Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

Wikidata weekly summary #310

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. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

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) 04:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Organization for Respect and Care for Animals

Dear Doug, Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, today is my first day as a wiki editor and I haven't got the hang of it yet. You deleted a section on this page titled 'most notable achievements' citing the lack of mainstream sources as your reason. Is it okay to keep that section in if I delete the words 'most notable' or even 'achievements'? Thank you for your time

Orcanarco Orcanarco (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Trojan Horse ancient representations

Hello Doug, sorry for not signing my previous edit in the named article, I didn't realize I was not logged in -

Here is why I think the parts added by RRobbyy in this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trojan_Horse&oldid=813369853) don't belong here:

1- these parts, including the image, refer to ancient images of a horse, not of The _Trojan_ Horse; they are interesting, but definitely off-topic.

2- other subjects treated include the house of Agamemnon in itself, and ancient coinage; nothing of this relates directly to the Trojan Horse myth

3- with this insertion, the logical flow of the paragraph is compromised; before and after, it specifically deals with the first representation of the TH myth

I hope this helps you understand my contribution. Please share any comments.

Signo (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 

  may I add: I have found no reference to the horse head coins in any of the published sources about ancient Trojan Horse representation that   I read
  Signo (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Revdel request

You revdeled this edit to Talk:Rightpedia. Could you also revdel the edit summary too? It contains what the editor placed on the talk page. Thanks, — MRD2014 Talk 23:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@MRD2014: perhaps contradictorily (that's not a word), I deliberately left that as evidence. Do you really think it's worth ref/deling? Doug Weller talk 15:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking if you revdeled the edit then the edit summary should be revdeled too. But it's up to you. — MRD2014 Talk 17:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandal

Can you take a look at this new editor's edits (Lucas-Recio). I guess this is a case of Vandalism-only account. This edit shows his trollish behaviors. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

He called me a "racist trolll" -Aṭlas (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Aṭlas: Sorry I haven't gotten back to you. Let's see what happens at the SPI. I haven't had time to look carefully but a superficial look did show definite similarities. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Random Question RE Policy

Hey Doug, this is ZfJames. I was wondering (after reverting yet another edit to a school page by the school IP) if it would not be more efficient to topic-block school IP addresses from editing school pages (if they exist). While I understand that all Wikipedians should be able to contribute, it would make sense if users had to create an account before just typing in random words (on their school computers) on their alma mater Wikipedia page... - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 21:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

IP problem

Hi Doug Weller. I'm having a bit of trouble with an IP (101.178.163.208). This IP had been adding/changing unconstructive edits in articles like Louvre Abu Dhabi, Bessborough Reservoir, Ramón Nomar, Playa del Rey, Los Angeles, among many others. You might remember this conversation Drmies had with him/her some time back and you posted a comment below that. This IP had for many instances apart from edit-warring and refusing to use the talk pages has had an aggressive attitude with other editors and acting disconsiderate of other editors disregarding their opinions and whatever warning a user might tell him/her and he/she boomerangs it back to the user rather than trying to be constructive as seen in his/her talk page and edit summaries, he/she even reverted Drmies' comment in his/her talk page because s/he can't stand being opposed (although he/she's allowed to do that but you get the point). I've been considering reporting this IP to ANI since he/she won't stop. What do you think I should do? (N0n3up (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC))

Non3up, Dmries is known to swear. So you telling me that is allowed is it? If I swore or used swear words, I would be blocked immediately. Oh, I am being aggressive? You don't even know what aggressive is. You seem to have done the same, perhaps worse. You also delete legitimate content and sources.101.178.163.208 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@N0n3up: I think that if it continues you should report to ANI, but not at the moment. I don't think I should intervene given my involvement. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions&target=197.159.176.186

Thanks for this DW; do you think the contributions should be revdel'd? I marked Symbol so, but there's a few more. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 12:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Damn that IP! I've done it but I could have been doing research to fix Glozel instead. I'm gathering a lot of material for it. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much—yeah, I agree—I've had this open in edit mode for the last half hour, and have only corrected a few typos  :) That's really interesting, that Glozel controversy—never would have thought archaeology would be so cut-throat! Good luck with that, I'll befollowing it with interest. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 12:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Sort of. I think. I'm honestly not even sure if it's relevant to your interests. But either way you were asked for in VRTS ticket # 2018050410002895. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (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) 04:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Aliens and Racists

Thank you for noting on the Fringe Theories board the fine Newsweek story concerning the woes of MUFON. Although the story utterly fails to provide any new insights into the original alliance between racists and aliens - I am of course referring to the fact that Goatman was a Confederate soldier from Proxima Centauri b - I will nevertheless try to edit the article later today. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #311

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. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


Tower of Bagels

Hi, sorry about that, I mass reverted that editor per WP:DENY and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh.172. GiantSnowman 10:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Romani people stateless nation

In my edit I cited the declaration of the Romani people being a stateless nation in all definition of the term. I also cited the origin of the Roma, and included a source for mostly everything I included. You also removed a section of the page that I had nothing to do with, which was pointless. I ask that my edit (or portion of it) as well as the section that was removed please be revised. Sorry if I'm not doing this right, I'm new to wikipedia. Attornoo (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Attornoo

User:Attornoo No need to be sorry, as you say, you're new. We need independent sources meeting WP:RS. See WP:VERIFY. The origin of the Roma really isn't relevant, we just need the sources saying explicitly that it's a stateless nation. Perhaps you can find some, but a self-declaration won't do. I will say that that article has a lot of problems. The other bit that I removed was also not sourced and was in the WP:LEAD, which is meant to be a summary of the article and of course until you added Roma they weren't discussed in the article. I can't restore unsourced material, that's against policy. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User Silverije

@Silverije: I strongly suggest to give a look to the user behaviour. I consider his behaviour as an evident POV pushing. It's not the first time, if you remember.Rosso Veneziano (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rosso Veneziano: If you think there are serious problems I suggest you go to WP:ANI with 'diffs' showing the problems. I don't have the time to get involved in a subject I don't know. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'll check what will happen. Thank you.Rosso Veneziano (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Doug, can you please protect the Little Nightmares page? Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained

Re: [1]

There's a date of 600 ka ago, but no info provided for that date, as indicated by an edit summary of "Empty."

79.18.125.170 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is a mess. That text was in a 600 kya entry and is still there, but was deated 365 in the earliest version, a version which had no sources.Doug Weller talk 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for that, I should perhaps have done some digging myself. 79.18.125.170 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Skinwalker Ranch Edit - New Documentary - Edit Reversed

Doug, can you confirm your thinking behind why the edit is reversed based on "Not released yet"? I refer to other films which are not yet released which are cited - Star Wars Episode IX as an example. It's also not yet released or even completed yet it is on Wikipedia Boomerkc (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC).

@Boomerkc: my comment applies to films, books, etc. Films which will already meet our notability requirements at WP:NFILM can of course be mentioned. This clearly would incude any Star Wars sequels. The Skinwalker film doesn't compare and probably shouldn't be included at all, certainly not without reliable independent sources commenting on it. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk:I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot

I tried. You and NeilN can figure out if anything further needs to be done, but most likely anything posted on their use talk is going to meet a similar response. My other interaction with this editor at User talk:Acroterion#Republic of Florida went pretty much the same way, so perhaps I should've known better. Anyway, I have a feeling this editor is likely going to eventually end up being blocked as WP:NOTHERE, if they don't re-evaluate their approach to all things Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: you gave it a good try. I thought of adding my own note, but I think it's best to just leave them alone, and they will either find their way or not in the course of time/ Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Acroterion: Thanks to both of you. I think I've stopped also. At least he's terse. Not everyone I've been dealing with in the last 24 hours has been able to resist using as many words as possible and then doubling the amount. :-) Doug Weller talk 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Concise grumpiness is definitely preferable to verbose hostility. Acroterion (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant a/k/a Hiram Ulysses Grant

What is the best way to make this more historically accurate?

"A tactical defeat, the battle gave Grant's volunteers confidence and experience.[1] Confederate morale was shaken, while Grant as a general willing to fight was noticed by President Lincoln.[2]"?

"A tactical defeat"? - Not correct, this was a decisive CS victory. (This can be backed up by many sources).

"gave Grant's volunteers confidence and experience" - Experience - Yes, confidence - No. (This can be backed up by many many sources) but also this sounds as though the writer is leading up to say that Confederate forces lost confidence and did not gain experience when the opposite is true (again, many sources).

To top off the absurdity the next sentence reads...

"Confederate morale was shaken" because of Grant's defeat at Belmont. Dozens of period sources can be cited here to refute this. Also, and not surprisingly, the source cited does not appear to say that. A cursory free view of that source at books.google.com shows the word "morale" and "Belmont" are not even mentioned in the same chapter. I do not believe this source backs that statement but I have not bought the $35 e-book by that author.

"... while Grant as a general willing to fight was noticed by President Lincoln." I have not researched that particular folk tale, thus I personally will not try to change that but I do not believe a viable period source will ever be found indicating the President was impressed in any way by Grant's blunder at Belmont. Yes, shortly after this Grant began to show he was willing to mix-it-up with the Confederates and aggressively attack the entire situation but Belmont?? Come on.

I would be happy to explain the well documented cover up by Grant which began the very night he returned to Cairo and why today the U. S. NPS's official summary is "Union Victory" but I don't mean to bore anyone and it would mean nothing in this talk section. Confederate morale did not suffer as a result of their rout of Grant's army at the Battle of Belmont. They gained valuable experience and the rout caused an increase in volunteers. Grant's blunder at Belmont, (actually attacking contrary to specific orders), probably prolonged that war.

Consider giving me pointers on how we should clear up this misrepresentation of American history. Should we simply delete that statement or do I need to have a counter statement with sources? How do you correct an absurd statement like, "The sky is never blue in the month of May in the Sunny South." ? Do you delete it or do you add several sentences with sources showing photos, conclusions in books, diary accounts, etc.?

Please take this to the talk page so that others can see it and participate. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Rjr1960 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McFeely 1981, pp. 92–94.
  2. ^ Bonekemper 2012, pp. 33, 35.

Wikidata weekly summary #312

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Open request for adminship: Adminor
  • Development
    • Fix the bug where changes in the watchlist and Recent Changes on Wikipedia should have been shown but were not (phab:T192673)
    • Clarify error message for the merge API (phab:T180296)
    • Add violation type to restrict which entity types a property can be used (phab:T164744)
    • Added a constraint to blacklist values for a property (phab:T183092)
    • Fix a bug showing the wrong alias in the edit summary when editing an alias (phab:T190492)
    • Fix some bugs related to displaying thumbnails in statements (phab:T193880, phab:T192667, phab:T193499)
    • Continue looking into dispatch issues (phab:T194602)
    • Working on adding an integer constraint (phab:T167989)
    • Preparing to deploy WikibaseLexeme extension on Wikimedia cluster (phab:T168260)
    • Making sure that the form ID counter is preserved when clearing the lexeme via the API (phab:T192264)
    • Applying the same validation to the language code of the Lemma and the representation (phab:T191504)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


Suggested Warning Template

Hi Doug!

I realized recently ([2], [3]) we don't have a good warning template for AP2 active remedies. I thought it might be useful to make one specifically for pages that have active remedies on them like United States presidential election, 2020.

I've made a test template at User:EvergreenFir/AP2 based off of Template:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions and Template:alert

Would this be something useful for the rest of the community? Since it's related to ARBCOM issues, I figured it best to ask before using.

Pinging a few folks who may be willing to chime in: GorillaWarfare KrakatoaKatie Drmies.

Cheers, EvergreenFir (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, though I'll point out I'm no longer on the ArbCom :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Any admin can weigh in! Feel free to ping folks too. DGG, RickinBaltimore for some more arb folks EvergreenFir (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: This is probably best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. It's based on something Coffee created[4] - see Template talk:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions. I've tried to get it changed and probably will again. Our decision was simply " standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." This goes beyond that. I'm not fond of the consensus required bit. Coffee used to keep lists of what was consensus on talk pages but that's obviously unworkable. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay! To be honest, my goal was more about the 1RR issue than anything else. We have 3RR warnings in Twinkle, but not 1RR+DS warning. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Félix-Marie Abel

Hi I created article in my userspace User:Shrike/Félix-Marie Abel could you help me with copy-editing.Thanks --Shrike (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Original research at the Camp Douglas article & addition of text contradicted by the source

At Camp Douglas (Chicago) page - I was attempting to address the absurdity of comparing the northern prison Camp Douglas with other northern prisoner of war camps that were not similarly situated such as Johnson's Island (for wealthy officers already established with the intention of being a much more comfortable prison) or the Baltimore, Maryland prisoner of war camp for local secessionist millionaire politicians held in their own home town. This has seemingly been omitted and everything leading up to that propaganda style comparison has now been removed by someone else. I have not read the whole page again but seems all is well there at present. The text cited with sources didn’t even mention a comparison yet the endnote began discussing comparisons with other prison camps. Am I to understand you have to add extra sentences or paragraphs to the original existing text to counter a falsity added to an endnote? Are we to add an extra sentence to an endnote (with a source in that same endnote) countering such a comparison with sources, when the text cited didn’t even mention a comparison?

Rjr1960 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rjr1960: I don't know what an endnote is, unless you mean the reference which the editor who added it fixed. There's no point in discussing that now. You can't add your own commentary, but sources meeting WP:RS that discuss the subject of the article but give a different viewpoint can be usually be added. Note that the editor who just edited is the editor who originally added what you are calling an endnote. They're the same person. Any more discussion about this article should go on its talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: In a book a footnote and endnote are the same thing depending upon whether it is at the "foot" of a page or is listed together with all sources at the "end" of the entire book. You may be correct this should be called a footnote since the page itself can go on and on and the list of sources still be at the "foot" of that page.

In some of these Wikipedia articles there are facts stated but the source given (in a footnote) actually does not back up the stated fact. Unless I learn of a more acceptable way of correcting this incorrect statement of history, I will simply delete the wording and the footnote (if the footnote no longer has any statement to back up) and explain that someone should come up with a source that backs that statement.

If there is a false statement of fact that has a footnote (with that source actually saying that), yet there are many other sources that say this is not correct, I will add language to point out some could conclude that statement by that author is not correct, with sources.

I'll also try to give fair warning or heads up I am considering changing a statement (with sources) for discussion at that article talk page. I am still learning how to do that.

Thank you for your assistance. Rjr1960 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

About the alert!

    • talk, First of all may I know what's your position; second, why do you start from the language I have used, when that is a symmetrical response to the same language used by him (who calls himself, administrator?!); third, the term the revert is coming is the response to his double revert of the page. I didn't revert any version. I did only changes, that I consider improvements. I gave explanations about my changes and he is telling me that I haven't, furthermore he is threatening me; fourth, it is not clear to me what do I have to do, because the info that is already published is partially wrong and unsourced!Verginia's star (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Verginia's star: Although anyone can add the alert, I can enforce it. Like User:Drmies I'm an WP:Administrator, and we were both on the elected WP:Arbitration Committee that set the sanctions. I still am. And we are very experienced editors. I've explained how you need to change your behavior. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding; what about Dermies?; so, you are enforcing sanctions against editors who contribute on Wikipedia, for inappropriate behaviour. I would like to know, what kind of sanctions have you applied to the administrator for the same issue, and moreover for being the one who started. thx.Verginia's star (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to take action against User:Drmies as he's shown no evidence of any behaviour violating our sanctions regime for Balkan related articles. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So, my behaviour has violated your sanctions regime for Balkan related articles?Verginia's star (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It has. It's also violated some other things but I'm ignoring that. You can't be sanctioned without an alert first and then only for actions after the alert. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh dear--thank you Neil. I'm not surprised. Of course Verginia's star knows that names and languages have enormous importance, symbolic and real, in such nationalist disputes--if not, they wouldn't have made (unproven) claims about the Internet having fallen victim to Romanian propaganda. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That was my first intervention on Wikipedia. I didn't know about the regime and I didn't repeat it. So you are telling me that the alert is due to the edit that I have done one month ago?!.. According to Doug Weller the reason for the alert is my improper behaviour against Dermies. I asked him twice and I'm waiting the response about the sanction applied to Dermies for his improper behaviour. Remember he is an administrator! Verginia's star (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC) the text is addressed to Bishonen and Doug!Verginia's star (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Verginia's star, the alert was to notify that you are editing in a contentious area and to conduct yourself accordingly. And Drmies is pretty much on the ball here. All content needs to be sourced, especially if contentious. "in 99% of the cases where editors make changes without evidence and then claim "racism" or "propaganda" or what not, it's complete bullshit" is also very accurate. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I will not discus the issue again from the beginning with all administrators! You think that I'm naïve... you applied the sanction to me for a single violation done by mistake, more than one month ago?! The alert was raised today by Dermie, because he likes to flexes his muscles!

I'm waiting the response about the sanction applied to Dermies for his abusie behaviour, and threatening, and not about the regime!Verginia's star (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Verginia's star, no sanctions have been applied to you. You've been made aware that sanctions could be levied (Drmies is already aware). You should drop this now before I or another admin decide to block you for disruptive and battleground editing. --NeilN talk to me 21:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Truth vs agenda

Doug,

At this point we might as well ask for page protection for BCE as I can post truth and put in citations all i want but clearly those w/ an agenda are bent on putting in opinions.

Is BCE widely used - no. What is CE / BCE based upon? - The time frames involving Jesus. Now I realize that the PC culture would love nothing more than to erase this but fact is fact. The rest of the article in fact confirms this and it does the reader little benefit to ignore this. I've provided citations numerous times only to have them deleted. I'm not a wikipedia expert but I've ran across those w/ agendas a few times in my years here. I once even had to argue w/ admins over a plant that can kill you if eaten green (but not yellow) b/c duffus mcgoos were hell bent on keeping fictitious info on the board. In the end, if it comes down to it, I'll move on as its really not a huge deal and I have a life. If Wikipedia wants to keep up false info well its Wikipedia house so they can rule it as they see fit. Best of luck. SGT-Craig (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SGT-Craig: Looking over your talk page history and at the history for the Podophyllum article, the problem was that you plagiarized from a source, not other users' "agendas." Maybe if you tried paying attention to what others actually say, instead of just crying about "agendas" while completely ignoring the possibility that maybe you don't know what you're doing, you'd have more fun here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ian, not worried about it random person. The point is helping people and protecting them. I cited information. They removed it. Big deal. I provided the citation and reworded it. Too easy. Same situation on BCE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view comes to mind. SGT-Craig (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Scythians: Please comment

We want to rewrite the lead section. Would you please participate and comment here? Talk:Scythians#New_Iranica_article Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug, for all your explanations to me. I spent a lot of time editing his brief contents without destroying all the hyperlinks, etc. because I'm not at all computer literate. What I edited was all Dr. Volpe's original text, written him.

Thank you, Doug, for all your explanations to me. I spent a lot of time editing his brief contents without destroying all the hyperlinks, etc. because I'm not at all computer literate. What I edited was all Dr. Volpe's original text, written him.

Are you able to send the deleted text back to me please. I don't want to have to go through editing his section again unless I can just copy and paste.

is there no way I can edit his profile on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

BCE

So Doug,, when I provide references that prove my point concerning BCE and the other side simply deletes them w/o providing references what then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT-Craig (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Settle it on the talk page, and find academic sources. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nellie Bowles

Could you throw up some quick semi-protection on this article? It's being attacked by IPs with garbage sourcing (The Blaze/Daily Wire). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nellie Bowles page

The correction in her New York Times article was a well-covered issue. Those sentences also use the direct quote from the correction. It can't be wikipedia policy that even notes made in the subject's own article is off-limits because an editor is concerned that it might somehow impugn on her own views of the author. Please edit in. Those satisfy all wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.207.62.209 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, the IP who made those edits is a webhost, just FYI. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@PlyrStar93: Interesting. Do you think it's a sock? Doug Weller talk 15:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Definitely possible, just didn't figure out who it is. See the previous IP's editing the page and got blocked - 2604:2000:8247:1D00:0:0:0:0/65, 68.173.122.81. These two are likely not proxies, and they should be the same person as they're located in New York area using Time Warner Cable. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 15:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Groar!

You blocked User:Gburdi, and this editor is an obvious sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I need to look again at behavior, but technically they are very different. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Groar! left an edit summary in first-person as George Burdi.[5] Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I saw that, but I don't know if GBurdi is Burdi. I blocked a username JaydaFransen but I wasn't at al sure it was the real Fransen. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
You are making a baseless accusation. I had quoted George Burdi from the interview, not referred to myself as him. Did you fail to notice the quotes in the edit? Groar! (talk)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet edits

Hello. Can you please review Deportation and enslavement of Yaqui under the Porfiriato, Massacre of Yaqui under the Porfiriato, and Deportation of Yaqui under the Porfiriato? I noticed you have already deleted Porfiriato massacre against the Yaqui. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: Done. I wasted far too much time on Morrister, eg checking sources, etc, I'm pretty pissed. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Historicy of jesus edit

I noticed the page claimed that virtually all historians accept the existence of jesus as fact. But the last time I visited the page (about a year ago) it rightly did not say that. In the meantime I had a discussion with someone about the historicity of jesus and I pointed out that while there might be consensus among biblical scholars I'd rather listen to historians for having a more unbiased opinion on the matter. This person or someone who read the discussion must've changed the page since then without providing proper sources. The people involed with this page did not raise a flag however, for reasons unknown, that's why I reverted that change now. Fact is that the life of jesus is mostly not even discussed while studying middle eastern history because the lack of historical evidence. My sources for this are classes that I took on the university of Amsterdam and colleagues of mine who have an academical degree in history. There is a consensus among biblical scholars however, but that doesn't really mean anything because most of them are religious anyways and I worry about their objectivity on the matter. It might not be shocking that most of the sources on the wikipedia page are quotes of people saying jesus existed because other people said he existed. We all know the historical documents that are being used to confirm his existence. Biblical scholars see more in these documents than they actually prove, and historians just mostly dismiss them to avoid inaccuracies. So please leave the to saying that there's a consensus among biblical scholars, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuririn45 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to put this on the article's talk page, and use edit summaries as I explained. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Checking with you

I saw the ping you sent me from the 3RRN discussion. I'm pretty sure that I understand what was going on there (you pointing out the inconsistency of warning one editor without warning me, in the sense that the warning to the other editor was POV-motivated), but I want to check with you about whether you felt that I had done anything wrong, myself. I have understood my first edit, ([6]), as being the introduction of new language, but not as being a revert, and my subsequent edit, ([7]), as being one revert (a revert for which, of course, you sent me a "thanks"). I'd like to know if you think that I was wrong in any of that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: yes, sorry, just one revert but that doesn't matter so far as the point I was making. But it was careless of me. I was the only one in the wrong! 18:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #313

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events
    • Past: Europeana Tech Conference (including a lot of Wikidata workshops and discussions)
    • Past:Wikimedia Hackathon 2018, 18-20 May in Barcelona
      • Check the hashtag #wmhack on Twitter to see what has been worked on regarding Wikidata
      • List of the projects that have been demoed during the showcase
    • Next Wikidata IRC office hour: May 29th at 18:00 (UTC+2, Berlin time) on the channel #wikimedia-office
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Development
    • Hackathon!
    • Work on adding “integer” constraint (phab:T167989)
    • Fix a bug expanding the references with a constraint violation (phab:T193669)
    • Add a "mis" code language to enable uncoded languages in Wikibase Lexeme (phab:T194754)
    • Improve the different language fields in the interface of editing a Lexeme (phab:T191504)
    • Finish work to edit Forms via the web API (phab:T190906)
    • Include special Lexeme IDs (phab:T187060)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


Valid reasons for switching from BC to BCE?

Hello Doug. I had an encounter with this user who, along with another account of the same user, converts BC to BCE in certain pages. When I liked to the user the WP:ERA guideline, the user replied that if the page has nothing to do with Christianity then anyone could change the era style to BCE at will. Is that true? It is true that most page converted by the user has nothing to do with Christianity, yet I don't think this can be reason enough. Now the user asked permission to change BC to BCE on Seleucus I Nicator. Khruner (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No of course it isn't right. I'll post, but who's the other account? Doug Weller talk 17:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe User talk:Stavinbc is clearly a WP:duck, as for his few contributions. Khruner (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Ask him which account he wishes to use. I'm going to be watching tv! I'll sort it tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
RE: Seventh-day Adventist theology, thanks for cleaning up. What a mess. Can't figure out what sockmaster is thinking they'll accomplish. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Brychan

I left Koch because it supports the fact that Brychan was the son of Anlach and Marcell, but I would have thought the National Library of Wales was a better source. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know, but when I look at a sentence and it has material that isn't in the source, I worry. Perhaps you can fix it. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Zomi Nationalism

Why did you revert this? Was it because I didn't title my edits correctly? Okay, if so fine, but the reverted article is literally unintelligible, there may as well be no article at all because all it does is leave you with more questions. Just let me know so I can fix it again. Lr9074 (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lr9074: Various reasons. You added some unsourced material, including a quote. The templates weren't correct and apologies, but it was still confusing. I edited it bit after reverting you and someone did more after I finished. I think it's in better shape now. By the way, new talk page comments should go at the bottom of the talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Rakhigarhi

This is regarding reverted changes on the 'Discovery Section' of the Rakhigarhi page. I understand your point for the below paragraph and we can keep that content out of the Rakhigarhi page for now.

"Investigation done so far has revealed that there is no steppe contribution to the DNA of Harappan People. Analysis also indicates that the DNA of Indus Valley people has contributions from Near Eastern Iranian farmers and Indian hunter gatherers whose DNA is still reflected in people of the Andaman Islands. These findings also refute the theory of migration of Indo-Europeans from south Asia."

At the same time, below paragraph should be a valid addition to the article even now because the news is based on a research paper already published. I am giving a link below.

"So far 53 burial sites with 46 skeletons have been discovered. Anthropological examination done on 37 skeletons revealed 17 to be of adults, 8 to be of sub adults while age of 12 skeletons could not be verified. Sex detection of 17 skeletons was successful out of which 7 were Male and 10 Female skeletons. Most of the burials were typical burials with skeletons in supine position. Atypical burials had skeletons in prone position. Some graves are just pits while some are brick lined with lots of pottery in it. Some of them also had votive pots with Animal remains symbolizing offerings to the dead. Bone remains of secondary burials were not charred hence ruling out possibility of cremation practices. While these burials retained many of the Harappan features, group burials and prone position burials are distinct. Paleo-parasitical studies and DNA analysis to determine the lineage is being undertaken."


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192299

Do let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs) 05:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

SDA Theology

Doug, I've just left a message for you at Talk:Seventh-day_Adventist_theology. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Good faith

When it is rational to assume good faith of course I assume good faith. When it is rational to assume ill faith of course I assume ill faith. The fact that most contributors show good faith does not contradict in any way the fact that many contributors show ill faith. I demonstrate my own good faith by being rational. If you ask me to lie on Wikipedia, then you must tell me this clearly, directly and publicly. If you don't, then you have to show that I assumed ill faith with no good reasons. There is not a single statement in that answer which does not employ hard diversionist tactics, and the page itself should have put somebody in trouble with justice for libel. So please explain your position. Doru001 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Advice...

Talk-page stalkers welcome also. Take a look at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and it's associated article page. I tried earlier today to get the disputants discussing rather than reverting but after some promising discussion, we're back to the reverting and talking past each other. My instinct is to lock the page for a week or so (because quite honestly, I can't make heads or tails of the rules on 1RR for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe), but am worried that I might seem to be involved because I opined at WP:RSN on a semi-related topic as well as my editing on The Holocaust. Frankly, this is a bigger cess-pit than the current German-World War II topic at ArbCom. I have to head out to run some errands, but I'd like for this area of the wiki to not turn into the mess that is India-Pakistan or Israel-Palestine. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 26 May 2018 (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, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have something to say...

…say it --Koppadasao (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't forums. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
And you use the word "lynching" far too lightly. I still shudder at the real lynchings that occurred in the American South when I was young. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Then you should check out the sources, Rebel Media. It is clearly indicated in their video report on the case that the word lynching is appropriate, especially when compared to previous videos about Tommy Robinson’s previous experiences with the UK prisons. --Koppadasao (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Rebel Media? I'd rather read the Onion, at least it's funny. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The Onion isn’t a reliable source. In fact it’s more of a fake news site than a real news site.--Koppadasao (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You really missed my point? The main difference is that I can trust the Onion to be funny but not to pretend it's accurate. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my talk page

If you have something to say, then say it. If you want further discussion, please reply on my talk page. --Koppadasao (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning messages aren't vandalism. You probably want to read WP:VANDNOT (and the rest of the page too, for that matter). Your editing experience would go a lot better if you'd read the messages Doug is leaving, they are designed to keep you from being blocked. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: see his edit summaries as he reverts me. Thay aren't going to help him. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
yeah, I didn’t give it a great chance, but...AGF and all that...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Lies

Hogg stated that he was at home at the time of the shooting. Lies are against the rules, which you should follow. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@OMEGAUNIT: Then stop telling them. Hogg was at school, he went home after the shooting and later returned.[8] Some websites made the claim you're making but later retracted it.[9] Doug Weller talk 13:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It wasnt a claim made by websites it's was on TV with him saying it. If you lived in the U.S. you would have seen that news broadcast. I am being honest it seems based off of your history you have a habit of stretching truth. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You can go to YouTube and see him say it. youtu.be/2j7HeF16704 OMEGAUNIT (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So yeah I will trust what he said and not some news article. He wasn't at school that day. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@OMEGAUNIT: He did not say he wasn't at the school. That's a 17 second excerpt from an interview without the proper context. RedState is a conservative news site and originally reported your claim. The author of the report, Sarah Rumpf, later got the entire newsclip and transcript and realised that CBS had left out the context, which is that he did this at 6pm, after school. See her original story (with strike-throughs)and [https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/03/28/mistake.-wrong.-im-sorry./ her apology. If you don't believe her statement that he was definitely at school, then nothing's going to convince you, even though the clip clearly does not have him saying he wasn't at school that day. I have no idea why you think it does. Please be sure you read all her tweets in the second link. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You removed information.

The House of Kohtala is still a claimant to the Finnish thorne. Whether it was an abortive attempt or not is irrelevant.They are not widely known outside of the country because it is so small and young nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekroyals (talk • contribs) 03:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Franciscans

This entry is not understandable by a normal person. Way too in the weeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.26.107.153 (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding rude & subjective opinions in removing content

Hi, Many sections in the 'Tamil language' page do not even have one source. But for my single edit to the 'Consonants' section, I now had to add 5 credible sources, including the source from the 1891 book 'Thonnool Vilakkam' written by Beschi (Veeramamunivar) himself, where he clearly describes adding the tittle and making changes to the way long Tamil vowels were written.(And the Tamil wikipage about Veeramamunivar where all these contributions are already mentioned.)

Now there is a separate thread running about the sources mentioned in the page 'Constantine Beschi', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constanzo_Beschi#Dubious posted by user Sitush with hashtag 'dubious'????!!!! He says 'The Catholic Encyclopaedia is over 100 years old and is known to be unreliable in many respects.' - That doesn't make all its content unreliable. He says 'We only very rarely allow sources from the Raj era in India-related stuff.' - What sort of a criteria is this and who makes such biased decisions on Wikipedia? This is clearly biased opinion against works of British authors, when clearly most of the archaeological discoveries in India were done by British archaeologists, who helped preserve it for posterity. 'The Tamilnation website has a somewhat chequered history on Wikipedia.' - Again biased opinion. 'and surely if this chap is as notable as is made out in our article' - He refers to Beschi as 'this chap', clearly indicating complete ignorance about this esteemed Tamil scholar and his works. And this user is qualifying credible sources giving correct information as 'dubious'????

And now to appease the content removers, I've had to give 5 sources for one edit. This is almost a harassment. And seems to be a part of the devious attempts in today's India to re-write history and whitewash all positive contributions to Indian history by Dalits and minorities. --Ophelia S (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) a part of the devious attempts in today's India to re-write history and whitewash all positive contributions to Indian history by Dalits and minorities - please read WP:RGW. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding additions made to 'Tamil language' page and user 'SpacemanSpiff's remarks:

SpacemanSpiff says "As before, removed well-sourced text, added badly sourced text, not a minor edit, and what does "tittle" mean as an edit summary?"

"removed well-sourced text" - No text was REMOVED. The heading 'Legend' was MOVED before 'Etymology'.

"added badly sourced text" - The addition about tittle usage in Tamil has been sourced from Ananda Vikatan magazine, a well-respected Tamil language magazine in circulation for 92 years, and it is the magazine with the second largest circulation in India (Source - Indian Readership Survey 2017) The page in question 'Tamil Language' has sources from websites like indianmalaysian.com, thenews.com.pk, The Hindu newspaper ('Rudimentary Tamil-Brahmi script' unearthed at Adichanallur, "Palani excavation triggers fresh debate", The Hindu, Chennai, India), etc. In which case, Ananda Vikatan can be well accepted as a credible source, as they do not publish lies about respected Tamil scholars and the Tamil language.

"not a minor edit" - It is a minor edit to the 'Consonants' section.

Hence, I am adding the edit again. As new information throws more light on the Tamil language, it needs to be reflected on Wikipedia too. Thank you. --Ophelia S (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Tamil language is a Featured Article. That means the Wikipedia community has decided at some point in the past that it is an exceptional example of work on Wikipedia. It remains so unless and until a community review determines otherwise. The nature of FAs means that a certain amount of stability is desirable in order to ensure that its outstanding merits are not compromised by ill-judged changes. Of course, all articles can be improved and new theories etc can emerge, thus requiring an article to be amended. However, when an article is considered to be of Featured quality it is usually best to discuss any changes on its talk page and obtain consensus for making them. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #314

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events
    • IRC office hour, on May 29th at 18:00 (UTC+2, Berlin time), on the IRC channel #wikimedia-office. Special topic: Lexemes on Wikidata
  • Development
    • Deployed and activate WikibaseLexeme on wikidata.org so you can now store the first lexicographical data on Wikidata (phab:T191457)
    • Fixing the encoding issues on labels of items linked on Lexemes (phab:T195470, phab:T195359)
    • Fixed an issue that was preventing adding Forms and Lexemes in statements (phab:T195402)
    • Suppressed the browser's autocomplete that covers WikibaseLexeme's suggestion on Special:NewLexeme (phab:T195383, phab:T191526)
    • Worked on a bug about representation overwriting other representation with the same language code (phab:T193636)
    • Changed title of the field of a lemma language to make it less likely for people to add a translation as a second Lemma (phab:T193603)
    • Working on the RDF mapping of WikibaseLexeme (phab:T160260)
    • Working on implementing fulltext search for Lexemes (phab:T189739)
    • Working on showing Lemmas for linked Lexemes instead of just their ID on special pages like Special:AllPages (phab:T195382)
    • Fixing issues that happened after dropping an index from the wb_terms table (phab:T194270, phab:T195642, phab:T195611)
    • Made constraint check result appear directly after adding a new statement (phab:T194247)
    • Working on looking up entities by external identifiers on Special:Search (phab:T99899)
    • Added Docker image to Wikibase website (phab:T189936)
    • Added WikibaseImport script to Docker images to make it easier for people to start their own Wikibase install with some data imported from Wikidata (phab:T192080)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


Thanks.

[10] Yep, an actual typo. 58.110.170.207 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Nudge.

--JustBerry (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A time stamp would be nice, but I can't complain! --JustBerry (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@JustBerry: sorry, I hadn't noticed there wasn't one. I've added it. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

daily mail

I'm not sure how you missed WP:DAILYMAIL but please don't use it as a source again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

hi there - you are telling me not to use the daily mail as a source ever again - reading that link it doesn't support that position, there are apparently occasaions where is is ok to use - my link was not controversial in any way was it? the details are not in dispute, I don't understand your warning? Also, I added it, it was removed, I didnt edit war at all? Govindaharihari (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Clearly stated in WP:DAILYMAIL. So, controversial or not, look for better sources. --regentspark (comment) 15:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't suggest you were edit-warring. It was meant to be more informational than warning. But of course now I hope you understand not to use it again. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It has me amused that the opener of that dailymail discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC is now a indefinitely blocked puppet master. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hillbillyholiday Govindaharihari (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Entirely irrelevant. In this case he was right, and of course he had only one vote. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I will happily disagree with you - the attack on the dailymil on wikipedia was reactionary and undue, we readily use much worse links imo - also, a sockmaster with only one vote, hmmm - no worries, the chat and outcome was one of wiki editors lower moments imo, it was and still is revengeful rather than policy compliant. Regards Govindaharihari (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

One more thing...

Creator of Draft:Akira seems intent on reverting prior AFC comments with the intent of getting the article passed with a more lenient reviewer (see page history). Suggestions? --JustBerry (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Surely the editor is the subject of the article? Imakiraa and http://imakiraa.com/akira/ ? http://imakiraa.com just goes to http://imakiraa.com/akira/. Or a fan using her name of course. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I've added the autobio welcome message. I don't get involved in reviewing drafts, you might want to ask one of the earlier reviewers, mentioning my comment about an autobiography. She's not trying to hide who she is. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, shortly after your auto welcome, which contains the comment "Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself", the user inserted the article draft on her userpage. Understandably perhaps. Well, given that she ignored the bothersome second half of your sentence, "making sure to stay within user page guidelines", which is always likely. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC).
(edit conflict) @Bishonen: I suppose. Removing feedback that other users have given in an attempt to shop for a reviewer to accept the article is fairly disruptive, particularly when the AFC template instructions say to leave the comments on the draft page for fellow reviewers. Moreover, the user appears to be unwilling to be considerate of that request, repeatedly removing the comments (an implicit revert). Because Robert has also noticed the comment removal, I think following up with the user on their talk page would probably be appropriate. Let's see how it goes. (Please be wary that some of these understandings and interpretations have been derived from my interactions with the user via IRC as well as onwiki.) --JustBerry (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Another aspect of the situation that sparked concern is that much of the draft is copyrighted material (yes, copyrighted). Despite trying to remove it, the draft creator decided to reinstate the text. I am working on following up with a message on their talk page with these concerns. --JustBerry (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@JustBerry: I don't think you'll see any copyright there now. Of course Bish and I can still see it. :-) I think this is going to lead to a block unless she starts to communicate. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing the issue and following up. You may already be aware, as you had posted on the draft creator's page not long ago, but I left them an extensive message explaining the situation and offering to continue working with them in a collaborative fashion, while cautioning them of some of the concerns discussed above. --JustBerry (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Or just... --JustBerry (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doug & @Bishonen: (because you popped by earlier in the conversation; didn't want to leave you out) In case you see that Draft:Akira gets re-created: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imakiraa. --JustBerry (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've salted it. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC).

The Perun editor

is currently active at Shepherd's axe, unless I'm seriously mistaken. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Recuse

I disagree with your opinion that you have recently made on the on-going ARCA, due to your involvement with a few editors named in the on-going ARCA concerning India and Pakistan.[11][12][13][14][15]

You have edited the same articles as them, hence you should recuse. Your heavy participation in Indus Valley Civilisation, which is also edited by Mar4d, Capitals00, D4iNa4,[16] including the talk page, [17] where you were involved as recently as February 2018. [18]

As far as I know, you were also involved with Raymond3023, D4iNa4, Capitals00, in a content dispute on Bhimbetka rock shelters that is also pretty recent.[19][20]

--RaviC (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I note that you waited until I posted. The time to have asked this was when it opened. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy states that "Requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will not be granted, except in extraordinary circumstances." Doug Weller talk 15:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. You can still recuse given that I had asked you before it entered that stage. You haven't voted yet and since you are deeply involved, I recommend you to recuse. RaviC (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
None of the parties has asked me to and they've known I'm an Arb. One of the parties has thanked me for my post even though it wasn't favorable to them Doug Weller talk 15:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
@RaviC: I should have looked at your links earlier. Frankly I wasn't paying enough attention to your claim, just the way you presented it out of the blue after I posted. Working on the same articles as other editors doesn't create a need to recuse. Particularly, working in cooperation with other editors, and the examples you give show that. The content dispute was with a now blocked editor, Banasura. It's not surprising that I haven't been asked to recuse by anyone involved in the case. And note that there are 10 people involved in the case and we are handling them separately. Of course if my colleagues ask me to recuse I will. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

God never said to Jews: "I promise to give the land (of Canaan) because you are Jews"

I cannot understand your action removing my contribution in Talk:Israel, but just answer these questions:
Even though their grandfather and their great grandfathers are Jews, are the Israeli citizens the seeds of Jacob?
How can you (or anyone) prove any bloodline linkage from present Jewish family to Jacob?
If no one cannot prove Israeli citizens are the seeds of Jacob, how can they make claim to possess the land when God only promised to give the land to seeds of Jacob, not because of their (Jewish) religion? — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page about your talk page post I removed. I'm not discussing this question anywhere. It's yet another violation of ARBPIA. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Forged post

An admin blocked an editor for forging a post from you. I struck the post, but I'm not sure if that's all that is needed. Surely didn't sound like something you'd post. See User_talk:DanielRigal#Cnn. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Thanks for letting me know. I think that's enough. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Osprey Publishing

This user claimed that Osprey Publishing is not a reliable source (I assume he meant "publisher") for history-related matters. Curious about your opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Although Farokh and I got along well despite the dispute years ago over using him - which got pretty hairy, I have to agree. See Kaveh Farrokh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I should've been more clear. I don't doubt that Farrokh is an unreliable author/source himself (and hence the source was rightfully deleted). I just meant the publisher in general. For example, I recently used a book written by David Nicolle. He has the right credentials (as far as I can see), but his book was published by the same Osprey Publishing. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
(passing comment). Yes, some of Osprey's publications are by reputable, specialist academics with relevant qualifications; I've used a couple in the past. Others are by amateurs (some more gifted than others); that's usually a much trickier call, but unless a publication has at least some favourable peer review, I tend to avoid it. Haploidavey (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It depends. Hell, even Simon and Schuster published nonsense. I've usually assumed thatthey are ok. But Michael Tellinger, the discoverer of Adam's Calendar, most of whose books are self-published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger.[21] has managed to get "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" published by them.[22]. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree too, you really need to go by the author's credentials. The slender Osprey books often provide a useful outline of basic facts to help get an article off the ground, but they should not be the main source, and the author should have gotten some professional recognition. Their sins tend to be more of omission or incompleteness due to the brevity of their format. Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With the exception of one history teacher I knew who collected Osprey stuff for Angus McBride's artwork (admitting he couldn't care less about the writing), I've only encountered Osprey in gaming circles (though that history teacher and I mainly talked about D&D, so...). But I've been given the impression that Osprey is pretty much word of God if you're doing historical gaming. If we had to go for a blanket statement, I'd put them between non-specialist journalism (e.g. Newsweek) and specialist journalism (e.g. National Geographic), unless the author is someone we have an article on that says they're a noted authority on the topic (then I'd count it as an academic work). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As for National Geographic, see this article. It's an interview with Michael E. Smith who says at the end of the interview:

"these data have tremendous potential to contribute to our knowledge of the ancient Maya. They can revise our figures for Maya populations, for their farming systems, their housing and domestic organization, and other topics. But right now, these things exist only as potential results, not as actual findings. So that is the “no” sense of my answer. Right now, with the available information, we have no greater understanding of the Maya. That will have to wait until the hard work gets done. The LiDAR data have to be ground-truthed (checked on the ground), processed by computers and analyzed carefully.

It is significant that these finds are reported by the National Geographic Society, an organization whose interest in publicity and spectacular claims often takes precedence over their interest in solid scientific results. Many public announcements of archaeological findings are based on technical articles published in peer-reviewed journals. That is a sign that there has been a real advance, sanctioned by colleagues and journal editors. The new LiDAR finds have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, because they are still preliminary. Another feature of the hype that comes from an organization like National Geographic Society is that the finds are announced as if they were the first time anyone though to apply LiDAR to the Maya area. But in fact, archaeologists have used LiDAR in other parts of the Maya zone for seven or eight years now."

I just found a more detailed article by him.[23] Doug Weller talk 20:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok, then I'd just put Osprey on par with journalism in general (barring the author being a recognized authority or notorious non-authority). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Thanks everyone for your input. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Civility

Hello mr. Weller. Informing me I did something wrong, without specifying the offending comment, is fundamentally incomplete. Please enlighten me. Thank you. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@GeeTeeBee: that's very disappointing as I assumed it would be obvious. Your edit summary, "if you don't dispute that he (co-)authored two books, and don't dispute that these were Amazon best-sellers for a short while, and YET keep insisting, that he is — amongst other things, a jailbird, or career-criminal, for all I care — NOT an author, based on sources, Then I Believe you're practicing Nothing Short of Orwellian Double-Think, All at Once believing that 2 + 2 = 4 AND 2 + 2 = 5 ..." is clearly an uncivil comment about another editor. It also showed lack of [[WP:AGF|good faith. See WP:SUMMARYNO. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Mostly a misunderstanding. First of all, because you spoke of a comment that was removed, but my edit summary is still visible in the article's history, as part of the edit summary of it's revert – so I (wrongly) assumed you had another comment in mind. Secondly, if you look at the preceding edit history, as well as the ongoing discussion of Robinson's occupation on the talk page (section 'Tanning salon owner') – with multiple editors involved in this point – I had hoped it would be obvious that I was not addressing a particular editor, but simply any involved reader. Thirdly, the comment quotes a well-known aspect of the application of logic, from a generally highly respected work of civilisation. And as much as my experience on WP has taught me, that there are always alternative ways to apply logic, from the viewpoints of other editors, I do not see anything uncivil about this, and I'm baffled that you do... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #315

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • The API respond for maxlag will in the future also include the dispach lag (phab:T194950)
    • Add Elastic and CirrusSearch in the Wikibase Docker image (phab:T192813)
    • Add OAuth extension to wikibase bundle container (phab:TT192364)
    • Work on showing constraints in the QueryService (phab:T194762)
    • Make the PropertySuggester use CirrusSearch (phab:T195490)
    • Add integer constraint in the constraint checks (phab:T167989)
    • Add “citation needed” constraint type (phab:T195052)
    • Make Special:EntityData should handle form IDs (phab:T192149)
    • Fix encoding problems for labels displayed in Lexemes (phab:T195359)
    • Improve the text in the grammatical feature field (phab:T193604)
    • Work on showing Lemma on Special:AllPages and other pages (phab:T195382)
    • Work on better handling use of statements linking to Lexemes on client (phab:T195615)
    • Fix a bug that breaks Lexeme when language or lexical category items don't have a label (phab:)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


June 2018 Kanbei85

I did not intend to fail to assume good faith. However I would like you to reconsider your statements regarding the Eugenie Scott quote / attack on Dr. Sarfati's work. It is a non-sequitur in the article and does not belong. If you feel the article, without that quote, is not sufficiently clear in showing that Sarfati holds a non-mainstream position, let us add a less inflammatory statement to that effect! Unilaterally quoting Scott, who is known to be an outspoken critic of creationists, as she derides his work, is a very partisan thing to do. --Kanbei85 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A consensus is not required when there is a violation of NPOV on the bio of a living person. I have not suggested any such thing. The point is that a libelous statement about Dr. Sarfati is being propagated online. It needs to be corrected. Calling Sarfati's work 'propaganda' on his bio page is libel, and it makes no difference that it is being attributed to Eugenie Scott- there is no reason for that statement to be included there in the first place. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

reliability of a source

Hey Doug, How are you?

I just want to ask you if this is a reliable source? Regards Aṭlas (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No, see Coffee. We need academic sources mentioning this legend. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, man -Aṭlas (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Rosie Bevan and Peter G M Dale. A Rose By Any Other Name: Another daughter of Richard de Lucy. Foundations (2014) v.6, 13-46. [24] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Lost in Time: the other daughter of Hamelin de Ballon. Foundations v.3, no.3 (2010) 179-215 [25] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Heads-up regarding Rithme4

Looks like a wp:CIR problem. See my message on their talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug, re Chechen Republic

Hi Doug, I just saw your comment on my talkpage. I presume this is relating to the British editor Fae and the American editor Rivertoch being upset that I have requested that we review the reliability of the sources used on "Anti-gay purges in Chechnya" article talk as to whether this phenomenon actually exists.

I don't quite understand what Gamergate and gender has to do with questioning the neutrality and reliability of sources used on a potentially fake news story about "gay concentration camps" in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. Could you enlighten me on that?

My qualm with the article is simple. The claims are completely denied by the Russian Federation and is only being pushed by certain segments of the media in countries which can be clearly defined as enemies of the Russian Federation and in active geopolitical confrontation with them (the United States, Britain and the Ukraine). We even mention in the opening "Allegations were initially reported on 1 April 2017 in Novaya Gazeta,[6] a Russian-language opposition newspaper." Another source heavily relied upon "UAWire" is part of the Kyiv Post, a publication which " has supported democracy, Western integration and free markets for Ukraine" (which we neglect to mention in the article for some reason).

Now, both Fae and Rivertoch are unabashed politically-bias activists in favour of LGBT themes, which they are entitled to do in their spare time, but this should not be brought into the Wikipedia mainspace compromising the encyclopedia. To be honest, I am not impressed at all by their fascist attempt to stop anybody even asking on the talkpage of dubious articles that the Anglo-American narrative on affairs be put under scrutiny and that we check the reliability of sources provided in the article, just because it does not chime with their precious personal views. Especially as Wikipedia has explicit policies to uphold a NPOV on international affairs and this is a significant propaganda claim being used to attack one country; the Russian Federation. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Blue note

Hi again. Could you take a look at Blue note? Someone keeps restoring their preferred version of the article (which contains material that was removed after several talk page complaints about its factual accuracy) without any kind of edit summary or attempt at discussion. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Mount Ararat -- good article?

This article Mount Ararat has been nominated for Good Article status. I'm now in the process of reviewing it. One of the criteria for GA status is that the article is "stable" and maintains neutrality. Issues relating to pro-Armenian bias were raised on the talk page and it's unclear to me whether or not a possible neutrality problem has been resolved, at least on this talk page. There are no banners or flags on the article. One issue mentioned had to do with Ararat's status as a national park and an editor responded with a designation template, but there is no coverage in the article proper. Although it's a generally well-written and informative article, my instinct is that there's still a significant Armenian perspective present. Please advise if the community perceives neutrality to be a significant issue. Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Peeta Singh sock farm

Hello Doug Weller, can you please take a look at 71.93.104.102 and 68.148.126.183 who are now repeating the same edits at Punjabi cinema e.g. this and this so is it possible to protect the article temporarily? Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 14:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Punjabi cinema semi-protection

GSS said, "Please keep your political view outside Wikipedia." Ha, nonsense. The reality is, Punjabi cinema films are produced, watched, distributed, financially supported and promoted by Punjabi people across the globe. To say, "Punjabi cinema is the Punjabi language film industry in the states of Punjab in India and Pakistan", isn't this excluding the diaspora, not part of the subcontinent but definitely the reason for the successful revival and continuation of Punjabi cinema? 118.5.26.200 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

punjabi cinema

Doug, we know you don't take us seriously because we don't have a home country yet, but come on, we do exist. At least stop allying with the indian agents every time and bullying us. 121.80.177.252 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Re You are heading for a block/topic ban

Why did you threaten other Wikipedian over an edit summary on the article which is a fact? It is plain that Israel tried to engage war with Iran just because their suspicious claim that Iran would use the nuclear program as a mass weapon destruction to Israel.

Let's consider this: "When a king freed your ancestors from a bondage in a strange land, then you now and your generation (as the descendants) seek to dismantle the kingdom who helped your fathers, Is that the gratitude action to repay the kindness that saved the life of your predecessors?"

I think you behave yourself and do not threaten the other just because cannot understand the context of a statement. — MusenInvincible (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Commercialism

Hi Doug Weller, I've spotted what looks like a case of commercial promotion on the Paulo Coelho page. I'm not sure whether this falls within your area of speciality but I'd be grateful if you or whoever is would look at [26] and take appropriate action. Thanks Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Left wing v counter protesters

I'm perfectly happy with counter protesters. I was using "left wing" because that's the term the editor Dr. F used in his previous version. Steeletrap (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: thanks, but this really should be on your talk page, not here. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #316

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Press, articles, blog posts
    • Learning to Generate Wikipedia Summaries for Underserved Languages from Wikidata, presented at the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics by Lucie Kaffee and Hady Elsahar (see the poster and the paper)
  • Development
    • Developing a prototype for usability testing for how the term box (labels, descriptions, aliases) could work on mobile
    • Investigating how we can do the display of items (their label and sometimes description when linked to in a statement or in listings like Recent Changes) in a way that is less of an issue for the database
    • Working on including the dispatch lag in the maxlag API to make it easier for bots to see when they should stop editing because of performance reasons (phabricator:T194950)
    • Working on adding a Lua function to check if an item is a subclass/instance of another one (phabricator:T179155)
    • Created an API that returns constraint violations for an item in TTL format in preparation for making constraint violations queryable in the query service (phabricator:T194762)
    • Started planning for support for Senses
    • Added more helpful text on Special:NewLexeme to make it easier to understand what information is required (phabricator:T193602)
    • Working on pre-filling the spelling variant for a new Form's representation (phabricator:T195708)
    • Worked on showing the Lemma of a Lexeme instead of just its ID in Special:AllPages, Recent Changes and diffs (phabricator:T191600, phabricator:T195382, phabricator:T195511)
    • Made the representation of a Form in a diff link to the Form (phabricator:T195512)
    • Fixed an issue on the Wikipedias and co when a statement in an item that was used there linked to a Form or Lexeme (phabricator:T195615)
    • Made the "publish" button stay disabled for a Lexeme's header when there is nothing to save (phabricator:T196342)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


‎Sources for archaeology and history (Vinča)

The info I added, though interesting, isn’t a major addition to the article so I will not lose time fighting about it. But, this stand on sources is utterly wrong. I understand the basic reasoning behind it, but it is needlessly restrictive. I believe that all available sources should be used. In this particular case, it was an interview with Dragan Janković, an archaeologist and curator of the Belgrade Museum. On the other hand, you have a legion of “books“ by various "Dänikens", with piles of trash and nonsense, and many of them are written by people who have academia degrees. So how is the former (this) source bad in that constellation? When someone finds a book which has the same info, he can replace the reference and that should be the whole story. So, it is wrong because it hampers the spreading of knowledge, as it is available at the moment. This blinding and limiting approach to the subject reminds me of my beginnings on Wikipedia in 2006 when texts were deleted because the source is not in English. So why this prompt, feverish deletionism? Even you used the term "shouldn’t", not "mustn’t", right? Or you were just gentle? :) PajaBG (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course I'm gentle. How about going to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology and ask about sources? Doug Weller talk 17:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The Resources page simply names “useful” sources of information. It’s not forbidding anything, at least on that page. So your use of “shouldn’t” is actually harsher, not gentle. Dogmatic explanation you gave reads “I will ferociously delete it cause you don’t use the sources I so generously allowed you to use on an openly editable encyclopedia” or “only archaeologists are allowed to write on archaeology cause, for the most part, they are the ones who read the proper books and journals”.
That actually may be true for the real encyclopedias, but not for Wikipedia because it is not, nor it will ever be a textbook on archaeology. Never. Ever. As long as we laymen are allowed to edit it. So I find the advocated approach arrogant, elitist, narrow-minded and ultimately against the idea of what Wikipedia is. Also, it points to laziness. It easier to delete everything then to actually see what the information is about. By the way, though I am neither a film nor a literary critic, I wrote two articles for Britannica – one about a film director and another about a novelist. After being thoroughly checked by their stuff, they posted them online.
I am sure you believe you are doing the right thing, but think about it - in essence, your action is vandalism. You are deleting legitimate and referenced content told by an archaeologist in an interview. Some groups on Wikipedia act like cults. We arranged internally what is the truth and whoever is not with us, he is against us. And even if you voted this “policy” among yourselves, it doesn’t mean much. Just look the people who are leading many nations today and what’s the state of the planet at the moment – people vote badly all the time, even when they are free to vote whatever they like. PajaBG (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) We are unapologetically elitist when it comes to sources, PajaBG. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, but we still want our articles to be accurate and well-researched. Newspapers aren't good sources for archaeology because they routinely print things about it that are flat-out wrong. Even an interview with an expert like Janković is dubious because we don't know to what extent the interviewer—who usually knows nothing about archaeology—understood, paraphrased, embellished and/or editorialised their words. I know lots of people who have talked to journalists about their research and found that the end result has little relation to what they actually said. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Elitism referred to the pushed policy on sources, not on any person individually. But the cult thing is confirmed (“we are”). When you say that something is open to edit for everyone, but then limit me that I am only allowed to transcribe things you approve from the books you approve to the articles you are monitoring, do you honestly call that “openly editable”? Yes honey, you can go out and have fun...but only if its once a month, on Thursday, in the club XYZ, not over 20 bucks and, of course, me there next to you. That’s not called going out, that’s autocracy, at least. It is obvious that I am not doing anything wrong (as the used terms are “useful”, “shouldn’t”, etc.) Rules of Wikipedia are not broken and the source I used is not forbidden. Otherwise, it is just a “more Catholic than the Pope” routine. I said that I understand the basic idea behind it, but the resulting policy is needlessly rigid and dogmatic.

I will continue to add interesting data when I find it and if the source is not fancy enough for you guys, too bad – cool down and take it easy. This is the place for dissemination of knowledge and information, and it is intended to be fun, not to waste time of others on nitpicking. Nitpick among yourselves if you are bored. Unapologetic uptight elitist policy on sources doesn't suit the Wikipedia. It feels annoying and pretentious as this is neither just your encyclopedia, nor just your subject, nor just your articles and writing on Wikipedia is not preparation of the doctorate on Harvard. Who is bothered by this so much, to the point that he goes and lazy and rudely deletes what other people do cause it’s not his cup of tea, he should dig into the books and find better sources for the data himself. This source may not be the best in universe, but it is legit. PajaBG (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

When User:Joe Roe said "we are", he was talking about the policies and guidelines that we, the editors, have developed over the years. Perhaps you aren't clear the implications of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. We also ask editors to exercise good faith in discussions with other editors. If you are just going to ignore our policies and guidelines, that's unfortunate and suggests contempt for the hard work of many people. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Forcing this utterly bad policy bears the markings of some of the main criticism towards Wikipedia (rules inflation, consensus over truth, hive mind – “we”, “our policies”, “many people”). The fact is that this is an encyclopedia open for everyone to edit and some people have problem with that. Having a legit data from the “non-professional” source is not worse than not providing data at all. Actually, this flawed policy seems to be forged out of contempt as this way you ultimately place constructively added content at the same level as, for example, this: “the inhabitants of Vinča originated from the Andromeda galaxy, reaching Earth via the wormhole portal, and their latest descendants are the Kardashians“, referrenced from the National Enquirer. PajaBG (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Chuck Missler edits

Hi Doug, I'm not yet familiar enough with all the rules - so my appologies. there are reliable (legal in some cases) sources for most of my additions, so I shall dig them out and repost some of the parts as appropriate.

Thanks Werafa (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

edit: mission statement re-added with reference to a government document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werafa (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 June 2018 (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) 04:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

About Cristopher Columbus

It has be en process that Columbus was bien in Ibiza and not in Genoa. The attribution to Genoa comes probably from the wish of the family to those He wish or I fine. I have document at I in I Can send by email. I am Gerardo Byk email — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.147.92 (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

We'll stick with the academic sources. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Page protection visibility

Hi Doug, Does "Page protection" include admin oversight? Ps - tightened the variable scope on my revised definition you overturned re codex alimentarius as the latter is definitely subjective, the former is not, codex is Latin for "book" NOT "code". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.88.45 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You'll see what I've done. Codex is an English word, even if it's based on the Latin caudex, and often means collection of statutes. I don't understand your question. I guess it doesn't related to WP:OVERSIGHT, something I and a handful of other Admins can do. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello again,
CodexSinaiticus is a 4th century Greek scripture, arguably the first known bound book, but I digress, I think your decision to remove the reference is probably a wise one regardless as it's clear a precedent should be set for all subjective Latin translations as their obsolescence seems apparent here.

You reference to the first known English usage in the 17th century I presume is to illustrate its incorporation into the modern lexicon and not your assertion of its definitive etymology. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.77.177 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Revisions concerning previously un-cited statements concerning the dates for the receival and compilation of the Torah.

Hi Doug,

Considering the research and effort I put into the revision of the 'Timeline of religion', specifically in the edits made specifically to the 1450-1250 BC section, could you please provide more detail as to why you removed my changes to the wording and references I provided? Regards,

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh1276 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jh1276: Did you read my WP:Edit summaries? These entries should match their main articles. You didn't provide any references, just links. References would need to be to independent sources meeting WP:RS, in this case academic studies of the dates and authorship. Please read the links I provided on your talk page. We never, for instance, state that a religion's views are correct, eg that Moses wrote the Torah. I'm not editing for a while now, but you can ask as the WP:Teahouse which is for new users. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

In accordance with the format of the document of topic, I made further revision to my additions, adding citation as well as more links. Thank you for taking the time to point these out to me. If there are alternative facts, concerning the life of Moses, I would be happy to see them added to my revisions. Since, however, no reliable sources which counter the long held and historically reinforced viewpoint for the timeline of Moses have been presented, I will revert the statement to the structure it was in before its recent update. Please note that, in the citation provided from a reliable source, the dates are discussed. In which case I see no need to leave the word, 'traditional' at the beginning of the sentence, since it does not accord with the format of the rest of the document -- considering that records even older and less supported by archaeological records are presented as fact elsewhere in the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh1276 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I dont understand why your recent messages to various editors are specifically trying to poison the well against me. It follows a reversion of a harmless copy edit, which you presented to me, on my id page, with a veiled threat. This doesn't seem fair play; have I done one thing to invite such insider plotting. I can stop editing if you like. St. Caurgula (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think that was Doug's intention at all, St. Caurgula. You've been making some fairly big changes to archaeology-related articles (which is great!), and we usually like to review the edits of new editors just to make sure that nothing is amiss. Doug was just asking JamesBWatson and I to help him with that.
There are a lot of minor rules and conventions on Wikipedia that we wouldn't expect newcomers to know. Unfortunately that does mean that you might be reverted and get lots of messages on your talk page at first, which I appreciate can get annoying. But please don't think that we don't appreciate your contributions – we do!
You might be interested in joining WikiProject Archaeology, a group of us interested in archaeology topics. – Joe (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really after today. The barriers of entry are less than Doug thinks, and ips deserve more credence than to be rounded upon for simple copy-editing a treasured page. I spent a lot of time on meatball back in the day, and have incarnated here a few times; always disastrous. St. Caurgula (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WHAT THE

HEY I SAW YOU, BLP HUH, THEN ANDREW FINCH’S FAMILY HAS SUED THE CITY OF WICHITA AND POLICE OFFICERS IN JANUARY TwoofTheMCS (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This editor was arguing that a family isn't a person and that BLP doesn't apply, and making other BLP violations. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

History of Florida ongoing

There seems to be some blowback from my actions re certain edits at History of Florida. Various IP users have been reverting my edits, once at History of Florida, and three times at Cades Pond culture. One of them also left an interesting comment on my talk page. I have no experience with checkuser. Would it be out of line for me to request a checkuser investigation on those IPs and a registered user that I suspect is behind them? - Donald Albury 14:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I would say "No" in answer to your question. That being said, in light of just how badly the editor who left that message mangled the meaning of WP:OR, I would advise you to try to explain what OR actually is to them and see if that takes, before doing anything else. If they refuse to accept any correction, or they accept correction yet continue to insist that your addition of that source is OR, then that will just provide evidence that points to trolling (and which, itself, evinces socking). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

My personal heroes...

...are Sisyphus and Prometheus. But sometimes I do wish for a Herakles to handle the stables of Augeas... Apropos you probably can guess! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_50&oldid=847539277"