Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

Wikidata weekly summary #317

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events
    • Wikibase meetup on June 17-19 in Berlin
    • Past: Wikidata Lab VIII in São Paulo
      • Images, metadata, and gamification of Wikidata by Magnus Manske (video, slides)
      • Discovering and modeling knowledge in Wikidata by Andrew Lih (video, slides)
  • Development
    • Prototype for mobile termbox
    • Moving away from wb_terms table
    • Continued work on making WikibaseLexeme compatible with Wikibase clients (T195615)
    • Error handling and usability for entering lemmas was improved (T196342, T197453)
    • Lexemes no longer randomly pop up in rdf dumps (T194627)

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.


Mića Jovanović of Megatrend (in)fame

Hello Mr. Doug, I've just checked page on Mr. Jovanović, and saw that someone deleted all content which was related to controversy around forged PhDs and irregularities around Megatrend (John Naisbitt) University.

Please, could you bring back deleted material and protect the page? Thank you 109.245.32.99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Restored, but there's not enough activity to justify protection. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

  • #1Bib1Ref
  • New partners
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
  • Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Afsharid dynasty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Afsharid dynasty. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Kingdom of Aksum

Hi, sorry for the long-delayed reply. Did you get the possible copyvio on Kingdom of Aksum figured out?

I remember editing some pages like that one after reading a few interesting books on early Indian Ocean trade/history/etc. It’s been so long I don’t remember details and no longer have the books I was using (library books), but I would be quite surprised if I had copied text from elsewhere. I’ve always tried to at least rewrite things into my own words. I’ve sometimes re-used a short phrase from a book when I just can’t come up with another way to state an idea. Then again, 2008? Maybe I was sloppier back then or more prone to mistakes (I did have a newborn then and could have been deliriously sleep-deprived—not that that is an excuse).

In short, I suppose it is possible I used too much text word-for-word from somewhere, but I’d be surprised (and ashamed!). However, looking at my text you linked does look suspicious and seems to cite an online source rather than the library book I remember. If I did copy it I am sorry and hope it was a one time lapse of judgement. Pfly (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Love Jihad.

I got your message but when you include sources like aljazeera which are totally biased towards islam, you are bound to get a biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LightKyle7 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Boumediene

Hi Doug. Would it be possible for you to review this edit? While I do not doubt the veracity of the info (at the time, Algeria was known as the "Mecca of the revolutionaries" and various well known people paid tribute to him), I do question the quality of the source used (the info is clearly taken from here) and whether such info -even if well sourced- deserves a place in Boumediene's article, since: a) there is no mention in the article of either the other revolutionary movements (such as the Black Panther Party, etc) or their leaders, and b) the source says that it was Algeria that was sympathetic to them and not specifically Boumediene. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. I've been out. I need to decide what's appropriate, but obviously I'll stop this. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Domosaurus Rex

My entry Domosaurus Rex was wrongfully taken down for G3 citing a hoax or fraud, this is totally untrue! Almost defamation of character. Please help me reinstate page or tell me what was wrong with the format

@Joseph Gambino: User:RHaworth deleted it after User:Drmies tagged it for deletion, yet you come to my page? Doug Weller talk 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Cause you're my sock, you know. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Doug, maybe you and RHaworth can have a look at the new and improved Draft:Domosaurus Rex. The jam "Drip When I Splash" is found here. There's some ridiculous claims in there; on the whole I think this is a case of NOTHERE (since at best this is promotional). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Ooh. Can I nominate it for speedy deletion as spam? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to remove the template if there's a preference for allowing this to play out. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There's some ridiculous claims in there; on the whole I think this is a case of NOTHERE (since at best this is promotional). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC) What claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Gambino (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked to keep the WP:CIR issues from spreading to yet more user talk pages. I don't know if the editor is capable of following our guidelines but that can be worked out on his talk page. --NeilN talk to me 19:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for helping out. *lesigh* Anyway, I hope that some of you listened to the song and enjoyed it; I thought it was, well, let's just say that there's a lot more excitement in a half a minute of Fresh Fargo, and he's not the best in this top 10. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sure, but I got distracted looking for some tunes by Super Nard. If you got nothing better to do, watch the video for "Break the Scales", but make sure there's no kids in the room. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Fofo235

Hey Doug,

A new editor with a history of edit warring is currently restoring some wp:or content to this template (Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties). He's not here to build an encyclopedia. The discussion is not going anywhere, and he have some friends (Umayyadinian, MWahaiibii). Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: another Admin has blocked him for editwarring. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Friends? because i was against you edit warring i became his friend? dude you were edit warring an established fact about South Arabia being Arab its in every Wiki that talks about Arabs, and you still edit warring and reverting! Admin @Doug Weller: you should block him Aṭlas honestly not that user if you checked editing history. MWahaiibii (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your attempt to get him blocked for a 3RR violation failed because he didn't exceed it. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
He's helping him by restoring the wp:or version of the page. -Aṭlas (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
How did he not exceed it @Doug Weller:? he kept reverting within way less than 24h.
  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]

MWahaiibii (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@MWahaiibii: Exactly, 3 is less than 4. Of course, if someone does 3 reverts every 24 hours to the same article they would probably get blocked, or if they did 3 reverts and than another exactly 24 hours later they might be blocked. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read this

When you find the time, please read this. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #324

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Allow to show incoming links on the graph explorer dialog on WDQS (phab:T197778)
    • Fulltext search for Lexemes and Forms (only in Lexeme namespace) has been merged (phab:T196188)
    • We are now collecting click data when completion search on Wikidata is used (phab:T196186) which would serve us to improve search relevancy
    • Fix a lot of issues with our test system (phab:T200693)
    • Disallow merging of items that link to each other in references and qualifiers (phab:T119614)
    • More work on merging Lexemes (phab:T200884)
    • Provide useful HTML title for Lexemes (phab:T195386)
    • Improve the validation and error message when a label, description or alias is too long (phab:T145932, phab:T200780)
    • Expose constraint violations to WDQS (phab:T192567)
    • Add the possibility to download result of a query from the embed mode (phab:T176797)
    • Get persistent editing of Senses done (phab:T196270) (you can try it now on the beta system)
    • Work on edit summary of Senses (phab:T196290)
    • Work on diffs of Senses (phab:T196289)

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:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Chuck DeVore Wiki

In deleting the reference to my Investor's Business Daily piece by the San Francisco Chronicle on the coming threat to the Mubarak regime in Egypt, you cite an "even earlier version wasn't backed by the relatively poor source." I'm rather surprised to hear that you consider a post by a professional journalist with the San Francisco Chronicle as a "relatively poor source." With that standard, what counts as a good source?

Linked here: https://blog.sfgate.com/politics/2011/02/15/did-ca-goper-chuck-devore-yes-chuck-devore-beat-the-cia-to-predicting-egypt-crisis/ regarding:

The former Irvine Assemblyman raised his concerns on the issue of Egypt’s future in a Jan. 11 piece in Investors’ Business Daily entitled “A Restive Egypt Faces Succession; Islamacists May Make a Bid for Power.”

BTW, that said, I thought the unnamed user's addition was superfluous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckdevore (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chuckdevore: I retract my comment about the source itself, I hadn't noticed who it was. I was concentrating mainly on the fact that the edit said "That’s right: the California GOP former U.S. Senate candidate published an analysis back in January warning Egypt was on “the brink of a chaotic transition of power” — weeks before anyone had even taken to the streets of Cairo." and the text in your article said "He also was one of the few in the West to warn of the danger to the Mubarak regime in Egypt before it was overthrown by the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011." Not the same thing. The other thing is to show that this is significant (see WP:UNDUE) you need to show it got more attention than just one short piece. You need to find sources that back the text and suggest it on the talk page of the article about you. I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of the few sources, but it's a big statement so needs more than one source and the sources must precisely back the text. I hope you appreciate it that this sort of policy protects biographies from a one-off negative comments. Don't forget to sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ Doug Weller talk 18:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. To avoid editing my own page, might you then restore the comment but remove the harder to prove part about being one of the few in the West to warn...? Though I'd contend that the SF Chronicle's headline about my "Beating the CIA" rather makes that point.

As for the four tildes, I got nothing -- I edit a few pages from time-to-time, but am hardly the expert. User:Chuck DeVore Chuckdevore (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Struggling to find time, I'll try to think about this tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor with a revisionist afrocentrist agenda

Hey Doug,

I'm just letting you know that there is an editor (Daniel Power of God) with an afrocentrist agenda. You encountered him in some pages. He's not here to build an encyclopedia. As he's misrepresenting sources, using unspecialist/outdated sources and cherry picking sources to push his point of view in many pages. Just take a look at his edits and you'll see what I'm talking about. Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've run into him before, but I'm struggling for time. I need some good examples, I can't do the research right now. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Gungywamp

Hi Doug, I noticed that when searching the home page for Gungywamp it initially includes the word "mountain" (see attached screen shot). Mountain is not correct and needs to be changed to "archaeological site" but I can't figure out where to change it. Any help is appreciated! Thx, Station9 (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Screen shot
The problem seems to have been in WikiData, where Gungywamp was classified as a mountain. There was no other information about Gungywamp, so I changed it to "archaeological site". - Donald Albury 00:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Albury: Thank you! -Station9 (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

YGM

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

- DVdm (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wider forum for move request

Hi, Doug Weller, I've put in a move request at Talk:Hagley Park, since I believe it needs to be disambiguated from Hagley Park, Worcestershire, on which I'm working at present. There's a matter of principle over primacy involved and I therefore think a wider forum needs to be alerted to the discussion so that it doesn't fall victim to regional rivalries. I know there's a mechanism for inviting wider participation and would be grateful if you'd let me know how to initiate it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool150: I see you've been given a link as to the proper way to do it, which I suggest you follow. A dab page can then be created called Hagley Park, if the move succeeds. I suggest you mention that. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that seems to have done the trick. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5, you used Template:Feminist. Did you mean to use {{ping|Feminist}}, much I did to ping you? pbp 03:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: oops. Thanks. Doesn't matter now as I had it all backwards. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

birthday of Max Simon Cohn (aka Max Frank Collin)

http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/gedenkbuch/gedenkbuch.html


Do you consider the Munich Gedenkbuch a reliable source? The entry for Siegfried Cohn (father of Max Simon Cohn) lists his birthday as August 23, 1913 (born in Munich). See the bottom of this pasted entry (I made it bold):


Cohn, Siegfried (Itzig) Kaufmann Geboren am 09.03.1868 in Waitze, Kr. Birnbaum, Bez. Posen verheiratet

Deportiert am 04.06.1942 nach Theresienstadt Ermordet am 23.03.1943 in Theresienstadt (16. Adar II 5703)


Eltern: Moritz Simon Cohn, Kaufmann und Pauline Cohn, geb. Ury

Geschwister: Gustav, geboren 28.10.1877 Wronki, gestorben 19.01.1942 München, Suizid


Heirat: Heirat am 28.01.1909 in Hannover mit Gertrud Anna Cohn, geb. Hoffmann, geboren am 28.04.1882 in Hannover, gestorben am 27.06.1941 in Heilanstalt Bendorf-Sayn

Kind(er): Max Simon, geboren am 23.08.1913 in München Ruth, geboren am 03.09.1920 in München

Thanks,

Precis (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor behavior

Hi Doug. See this version [5] and this version [6].

The former overview of Saudi Arabian history was messy and every kingdom/state has its section, Nabataean, Lihyan, Kindah, Thamud and Dilmun (two sentences maximum for many sections, transmitted from their respected articles long time ago). What I did was for the most part merely re-writing and adding additional informations, given utmost concern to WP:MOS, including consistency and layout.

This version [7] is preferred by me, Wikaviani[8]and Jbh[9]. And even asked a third party to give his opinion, who stated there probably shouldn't be separate sections for every kingdom/state and adviced to make the history section more concise.

It is a dead end with Oxfordlaw, he is determined to revert the version. Nabataeus (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: try WP:DRN. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I tried the 3O method of dispute resolution, and the participant cited his opinion (separate sections shouldn't be made), not only did Oxfordlaw insist on his manuel of style that was discouraged by the third party, but he goes against the preferred version of three users, thus against the general consensus. I really did everything possible to extract opinions and multiple users' thoughts on the issue, which they gladly did, however all of it was in void in the face of Oxfordlaw determination. So my last resort was trying to ask for an admin arbitration. You could direct me to another admin if you're busy. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nabtaeus: I'm very sorry, but that's not part of our role. [WP:DRN]] is quite different from third opinion. If you do that and a decision goes against him, then I can deal with conduct if he ignores it. Let me know what happens. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
My case was closed, since Oxfordlaw was not engaging in the discussion! Anyhow, the version that Oxfordlaw revert is supported by multiple users, here[10]and here[11], and me (while the former version was not preferred by anyone). There's a consensus but Oxfordlaw would edit war the minute I restore the version. What should I do? Nabataeus (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User violating ban?

Is this user in violation of his ban?[12] He's putting all kinds of BLPs on AfD. I only recognize Heather Boushey, who is an influential liberal think tank wonk. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Noting that the user was blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #325

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

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.


FYI

Hi Doug, hope you're doing well. Minor thing, but letting you know as the blocking admin. علاء pointed out that Jobas has a declared alt on ar.wiki, Jobas1. It hasn't edited here since your block, but I'm letting you know in case you want to match the block to the main account. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, thanks, do you think I should just blocked that account? And I'm not sure which you are saying is the "main account". Doug Weller talk 12:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Jobas is the main account. Alaa said that on ar.wiki, Jobas1 declares itself as a valid alt of Jobas, which you blocked here. If it were me, I'd just match the blocks of the two accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I'm clearly having a bad day. Which two accounts are blocked? Are you saying I should block the Jobas1 on enwiki, which would make sense in any case? Doug Weller talk 13:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. You blocked Jobas as a CU block. Jobas1 is not blocked, but is the same person according to ar.wiki admins. Sorry for any confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @TonyBallioni: for help. Hello Doug, you blocked Jobas indefinitely on 30 May 2017, and here user Jobas1 wrote that his main account is Jobas 17:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Also if you see this edit (and the page history) you'll see that he edited the page by both accounts --Alaa :)..! 17:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Alaa thanks, although the link to "here" goes to a non-existent article. I can't seem to ping you, either it's my keyboard (which was wonky earlier) or the characters in your name, but I couldn't add "}}" after them. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for notification --Alaa :)..! 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You comment at ARCA

I think you meant to ping Rebbecca but you mistyped the template --Shrike (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike:, thanks. Did a new correct ping, signed, saved, removed the unwanted sig. That should work. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sofia Airport

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia Airport. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

URGENT EMAIL - affecting PlusNet / EE phone network

Doug I have just sent you an extremely urgent personal email regarding a range block you placed earlier today. I believe it may impact upon an entire phone network - please read immediately and acknowledge here. It would seems appropriate for me to contact other admins if you are unable to respond soon. Many thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the issue has now been resolved. I'm no longer seeing a block on my phone network. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Euro colonization of America

Thank you for the welcoming. I understand your point of view as well. However it would be more enlightening I believe, to denote the Norse explorers as Norwegians, as "Norse" means whoever from Scandinavia at the time. The "Norse" went to Constantinople and Bagdad for trade as well, but there weren't many Danes and Norwegians among them, just to take an example. Same goes for the South of England, where there were mostly Danes. The Viking explorer leaders in America were all Norwegian, and the fellowship was almost exclusevily of Norwegian descent too. Erikson was also an official hirdman of the King, and knowledge of the new lands reached back, as witnessed by Adam of Bremen. But I will find a proper source before I edit that particular page again. All statements in the other page u made revisions in, were sourced properly and I also made a little comment for you about the area names in America. You seem to know a lot about this too, I assume you know that the locations of Helluland and Markland are believed by an abundance of researchers, to be Baffin and Labrador. Vinland however is disputed. The book with the map by professor Gjerset (1915) reflects historians' closest estimated analysis.

Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gange Hrolfr (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As a person of predominantly Norwegian ancestry, I wholly endorse this argument (We were here First! Or maybe a distant second...). As a Wikipedian, however, I needs me some sources before I'll accept any claims in an article.
Gange Hrolfr, please read Identifying reliable sources and using that guide, find some reliable sources that support this content. It shouldn't be too hard, as this is a subject I am not wholly unfamiliar with and your claims track very well with what I know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge Dul-Qarnayn and Alexander the Great in the Quran

Doug, can we begin whatever process is necessary to merge these two articles? Reading the Alexander the Great in the Quran article it seems clear to me that the only place he appears is in the Dhul-Qarnayn story, which means there's nothing that con't be covered in a single article.PiCo (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Alexander the Great in the Quran

An article that you have been involved in editing—Alexander the Great in the Quran—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. PiCo (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) 

PiCo (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Doug, a user whom you had some interactions with in the past (Truexfalse (talk · contribs)) has reactivated himself and is disrupting National Liberation Front (Greece) and Greek WWII-related articles. Could you please have a look? Constantine ✍ 17:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and just now he was kind enough to send an email with the threat "Stop marxist propaganda commies or I will change tactics!" (I tried to keep the bad diction as best I could while translating). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: blocked him for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Funny thing, I edited Plevris's article today. (See my post on his talk page). Doug Weller talk 17:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Doug, I had just reported him at ANI (I guessed you'd be out on a Friday evening ;)). I'll go and remove it. Constantine ✍ 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: - I was on my way to shower when I got your notification. I've now fully protected the page for a week, we'll see how he behaves. Meanwhile, since Greece is under the Balkans DS, I've added a DS notice to the talk page and an alert to his talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, again. Best, Constantine ✍ 18:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ukwuani people

My intent to summarize the Ukwuani source as briefly as possible, so as to try to avoid copyright or other related issues, had an effect on showing a neutral point of view. How would you recommend I go about balancing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Power of God (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Power of God: I think my edit did that. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I meant more generally. A close, literal paraphrasing of a source seems to lead to possible violation of copyright and/or plagiarism policy. "Summarizing" a source seems to lead to possible violation of neutral point of view policy. Both seem to lead to warnings of being blocked from editing.--Daniel Power of God (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Spherical Earth edits and omissons

Greetings Doug. I must say that the format and regulations here are much different than I'm used to. While the editing tools are much more numerous the format is a combination of facebook and a nicer discussion forum. Buts its the facebook resemblance that makes formating harder. Anyway, The section on the Hebrew Bible was historically incorrect and the sources come from the revisionist Wellhausen school of thought which has always been based on racial hated against Jews and nothing to do with actual education. Having mastered this view, and effortlessly defeating all opponents online in one consecutive debate after the other, it was only proper to get true information on to Wikipedia instead of the evolutionary bias. You will notice that in the write-up on the Hebrews the author had only parroted what he learned from the Wellhausen school which is false. In the section on the Hebrew I just removed the work that was there completely since it was a bias and not a true one. In a debate with any professor in the world I cannot lose since my information is the most reliable. After all, why should Wikipedia cater to a political bias against a group of people like Christians? Removing the hate speech and replacing it with education was and is my aim. The sooner the bias hatred against Christianity is removed the more useful Wikipedia will become. I offer real and useful knowledge...knowledge I have not only acquired over years of research, but also have debated and effortlessly won my debates. Also notice I did not edit the section on the Qur'an. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn says the Qur'an teaches flat earth but I did not add that. But since every worldview was given fair treatment it was only reasonable to lay down the truth about what the Biblical actually teaches which is not fairly represented here.

The section on the Book of Job is based on more reliable analysis from Henry Morris among others who have laid down a strong case for a much earlier date than the date atheists have assigned for the Book. There is no mention of the Patriarchs, the Mosaic Covenant, or anything Hebrew. Moses was the compiler and chief editor of the Book in which he preserved. The style of writing and language mirrors all ancient literature known of that time. Having read a great deal of Sumerian literature, the Book of Job is as old as they are. There is no way Job lived in the 4th century B.C. as atheists claim he lived in. Again, without a single mention of the Mosaic covenant or to anything Israeli for that matter proves the case Morris laid out. A good compromise would be to place the Book at 1000 B.C. but even then the style of writing and content therein does not match the the style of writing of any known literature of that later date. And while these days the most reputable scholars on the matter may indeed be the minority on the matter, education should never be a mob rules mentality. That is what I am trying to avoid here, and by doing so making Wikipedia a better and more respectable place for students to learn. As of right now no University professor will allow students to use this page due to the bias given on this page. If I am granted permission to edit out bias and false revisionist history and replace that with greater known facts then perhaps Wikipedia will lose the bias and truly become the online Dictionary it sought to become in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fezzilla (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fezilla:, I really hope no professors are stopping students from reading Wikipedia. We wouldn't want our articles to be used as sources, but good articles will have useful sources that the can research. My advice to you is to use the article talk pages to suggest your edits and get consensus for them. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page gnome)@Fezilla: Wikipedia does not aim to be a dictionary. It is also a secular encyclopedia with academic bias. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for its own citations by its own criteria, since it could allow circular issues and is user generated. Reading Wikipedia should be done with critical thinking and I agree with Doug above that very important are the sources used in articles. Articles are expected to summarize and cite reliable sources, ideally secondary and tertiary scholarly ones. —PaleoNeonate – 01:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

About my omissions and additions[[[[]]]]

Doug Weller, I first want to apologize for opening up a second section to discuss the matter with you, as it may have been more appropriate to say everything in one message instead of two messages. That being said I do want to respond to the claims made that Henry Morris is not a reliable source of information. He is the father of modern creationism and accepted by just about every denomination as authoritative on issues related to Biblical creationism. Some of his best works include The Remarkable Record of Job and The Henry Morris Study Bible which was sources in the Book of Job section. The arguments Morris laid down for an early date for Job are accepted by the majority of Christians who are Christians. No atheist has any authority over the matter and should not be allowed to be in charge of Biblical write-ups here, as all of them are loaded full of errors which are very easily refuted with greater known facts. I used the most reputable sources known in the world for the Spherical Earth section and have spent a year debating atheists for several hours a day effortlessly winning all debates, no contest. I used nothing but the best and most reputable Hebrew lexicons which I sourced in the Spherical Earth section. I used the best English translation of the Bible which is the 1537 Matthew's Bible, as William Tyndale and his friends were the best translators ever and did the best job translating Hebrew and Greek into English as all lexicons and Bible Commentaries strongly agree with all Tyndale influenced translations over the erroneous blunders of the Geneva scholars. My rule violations were not intentional but the compilers of the original content made many deliberate errors which, I believe, has hurt Wikipedia's reputation as a true educational source. So perhaps you may take my information of the Spherical Earth and reformat the information in a way that best suits this site. I clearly am an amateur to this site and am now worried that any other edits I may do may result in me getting banned. I am merely here to contribute true information to this database that is based on higher sources of information and not the political bias. Christianity is the world's largest worldview and there is no reason why we should be bastardized by this site with false information coming from atheists who lose debates to me on a daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fezzilla (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a winner...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

What Professors Really Do Say About Wikipedia

Doug Weller. Thanks for the reply to my first message. I will take your advice and discuss the information with others. Though I must be real and blatantly honest with you about what Professors say about Wiki and why they say these things. I have yet to meet a Professor or hear about a Professor from students and friends who have attended College that will allow their students to use Wikipedia. The reason is (a) students need to learn how to do their own research without assuming (b) Wiki holds a political bias against certain issues. Some Professors will fail their students for using Wikipedia. I have not been dishonest with you but have expressed to you the truth of what College Professors think about Wiki. But I figure if Wikipedia because more educational and lost the political bias then Professors, or at some of them, may change their tune a little. Now the contributors who do all the write-ups involving all things Biblical are wrong in everything I've read here. What good does it do to allow such erroneous write-ups if in the end the person who holds the view and debates someone like me will just lose their position rather quickly. Just think how strong and reliable Wikipedia information would be if indeed it lost the political bias against all things Bible.

I am out there debating people holding the same information your contributors here have posted in the sections I had corrected. These debates are humiliating atheists because their information is destroyed by my research in which I can and do destroy all arguments opposed to greater known facts. I have effortlessly refuted the information with the greatest of ease. With this said, I believe it would be less embarrassing to all students, regardless of their beliefs, if for once Wikipedia allowed Biblical facts instead of all the political bias which has done nothing but cause a constant friction among Americans and great embarrassment among those holding this fallacious information that very badly needs to be corrected before others are also embarrassed by me and others now using method of refuting atheists which is now causing mass extinction among the flat earth movement.

I am just trying to be reasonable and keeping it a real learning experience. Students need to be educated and not bastardized by a political bias. Keeping it real and genuine is what Wikipedia should be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fezzilla (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome)@Fezzilla: I am not answering for Doug Weller, only participating. I must be real and blatantly honest with you about what Professors say about Wiki, These debates are humiliating atheists because their information is destroyed by my research in which I can and do destroy all arguments opposed to greater known facts. I have effortlessly refuted the information with the greatest of ease.: these are your personal beliefs. Wikipedia editors, like anyone, have their own beliefs but that should not prevent them from making abstraction, reviewing reliable sources, selecting them and representing them. We also have a related article, reliability of Wikipedia. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, bad sampling. My astronomy professor was all about checking Wikipedia to find the sources that were cited. My early American lit prof thought it was better than any random Google search or Geocities page, just not stable or professional. But "professors don't trust Wikipedia" is one of the usual complaints from people who didn't get their way that our grapes must be sour.
As for most of our Bible related pages, they're based on sources usually written by professors, many of them at seminaries, that just don't pander to the Sunday school crowd. There's a difference between being well-read and "anti-Bible." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fezilla: any professor who fails a student simply for misuse of Wikipedia has clearly failed in his duties as an educator. A key part of teaching is to teach students how to distinguish between good and bad sources, failure to do that is really pretty unforgivable. So is failing someone just because they used a poor source, of course. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Oops, broken ping for User:Fezzilla. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As a professor myself, the issue for me is the use of any tertiary source, not political bias. I tell my students it's fine to start here but to follow the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_51&oldid=1145704713"