) and Drmies (talk · contribs). Could you please demonstrate fairness and place a notice on their pages also? FYI, it started when I reverted a bold edit to the article which Corkythehornetfan (talk · contribs) reinstated wihtout going to the talk page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: pinging you because Sparkie82 did it wrong and I ended up with an ostrich on my talk page. @Sparkie82:, there's no sign of a 3RR warning on your talk page and I wasn't going to assume you knew about the policy, that would have not been fair to you. As for why I didn't place warnings on the other pages, I'll explain what should be obvious (particularly after your attempt to get Drmies blocked failed) why on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
wut? Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Short version: The previous post had a typo. You didn't get a 3RR warning. Let's continue on your talkpage, not mine. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I was more confused about the ostrich but now I see it. And why didn't Drmies get blocked? I would have supported that. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
By all means, go for it. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"Hi John"

Middle Pleistocene[edit]

Hi John. Please don't add this until it is official. Your edits make it seem as though it is, and in any case we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't realised you were adding this to other articles. My request applies to all articles. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Check the news. It is official and your decision to revert to keep "Ionian" is ridiculous. Check what it says. IUGS, the organization officially voted with the result over 60%. They will not keep "Ionian" as the proposed site no longer. Read the page carefully. Also, "Ionian" is only a proposed site from the news WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Do NOT act as an idiot ignoring the fact and official decision of the IUGS. The "Ionian" for the IUGS official name is a history, and gone. Do you understand and check the news as I mentioned. Your comment - Please stop[edit], did not pay attention of the official decision and fact which just had been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting for nothing but your own wrong opinion. What the official decided will not be changed and the fact that the "Ionian" is already off from the candidate. You told "insult" without any matter of the fact and reality, and it is nothing but vandalism to keep reverting for unreality and without a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Doug, I blocked the user temporarily for this behavior; an appeal was declined by Favonian. If you think there is anything to be gained from an unblock and further discussion, by all means--I don't see it happening. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: I don't see anything to gain from an unblock unless this editor agrees to wait for talk page consensus. Ah, their latest appeal reads "The talk and the discussion are worthless without a single fact and the moderator, Drmies, is warned many times for unreasonable blocks from many other users stated in the talk page of the moderator." Nope, this editor is here to push their point no matter what. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A concern

Hello Doug. Can you have a look at my comment on Jytdog's page? [22] Thank you. 85.174.59.101 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Thank you for your attention. I have replied you here [23]. Kind regards, 37.204.54.76 (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rasulids, Zaydis & (Kurds)

The Political Agency of Kurds as an Ethnic Group in Late Medieval South Arabia is probably the only English work on this subject, the 14 Arabic language references used in the study pretty much cover the subject with (a bit) more detail. I think we should keep the English source, as most readers will want to read something in English, I did reword the passage to match the translation, although the Arabic sources & the mainstream knowledge in Zaydi history is that the pact was formed, after intermarriage. This article about Imam Al Nasir whose wife was the daughter of the Kurdish prince of Dhamar indirectly discusses this era. (he advanced into Tihama, which is the core of the Rasulid influence). That article has 4 references in English, so I thought you might have the skills to know how to reference that paragraph properly, that way it can be useful for fellow humans who want to learn about medieval Yemen. I sincerely appreciate your work, as you are doing this for free & you have to deal with all kinds of ungrateful people who misunderstand your altruistic efforts, which I value highly more than paid research (which is still useful & necessary).Tiwahi (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Haplogroup map and SPI

Hi Doug. I don't know how to submit an acceptable SPI case for him because this new account uses a new form of agenda. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 promotes same stuff about the haplogroups on a racialist forum called theapricity.com but it's outside of WP and since he used/used many accounts, it's not easy to find one of his blocked sockpuppets which did similar edits in the past. Per Tirgil34's history, I'm sure a group/team operate those accounts and it's an organized act for promoting their nationalistic agenda via WP articles. Paid trolls and nationalist shills. It's not a simple vandalism or disruptive edits case and need serious attention by admins. Anyway, the mentioned account is new and if that anonymous user (IP) is 100% sure about the new account, he could submit a SPI case by himself. I myself think the new account is possibly related to Team Tirgil34, but I wait for more evidences. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Correspondence with Habermas

Dear Doug Weller, I have had correspondence with Gary Habermas about a text problem in Mark 1:1. He did not answer my question. Instead, he ranted about Jesus' resurrection. He is obsessed with Jesus' resurrection. I have doubts about his rationality. Miistermagico (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Are we talking about Gary Habermas, who has written extensively on that topic? John Carter (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear John Carter,
Yes. I am talking about Gary Habermas who as has written extensively on the Resurrection of Jesus.
See: Talk:Gospel of Mark Son of God Mark 1:1 for the reply to my question I asked Gary Habermas.
Thank you for having an interest in this subject. I suspect he was ignorant of the answer. Miistermagico (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
See my edit here [24], Miistermagico is a prolific troll, his previous account was Kazuba [25] Watcher1968 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nilotic Expansion section on history of South Sudan

The Sudd Marsh is in the Middle of South Sudan & that paragraph needs to be fixed. I will try to re-word look & see if its proper. Tiwahi (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hi Doug,

Could you please take an eye on this disruptive pov-pushing account? The account engages in sneaky vandalism on many articles and i doubt that it is here to contribute. See for example: this. The user has sneakly deleted a very related link from the see also section with a false edit summary. Also please see this. He falsified a sourced content with again a false edit summary. I did not check all his edits, but probably he is doing the same things in other articles too. Could you please watch the this user? @Yerevantsi:. Regards, 176.114.125.78 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: I don't know much about this, but the IP is blocked as a sock (not sure whose) and the editor is blocked for editwarring. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

I never got around to this, but I wanted to say thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for the cookes :) Also, I admire your contributions to Wikipedia and I was wondering, how does someone eventually become an administrator? Is it after a long period of contributions?

Thank you Doug!:) ChaseF (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@ChaseF: Sorry to take so long to respond. Yes, you do need a long period of contributions in various areas of Wikipedia, not just articles, and to have shown a good understanding of our policies and guidelines, as well as an ability to deal with disputes. I think the best thing to do is read [Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates]] and some discussions where editors who are interested ask if others think they are ready - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

According to an editor, there is no need for a source to support the statement that Freeman is "perpetuating myths", instead stating that the quote and source given support it.

"David C. Lindberg, an American historian of science, was critical of Charles Freemann who has been accused of perpetuating myths. Lindberg wrote:Finally, to demonstrate that such views are alive and well, I quote Charles Freemen in his Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2003): By the fifth century of the Christian era, he argues, “not only has rational thought been suppressed, but there has been a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic, and authority’. It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition."

Do you see anywhere in the quoted section where it states Freemann is "perpetuating myths"? Page 358 of the Lindberg source --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Not exactly, and lacking context it isn't at all clear that, if I understand Lindberg, that this is about what is called the myth of the Dark Ages. I think that Lindberg could be used to say that he's criticising Freemann's support of that concept - without needing the quote which I don't think is helpful to the average reader. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Tower of Babel (better term)

Hello. I did notice your edit referring to the "Tower of Babel" by definition matched the article description of "Original Myth." While I do not know who would coin such a term, I left it for other editors to debate. In a peaceful manner, the term "Cosmopolitanism" was left for you (and perhaps other editors) for review. The edits were both reverted but the term remains in the notes on the talk page with a website. Hopefully you can use that in your contributions as oppose to using the word "myth" on biblical areas. Twillisjr (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Wikipedia essays on notability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Wikipedia essays on notability. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Your message about Luke Messer

Hi Doug,

I appreciate your recent note on my talk page about a deletion I made to Luke Messer's wikipedia page. Recently, in local media in Indiana, there has been coverage suggesting that certain sections of his page were added deliberately by a political opponent in order to stoke controversy. Given that at least one of these two sections was about his spouse and not him, I opted to delete the two sections because they seemed subjective in nature. In addition, I am a newer editor and was only opperating in good faith when I made the change. Perhaps, it would have been a good idea to cite the article from the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) in my edit but, frankly, I'm not familiar enough with some aspects of coding on this platform to have cited it myself. If you wouldn't mind, could you help with this citation? And, if you have the ability to do so, it would likely make sense to add some level of protection to Luke Messer's page in order to prevent future hostile edits from political opponents. I've linked to the IBJ article below.

Best,

jblanchard2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblanchard 2020 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jblanchard 2020: I've linked the IndyStar article in a header at the top of the talk page. As someone said in the edit summary when they reverted you, use the talk page to discuss this now. I'll add something to your talk page to help with citations. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Civility

David Eppstien reverted my revisions with no reason what so ever, I am claiming that he is an interested party and we need independent review

(I haven't figured out how to request independent admin review on these pages yet)

However, since you seem like a moderator - please check how another user on the Blagosklonny page and the Aging (journal) page accused me of defending predatory journals (not working to improve wiki by following policy guidelines)

Overall - I noticed these horrendous and poor sources being placed on a BLP page on the noticeboard, and I have decided to apply my skills at policy analysis to the discussion. I will not allow revisions with out reason - and they need to bring their concerns to the talk pages, the BLP noticeboard and stop edit warring with 0 rational.

In general, the citations on these pages is against wiki policy and blatant abuse. I will continue to monitor them and gain consensus in a firm manner consistent with wiki "be bold, not reckless" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakinaterJones (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #287

Wikidata weekly summary #287 Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Fixed Commons media suggester not loading all preview thumbnails (phabricator:T160528)
    • RDF exports can handle entity references to foreign Wikibase repositories now, needed for Structured Data on Commons (phabricator:T161592)
    • Worked on making statements on Forms editable and persistent (phabricator:T163724)
    • Worked on fine-grained usage tracking in Wikibase' Lua library (phabricator:T172914)
    • Worked on caching constraint check results (phabricator:T179849) and indicating when constraint check results are cached (phabricator:T179844)
    • Wikibase code base does not use Composer class autoloading any more (phabricator:T180067) as another step towards getting rid of our own build process and being more in line with the rest of Wikimedia

Talk God

Hi Doug, Talk God is in my watch list and it is getting to be a real annoyance let alone a waste of time to have to check up on the latest random gibberish from Sky Letter. Please would you consider banning this editor, they are not contributing, they are just a drain on time and energy. Unibond (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Unibond: and they've replied to me in nonsense on their talk page. I've told them that one more use of a talk page that way will result in a block. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated Unibond (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

IPs starting with 2620:22:4000:110

Hi. Knowing you're an administrator who's been reverted by 2620:22:4000:110:1ffd:69cc:1edf:fbfb, I'm hoping you can advise what to do about the IPs, all beginning with 2620:22:4000:110, who are editing Canadian Tory politician BLPs such as Andrew Scheer and Lisa Raitt. My reversion attempts result in being re-reverted with no attention to "go to talk page" requests, and my attempt to ping them (via the Andrew Scheer talk page) failed. Semi-protection might be wrong because the edits aren't obvious vandalism, merely not-quite-right and possibly too-trivial. Blocking might be wrong because they aren't all the same IP, they're only all starting with the same digits. Maybe this indicates they're all in the same institution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Those kinds of IPs ("IPv6") that all start with the same four digit groups represent one person, so if the edits are vandalism or persistently disruptive without any use of the talkpage, the range 2620:22:4000:110::/64 can be blocked. If. It's obviously very frustrating that there's no user talkpage where they can be reached. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC).
Thanks. I guess that means that means I could go to WP:ANI, or give up. First I'll make more talk-page mentions in edit summaries. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: I wouldn't advise giving up, if they are disruptive etc go to ANI and let others decide. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You're right, and I hope I'm right -- I took it to WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2017 (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) 04:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reinstate Jesselynn Desmond page

It is a known fact that Jesselynn Desmond is a celebrity. She is the same person that you weren't sure was her in the newspaper for being inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame for being the loudest fan. In a google search with her name JESSELYNN DESMOND you will find she comes up in every single listing in the first 17 pages. There is no denying she needs her own page. She is in newspapers all around the world. Here are 24 pages that contribute to her bio and what she has done. France recognizes her as needing her own page as well: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] She is an actress in 23 films and many TV shows: Flavor of Love [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] She is a music video director: [14] [15] She toured Europe performing with Emily Autumn: [16] She is a founding member of Lucent Dossier: [17] [18] Rotten TOmatoes: [19] She is a singer [20] and community leader She is a psychic: [21] She is a teacher: [22] She is a stand-up comedian: [23] She produces live shows all around the world: [24]

Thank you so much! MissAbundance (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesselynn_Desmond
  2. ^ https://www.celebrities-galore.com/celebrities/jesselynn-desmond/home/
  3. ^ https://thestarbio.com/jesselynn-desmond/
  4. ^ https://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/4857377
  5. ^ https://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/1029032/1026382
  6. ^ http://www.filmmagic.com/photos/Britney-Tiger-Morano-the-Burger-King-Jesselynn-Wire-Desmond-and/117650783
  7. ^ http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/flavor-of-love-contestants-abigail-kintanar-jesselynn-news-footage/75787180
  8. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1029032/
  9. ^ https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/jesselyn-desmond/id1164809566
  10. ^ http://123netflix.to/cast/jesselynn-desmond/
  11. ^ https://www.cinequest.org/films/155212/sunnyvale
  12. ^ http://playmovie.store/en/movie/76981.html
  13. ^ https://www.amazon.fr/Horno-anglais-Carlos-Javier-Castillo/dp/B003VC6F3A
  14. ^ http://www.willpowercinema.com/film/the-steaz-the-worst-is-over/
  15. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBj94WCYjJM
  16. ^ http://emilie-autumn.wikia.com/wiki/Sugarless
  17. ^ http://www.lucentacademyofthearts.com/dynamic-performance/
  18. ^ http://www.dontchangethesubject.org/performers.html
  19. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/jesselynn_desmond/
  20. ^ https://soundcloud.com/jesselynn-desmond
  21. ^ https://www.yelp.com/biz/jesselynn-the-oracle-los-angeles
  22. ^ http://www.firegroove.com/content/38-performance-intensive-bios
  23. ^ https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cool-beans-u-grad-show-tickets-39634941176
  24. ^ https://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/324598

Cut/paste error?

I think you may have pasted the wrong URL in your last edit on COIN ☆ Bri (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_47&oldid=1192831921"