Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Wikidata weekly summary #344

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Writing a maintenance script to make configuring WikibaseQualityConstraints easier (phab:T209958)
    • Working on new ID generator using different SQL to attempt to stop lock errors when creating lots of items (phab:T194299)
    • Making more parts of the Query Service UI more configurable such as the copyright page, title, and started work on the favicon / logos (phab:T194175)
    • Adding tracking for Wikibase Lua functions so we can see how they are used on various different projects (phab:T191416)
    • Working on fixing alignment issues with glosses (phab:T207401)

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

I removed and deleted your comment. Unless I'm missing something, I can't understand why you would say what you said. In any event, can you please oversight it? Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, but it was just a note about what anyone who looked at the page could see with two clicks. Doug Weller talk 23:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps but as a CU you still shouldn't say it. If you were one of the "simple folk" from Camelot, it'd be different.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong information on Nimrod

Why did you revert my correction? That text is wrong! Here is NO secular consensus that Nimrod is a "conflation" of other kings! On the contrary, even Josephus cited his is a real person. What to you propose to remoce that false paragraph then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valter.wolf (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, other editors already answered you in their edit summaries : [1], [2], [3]. Also, please read WP:LEADCITE.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Historicity of the Bible

Hello Doug Weller, thank you very much for your nice welcome. First about the "However ..." quote with the new york times source, i can possibly agree that the "However" might add distrust but I added a reliable source for it so I hope it can be kept in a more neutral format. The second point is to ask why where the rest of my changes reverted? The claim that few historical facts confirm the Bible chronology is not correct. If we are talking about discredited claims, than I can make a better case for referencing Finkelstein whose denial of United Monarchy is rejected by most archeologists and biblical scholars[1]. So using his reference to sustain that only few of the Old Testament's narratives are considered true is not correct. Also as stated by Peter Enns (reference a) and Jennifer Wallace (reference c) only the pre United Monarchy period is doubtfull as the rest has at least a few confirmations[2]. So changing the wording from "but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's narratives" to "but broadly speaking they lend support to some of the Old Testament's narratives" makes in my opinion a better case of the reality. Also stating that "However, large portions of it are legendary and it contains many anachronisms" is very far-fetched as there is no scientific way to prove this. At most you can state that this is a general opinion between scholars but most certainly it's not a fact like our dear law of gravity. Pardon me for any typos.

Best regards, Awerey1 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awerey1: thanks, but could you please move this to the article talk page for transparency's sake and so others can participate? Doug Weller talk 16:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
  2. ^ http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/bible-archaeology.php

Sure Doug Weller. Thanks. Awerey1 (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Doug Weller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #345

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Not much happened this week because we took some time off over the holidays. Getting back to full speed again in the next days.

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Talk:Did Six Million Really Die?.
Message added 01:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanitha Mathil

Hi Doug Weller, Thanks for your attention to the article. it was actually a social movement which absolutely can be referred in its name. Obviously, there are usages with name similar to it. Would you please explain a what should I clarify in it ? DreamSparrow Chat 08:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Church of God, a Worldwide Association

I've deleted it and salted it. He can go to a deletion review if he likes - my back is broad (figuratively speaking). Deb (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt he'll go to that effort. He'd have to communicate, for a start. I should have looked at its deletion history! Doug Weller talk 13:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I shouldn't have let it ride... Deb (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Mail

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.

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Replied. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Information on Ninrod is wrong, please removed

About your message to me: you are not really using any realyabe sources for that paragraph who says Nimrond is a Conflation". Those "editors" also failed to give any source for this claim in the article. It sounded to me more like their opinion than actual historical data - and that go against the neutrality of the article. In fact, no one can state that Nimrod is any kind of "conflation", on the contrary, he can be strongly associate to some historical figures individualy (see links belos). Further, if Joshephus is "not a reliable source" then neither are you at all, so that misleading piece of information you added should be definitively removed! If you don't give a better reason to keep soon, I will go ahed and remove it again myself. Looking forward to hearing for you.

Some links:

"There is a resemblance between Nimron and Gilgamesh" https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nimrod

"What Josephus says here is precisely what is found in the Gilgamesh epics" http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/10/30/Who-Was-Nimrod.aspx

"Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological Means" https://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means

Etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valter.wolf (talk • contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Valter.wolf: that statement is sourced in the Historical interpretations section. The lead summarises the article and does not itself need sources, although those must be in the article. "Some historical figures individually" is the same as conflation - I don't think that you understand the word "conflation". It means "The merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one." We'd never use the Creationist Petrovich as a source for this. Please use the talk page of the article in the future. Doug Weller talk 07:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Doug.weller: I know what "merge" means. This is exactly my point: If one CANNOT associate Nimrod to a historical figure, you also CANNOT state that he is a "merge" or "conflation" of "several" historical figures. Why would you say that? That statement is BIASED and go against the neutrality of the article - specially by using the word "failed", which is negative. Im kindly asking you to simply remove it from THAT opening section, any source you might have, please save it to the "historical interpretation section", as you said yourself. Just removed it! (ps: I will add that to the article talk page as well. Im writing to you because you first threat me with blocking. Please, don't threat me again, ok?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valter.wolf (talk • contribs) 22:52 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference between associating Nimrod with any one historical figure, which Doug is telling you is not supported by reliable sources, and conflating, or merging, legends about several, possibly historical, figures into one about Nimrod. Warning you that your behavior may result in a block is a courtesy. Please avoid the behavior that prompted the warning. - Donald Albury 12:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Whatever argument Valter is trying to make is completely illogical. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki itself is a poor source

Wiki itself is a poor source of info, peddling past scholarly error, Herods death is no longer accepted as 4 BC. Astronomers no longer favor the 4 BC eclipse. Surely you know this. So why protect a 100 year old mistake. Many of these line of topics have disputed information, yet it is paraded as factual. Why not put better sources instead of complaining about someone else's source. And the source is a respected author, a qualified source. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas Paine1776: take it to the appropriate talk pages. And I've warned you before about changing text so that it doesn't match the sources. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, it seems Doug here wants to give me a final warning for saying that my race no longer exists. Judging from his commitment to defending certain pages...I wonder why? Cohencidence?

talk

Very funny - the IP wrote among other things "If we go down, we are going nuclear. We do not need "codes" to do it. I think you should consider your wording and not draw the conclusion that Agenda 2030 is complete. To the last child...we WILL bring you with us to the firestorm. Luxembourg is the Eagles Nest so we hear. "[4] Doug Weller talk 10:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #346

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Working on getting final pieces in place to regularly run constraint check jobs so all constraint violations get fed into the query service (phabricator:T204031)
    • Fixed alignment issues with Glosses on Lexeme pages (phabricator:T207401)
    • Working on getting the layout right for the termbox in the mobile view so that in the future you can also see labels, descriptions and aliases in different languages on mobile (phabricator:T207150)
    • Getting ready to start working on basic Shape Expression support

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.


List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

Hi, my edit from oldest continously inhabited areas in europe was recently deleted; the settlement in town of Przeworsk existed before first mention in medival era, theres way more information about town at polish languague page of wikipedia; heres http://www.przeworsk.um.gov.pl/historia also option to view a bit about town in english languague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyerchak (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gyerchak: that was because the article is about continuously inhabited cities. Not settlements, not even towns, and Przeworsk is a town and became a town in 1394. Sorry about that, but it just doesn't qualify. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: allright thanks for explaination, however i noticed that most of "cities" under the page have counted inhabitation sice actually beeing villages and Argos for example was changing it s status and it ended up as a town similar in size to Przeworsk.

Also after 1394 Year Przeworsk get literally City Laws (pol. Prawa Miejskie) in past role of Przeworsk was higher compared to now; it was second biggest city in area after Przemyśl https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/timeline/446682eb320bc250544a71005e700bf2.png population at 1490 was 2000; exactly same as of Kraków 1250, so it totally count as city, nevermind with that. in my oppinion it s just quite a bit not clear segregated on whole article with the cities : they are segregated by date of being inhabited as a village settlement, in my oppinion they should be segregated by something like when they get city status to look more clear and avoid miss-leadings. thanks for discuss. for example: Przeworsk was a long continously inhabitted settlement since 4500 BCE and became offically city at 1394 CE now is in curret standards a town (althought still with city laws becouse according to Polish laws there can be only City Status) *just for an example even if it don't count second example :Argos started as a village about 7000 years ago, but gained city role way much more later (around 1st Milenium Bce?) third example : Koszalin inhabitation on page is also counted as the time it become village

everything is sorted by starting the "continous settlement" which made me that mislead about Przeworsk, if it really count by it, in my oppinion in that case Przeworsk would deserve have such tittle to be honest. creating a tab with approx date of becoming city which would be sorted by it would be good idea.

@Gyerchak: could you please copy your comment above to the talk page of the article so others can see it. It's certainly true that there are other problems with the article. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Could You do it instead of me and tag me i m completly new on Wiki Community and i don't know yet how to do all things well there :/ (i will read some articles about all of it soon for sure)

January 2019

Information icon Hello, I'm My Favourite Account responding to your comment left on my talk page regarding a response, left minutes before, on Flyer22 Reborn's talk page that you consider didn't seem very civil by Wikipedia's high standards. Was it strictly necessary given they had already removed the offending comment, and would it have resulted in the same outcome had the same interchange taken place on my talk page, probably not. As you haven't a problem with the civility of any previous or subsequent remark or edit summary, there is clearly no consensus on what is considered polite and respectful. Furthermore, on the topic of civility, so many have felt the need to remark at length that it has its own category, of which this has to be my favourite. If it is built on such collaboration, it's not without being heavy influenced by those who can conjur a "consensus" or summon a "friend" when needed. A microcosm of modern life, I feel too often it isn't about what is known, but who is known. My Favourite Account  😊 15:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6yguuFnSAs a documantery about salih ibn mansur of nekor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakaria the Riffian (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Zakaria the Riffian (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You changed my editing while they werent false

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fVud0e8BK4 its a documantery about ibn firnas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT6c8DdK6O4 another documantery about ibn firnas https://www.temehu.com/imazighen/berberism.htm https://www.jesuismort.com/tombe/abd-el-kader#general www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/authors/Amir-Abd-al-Qadir.aspx https://historiek.net/averroes-filosoof-1126-1198/79769/ https://larbigraine.ovh/origines-berberes-meconnues-de-lemir-abdelkader/ https://historiek.net/aemilianus-ca-207-253/3311/ these are my sources about all the subjects i changed I gave you also dutch and french sources Abdel Kader was a Arabized berber from banu Ifran Tripolitania was a Berber republic not a Arab one even its first stateman was Berber Republic of sale was the Republic in the arab world Aemilianus was a Mauretanian the Mauretanians were an ancient Berber peoples Removing my editing while they were true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakaria the Riffian (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Zakaria the Riffian (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zakaria the Riffian: I meant the article talk page so others can see it. You meed to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. YouTube rarely meets are criteria as a reliable source (RS) and certainly not one that claims as fact someone flew. Studies in Comparative Religion fails, not only because it isn't a journal of history but because it's a very dubious one given that so many of its contributors shared the fringe belief that all religions sharesingle, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge has come. None of the websites seem to meet our criteria either, eg the article on Historiek is called an editorial and has no author. Larbigraine is a blog by a journalist. We need academic sources. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

and is temehu.com about berber history a good source

I am new on wikipedia after i did read the help articels its still hard for me the Youtube videos were documantarys so i dont understand why they werent valid i dont want to be annoyed but Tripolitania Republic wasnt a arab republic its stateman was a berber and its a fact that the people of zuwara and the Nafusa mountains are berber and both languages were Arabic and Berber call it then atleast a Berber-Arab republic not a arab one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakaria the Riffian (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zakaria the Riffian: Temehu.com says "Our aim is to serve the needs of our guests and make available to them a wealth of travel information and an array of itineraries & tours to Libya." It's a commercial website selling tours. So no, it's not a reliable source. So far as the YouTube videos go, not all documentaries are equal. I can show you documentaries that say they prove UFOs are real. It's all to do with being reliably published and again I refer you to WP:RS. YouTube has been discussed many times at the reliable sources noticeboard - WP:RSN, where you can ask these questions if you want another opinion.
The YouTube video just above is by someone called Achraf Bellali and he posted it himself. We hardly ever used self-published works unless they are by a noted expert and he's writing/whatever in his speciality (some experts are cranks in other fields). The first one is an amateur enthusiast using the YouTube video editor to make his videos. Neither are reliably published.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I am saying that reliable sources are at the core of the way Wikipedia works. I have spent some time searching for sources for the Republic and found none that called it a Berber republic. I tend to use Google books that have previews and academic articles (I have a subscription to JSTOR which hosts a lot of academic journals. Google Scholar can be useful but but throw up trash as well as gold. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

ofcourse nobody will call it a berber republic

Westerners always see Arabic speaking peoples as arab. Its our history nobody should steal our history also if some Europeans call it a Arab republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakaria the Riffian (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Your edit did not correct a typo"

Well, leave my edit the way it is. 😊 Maggijnr (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused and have posted a reply to your talk page. It looks as though you aren't willing to comply with our guideline. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request

Revdel is necessary here, I think, but I'm involved and it's just a little too messy for me to want to do an IAR revdel. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #347

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Structured data for Commons: multilingual captions are deployed on Commons on January 10th (documentation)
    • The Wikidata Query Service has been encountering some data corruption issues that impact the results you can see when running a query. Some may still be running. You can check the current ticket for more updates.
    • New dashboard for percentage of pages on a Wikimedia project make use of data from Wikidata (doesn't include sitelinks, doesn't include Commons file and category pages for now)
    • Science Stories, a project highlighting women in sciences, uses Wikidata
  • Development
    • Solving an issue that blocked deployments over the past weeks (phab:T212427)
    • Improved the visual appearance of glosses (phab:T207401)
    • Fixing problems with reverting Sense addition (phab:T211438)
    • Improving our Javascript to be more standard (phab:T210744)
    • Working on performing more constraint type checks in PHP before falling back to SPARQL (phab:T209504)
    • Making the query service logo and favicon configurable in one's own Wikibase (phab:T212210)
    • More work on displaying the termbox on mobile (phab:T207150)

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.


you deleted my reference to a film on the Tempest Stela

Hi Doug, the very reason for which you deleted the reference is indeed wrong because teh film The Tempest Stela questions the existence of the Exodus (leaving all options open) taking the Tempest Stela datation (see Ritner, alos interviewed in the film) as a clue to Ahmose 1 being King of Egypt during the eruption of Thera. He is the one who has thrown Hyksos (a people originating from Canaan, coincidentally like the early Jewish people) out of Egypt, putting an end to their ruling the country (the north of the country, to be accurate). The film suggests that the Exodus myth could be based on this (forced) migration of the Hyksos back to Canaan. Everything in the film os based on Scientists' talks around the Tempest Stela texte and the datation of the eruption of Thera. So it sheds a new light on the Exodus myth without daring to impose definitive answers. Everyone can make its own opinion. Visitors of the page on the Tempest Stela can benefit from knowing about this film as its success among the egyptologists community shows it. Perhaps you can suggest a better way of adding this reference, I'm open. I have an article readable online in English which you can read on this if you want. Cheers, Hughes Balmain (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Hughes Balmain, I see no indication that this documentary is reliable, reliable enough to cite. Please see WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with Drmies. The other problem of course is that you don't seem to want to use it as a source for anything specific but to suggest that people see the film if they are interested in the subject, unless I've misunderstood you. I can see where it might be an interesting film however, given this review.[5] Are there any other detailed reviews? Doug Weller talk 19:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User not reliably screening sources before removing them.

You previously left this message at the talk for the user Alssa1. They removed it within 3 minutes of seeing it, seemingly without addressing it, but I did happen to see it and I noticed a very similar edit right before at Alternative for Germany. They removed a source that appropriately supplemented the statement "Parts of the AfD have racist,[21 Islamophobic,[22] anti-Semitic[23] and xenophobic[11][24][25] tendencies...", specifically in reference to some anti-Semitic tendencies in some of the parties supporters. As I noted, nowhere does this suggest that the entire party has this view, which is what they claimed in their edit. I'm not sure if this will be a pattern, but it does concern me. Their front page clearly states they have a strong ideological stance, and I worry that it is affecting their editing. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: thanks, left a warning. Let me know if there are other problems. I agree it's a concern. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive pest

Hi Doug, this user has made nothing but unconstructive edits since September last year, and has been constantly warned. Would you consider a block to give those warnings teeth? Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I blocked the pest for a week. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
Thanks all. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Newbie just trying to get it right

Hi, Doug, thanks for being a guardian at the door for Wikipedia. After a long day’s work, I see that all my changes to Shimon Gibson were backed out. And yes, I was working mostly from his CV so I understand why it needs to be redone. I am still trying to figure out how to add/remove references and cites so today I was going to go back and work on that. In your comments you mention a style guide so I will read that first. I will try to reinsert his photo. I’m not sure why it was removed, it was a snap I took in the field so it is public. I think. I looked at some other pages that are more head shots so I will crop the picture if that was the reason for removal. I appreciate you providing me with information on where I made mistakes and I will try to adhere to Wikipedia standards as I learn them. Thank you, Gretchencotter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchencotter (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC) 

I see that Sinebot says unsigned.  Sorry, I used my user I’d.  My name is Gretchen Cotter.  Also, I have been working on the Mt. Zion Excavation with Shimon Gibson for the past few years.  When I saw how sparse his Wiki entry was I asked him if I could update it for him.  He agreed.  I was going to add sources once I could figure it out. I did read some wiki help pages but I guess I am a slow learner.  Thanks again for your feed back.  Gretchen Cotter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchencotter (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Replied at talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Shimon Gibson’s Wiki Page.

Doug, I can’t tell you how helpful your feedback has been. I am still digging through all the pages you pointed out to me.

The current page for Shimon Gibson was created some time ago and some of the sources referenced are either out of date or missing.

I spoke to Shimon on the phone today and learned that he does not like the currently public wiki page at all. He says there is information that is just plain wrong (which is how I got involved in the first place).

How would I get permission to completely delete his existing page and start all over with a format that is not based on his CV? Starting over would make it easier for me to follow one of the helpful templates you directed me to.

Also in our discussion he was disturbed to hear that the photo I updated yesterday was considered copyrighted by GoodReads and he is anxious to get that resolved as he is the true owner. (Today I uploaded a picture that I personally took but it is of lesser quality and Shimon would prefer I use the disputed one I uploaded yesterday). 

Again, thank you for your help and advice.

Gretchen Cotter, user id Gretchen Cotter Gretchencotter (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Jamaas9

You had a discussion with Jamaas9 just before they were Indef blocked. User:HistoryofTheAryans admits to being Jamaas9, who is editing in violation of their block. Should someone file an SPI or will an Admin address this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Zekelayla

Heya, Doug. Long time no see. I was perusing Wiki pages relevant to current news items, and read the talk page for Ilhan Omar. I saw that the new user Zekelayla had been blocked after having been warned by you about the ARBPIA editing restrictions in the I/P subject area, being subsequently (and politely) reminded of that fact by JBL, and then proceeding to post several comments anyway after acknowledging JBL's secondary warning. All well and good. But... I saw that he made another comment about the article's content at 18:13 on the 11th, when he was supposedly blocked. I'm a bit confused by that, but I'll quite readily admit I don't know fully how blocks work, or whether time zones play a part in the implementation of block. I'd suspect that's the case.

Regardless, I'm leaving this message because I had clicked on his contributions after seeing the talk page, and saw that he recently edited Telem (Israeli political party) and it's associated talk page. The page doesn't carry a DS banner, but due to it being a political party in Israel, I was almost certain it was covered under the I/P editing restrictions. I was going to post a warning/reminder to him, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention instead, given the previous block. Quintus Symmachus (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Quintus Symmachus: thanks for letting me know. I've checked and the user's block had expired. He can edit articles or content that aren't clearly about the conflict , so I think the political party article is ok to edit unless content is added that is clearly about the conflict. If you have any doubt about edits in the future please don't hesitate to ask me. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, Quintus Symmachus: they're back on Ilhan Omar: diff. --JBL (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
JBL They are allowed to use talk pages - properly of course, BLP and civility apply to talk pages. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Mail

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.

- LouisAragon (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Harassment on Wikidata

You might wanna check this out.[6]-[7] Probably LTA Lagoo sab.[8]-[9] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Interesting. Seems dealt with and it's useful to know about the full LTA report. I had a lovely death threat on Meta yesterday from the Dog and Rapper vandal. You did get me email, right? Doug Weller talk 10:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

noticed some odd editing

Hi Doug. I have not been editing much lately but noticed this major change which was done in many different small steps by a large number of users which have done nothing else but make these edits ([10]). I was tempted to just roll it all back (no sources, nothing I recognize, etc)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: the IP is London School of Economics and Political Science (I did grad work there), undeclared student project? Needs attention though from our education people. Doug Weller talk 06:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Main concern is WP:DUE. It is possible I am just not up to date, but there are not many citations being done to show why this new sections' sources are really notable. Obviously with a subject like this we can not just put in everyone who ever published anything. Seems you have a discussion going, but I hope they'll have justifying the notability in mind as a probably concern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

General Question on TBANs and such

Hello Doug, if a user were to be, say, TBANned for general incompetence at sourcing-related issues, and came off the TBAN going right back into the same sorts of incompetence, does getting them TBANned again require a whole new ANI, or is there some kind of expedited version? I'm not saying things are there at this point, and they might not get there, but just so I know what the options are if what I suspect will happen does in fact happen. Alephb (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alephb: another TBan would require ANI. A block probably wouldn't. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks.Alephb (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Charles Pellegrino

Hi Doug, I have made another attempt to provide some balance to the section on the controversy surrounding Last Train to Hiroshima. I hope this addresses the concerns you had with my previous attempt. If not, I would appreciate your discussing it by answering the comments I made on the talk page. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of human prehistory: 10 mile square city 11,000 years ago

You wrote: "‎Holocene: no, there wasn't a 10 mile square city 11,000 years ago". You are most likely right but it would have been interesting to read the followup stories on the subject. I imagined that the truth may have been more like a 2 mile long coastal community that built a new row of beach houses when the first row got water around, and the sea level rising for a period long enough for the inhabitants to build consecutive single rows over a 5 mile stretch. This is not unthinkable. A two mile wide strip with a single row of houses is still sign of a civilisation in such an old point in human prehistory. Since the affair is not settled in the referenced article, assuming the ruins really do exist (BBC is not fooled to lie), it must be OK to mention the possibility. Cobanyastigi (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Coanyastigi: oh they were definitely taken in a bit, quoting Graham Hancock[11] as though he was a serious source is something I don't think they'd do now. And the archaeologists quoted in the article makes it clear there were no cities then. This was, I'm afraid, another example of Hindu nationalists trying to rewrite history. We discuss theses claims at Marine archeology in the Gulf of Khambhat. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


Re: undo

Heres some discussion or mention of this or him: http://yale.academia.edu/JohnColemanDarnell https://escholarship.org/content/qt6c0153p7/qt6c0153p7.pdf

I had added the quote for the usage of the term protective Mehen serpents because it seems to be a possible term for the exact symbol described at the page and that didn't seem explicit enough to me in the current: "Both serpents are manifestations of the deity Mehen, who in other funerary texts protects Ra in his underworld journey. " It also introduces terminology: "Re-Osiris-mummiform"

adding a descriptive passage/analysis for the "first known representation" seemed bit less subjective than the current text found under "Ancient Egypt" in the article

Let me know what you think Thanks I think the description is helpful and I think the exposure of the terms I've mentioned are both helpful additions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagrant hysterical curious (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Lol. @Flagrant hysterical curious:, we both got this wrong. Your edit started "As described by John Coleman Dame" so that's who I searched for. If I'd looked at the source instead I would have found him. He's clearly a reliable source[12] (although a very naughty boy it seems - the Yalie(not a typo, that's what we called it and people still do). Daily had a very interesting article on him several years ago). Go ahead {with Darnell of course). I still sometimes regret having decided not to study Egyptology at Yale because I was (and am) lousy at languages. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective, and for passing on the interesting tidbit about the suspension! I'm a messy editor so I agree 100 with the "both" in regards to "getting it wrong" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagrant hysterical curious (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ouroboros

Regarding Flagrant hysterical curious's edits on Ouroboros, I'd like to point out that "John Coleman Dame" is a typo or something—the author is John Coleman Darnell, now professor of Egyptology at Yale. His book about the "enigmatic netherworld books" is the book that Flagrant hysterical curious used as a source. I have both that book and a book that heavily criticizes it (Following Osiris by Mark Smith, OUP 2017). One of the criticisms is that Darnell regards separate texts, from the tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI, and Ramesses IX, as being based on a single template even though they don't directly parallel each other and simply have similar subject matter. It was this claim by Darnell that Flagrant hysterical curious was adding. So that addition was reliably referenced and well-meaning, but still undue. A. Parrot (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

ok I've added a summary of why I made that edit on the talk for Ouroboros (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC))

@A. Parrot: thanks, I appreciate your expertise here very much. It doesn't sound as though it belongs in the article. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

In page Lurs, a user named Taddah continually is trying to launch an edit war through his continued[13][14][15] baselsss and discussed issues. Despite several tiring debates on the talk page, the user seems is seeking other issues instead of scientific reasons [16]. I ask you please to mediate to solve this issue. Best regards. SHADEGAN (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Youtube source?

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: definitely not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Mongoloid

See also Caucasian race, which I just semi-protected. I blocked User:Sonsuba123--I don't need CU to tell me that that editor is the same as a slew of IPs, all geolocating to the same place. And this makes me think we're dealing someone who's been making dumb (and) racist edits for quite a while. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela

Thanks again for unblocking me. As you can see by my contributions, I am now a fully productive user. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, no. LM has been causing lots of disruptions, some sockpuppetry, and may be heading for another block. Here User talk:SelfieCity, LM taunts editor and threatens future socking. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: I've blocked LM, that's enough. I'd like any details of socking, you can email me aout them if you like. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: you also might want to comment on his talk page as he's requested an unblock. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves by socks

Hi Doug

I see from Durrani Empire that you have been involved with Robert Olivia, a sock of Astore Malik. Among your edits there was a revert of Olivia's undiscussed etc page move. That account made a bunch of other undiscussed moves, all of which I have reverted this morning. Moving the pages back has left redirects from Olivia's undiscussed title and almost always I think those are POV-based titles based around the adding the Khan or Sadozai name rather than anything in the sources. Do I really have to take them all to WP:RfD? He's a sock, so they're technically creations by a blocked user so perhaps CSD would do? - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: sure or give me the names. I always though there was something dodgy. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sure he will be back as he was User:Kapil Dev Lal only days earlier. The ones that I feel need to be deleted are:
They made some other moves that I have reverted but where the redirect seems plausible. Those were mostly related to changing the spelling of Lodhi to Lodi. One I'm not sure about is Farooq Haider, which was created when they moved Farooq Haider Khan.
The others I spotted were actually moves by the earlier sock - Kapil Dev Lal - and related to further messing around with Khan in titles but I think they're probably valid. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Pashtuns wiki Page change religion section,

Hello there Dough,

My apologies on the Pashtun page. I just wanted to remove a non-biased, non informative source. I do not want to engage myself in any troubles here on wikipedia, therefore I am sorry ;) I saw your recent, message on my page. I have many articles,journals, historic books and modern books about the ethnic Hindkowans and Hindki people of Afghanistan (and parts of Pakistan) who are the hindus and sikhs of Afghanistan (they are a Punjabi ethnic group, who came in the 19th century, they still speak their languages at home)+ There are also small Sindhi Hindu living among Afghans too . I hope you can change it back, because fellow Wikipedia editors may think that I am just an amateur Wikipedia editor who wants to vandalize etc. If you want to discuss this with me, Please feel free :) and btw thank for the hint/tip of how to reference properly on wikipedia. When can I add my sources in that section? thanks in advance.

Have you seen my message I placed: I had recently a pending edit on wikipedia with you about wiki/Pashtuns You have sent me a message to discuss this :) I just wanted to discuss and clarify this. Pashtuns are an eastern Iranian ethnic group located in Afghanistan and North western parts of Pakistan (along the border with Afghanistan) During the British Raj, Indian merchants came mostly to Kabul and other city for trade purposes see: Hew McLeod (1997). Sikhism. New York: Penguin Books. p. 251. ISBN 0-14-025260-6. Along with them also Hindus etc. This page that was used as a source to "clarify" the reason why Hindus should have been included in the religion section is not based on anything please see that newspaper page. Yes, Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan are Pashtunized but they are not ethnic Pashtuns. For example you cant count Asian into ethnic English in the UK but you call them British Asians etc etc. But by ethnicity, you cannot call the Sikhs and Hindus Pashtuns. They are Afghans (or Pakistani by nationality) but not ethnic Afghans/Pashtuns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindki this page is about these "Pashtun" Hindus. They are called Hindki and are speaking Pashto outside but Hindko/Punjabi among themselves. Please read this page its very important. Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hindki" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

and A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West provinces, compiled by H A Rose, vol II Page 333 Please see the "Hinduism in Afghanistan" page as well You can even go and travel to Afghanistan or western Pakistan and ask a hindu himself whether he is a native Punjabi/hindki haha. I hope you get my point.

The only "Source" the person who made that change about Hinduism in Pashtuns was a random Hindu newspaper as you can see by yourself. thehindum/news/national/tattooed-blue-skinned-hindu-pushtuns-look-back-at-their-roots/article22645932 This is not a legit page to use as a source its not even sourced biased, not to be racist but even the surnames arent Pashtun. . Please look at the pages I gaven for more info ;)

So in short these people are ethnic Hindki/Hindko (so they are an indo-aryan ethnic group part of the Punjabi people) and moved to the region. You can look it up.

But the most clear and best source to use for my argument are found in this book Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). "Hindki". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. which is sourced in this wiki page as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindkowans [1]

I am very open to discuss and hear your arguments if you have :) My apologies for not explaining much during the edit I made, I hope its now clear (my sources and my argument)

Please change it to the change I made (deleting the hindu section) I do not have the power to do that. I have been visiting the Pashtun page for years and this so called info on religion is changed recently because I have never saw it in previous years. 17:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Casperti (talk)

@Casperti: I have no problem with you, but this needs to be copied over to the article talk page in the section I started. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thats good to hear :) so when I discuss it on that talk page. What should I do next? And Can I edit the religion section and now with references? The only "reference" that claims hinduism among Pashtuns is that Hindu.com news article. The world factbook doesnt say anything about it though (the second reference). Let me know Doug and thank you for your reply. Casperti (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Casperti: please don't start editing today. You need to get input from more experienced editors. I don't think an anonymous entry in a century old encyclopedia passes WP:RS. See what I've written there about the Rahman quote. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I have placed many arguments etc with good sources and references on the talk page. Please correct me if I did anything wrong with the references. And please read my arguments and reference parts. Thank you in advance. Btw I saw you have more than 12 years experience. I have much knowledge about the South-Central asian topics. Maybe you can help me out with tips and trick If you have them please plug them in my talk page. I will look :)

Just an FYI

Your reversion, here. Please note that this particular IP is linked to:

These IPs are also involved in unexplained, poorly sourced, changes to dates of birth:

I confirmed that user:PrinceofFrancia is using these IPs. And upon learning this information, PrinceofFrancia was banned from my talk page for a personal attack(per Greyjoy). After PrinceofFrancia was blocked by Favonian, I believe PrinceofFrancia has taken to using only IPs to continue their disruptive editing(unsourced additions/changes, Wikipedia:OR). Given the nature of this editor's behavior, I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

AND, this revert of your edit on Pleistarchus by; FlavusTitus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and this edit would technically be enough evidence for an SPI. Since now I believe that FlavusTitus is PrinceofFrancia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I've just been too busy, but in any case I'd prefer to work off an SPI that's been accepted for CU. Or to have more time to look at it, but tasks just keep accumulating as I find bad articles. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug -- I'm here to ask if I did the right thing, and if not to see if it can be done now. We had an IP post possible info about the location and/or occupation potentially of users on this issue (controversy being her national identity -- you know, I/P issues, classic). I think the attempt was probably a random guess, but I don't think it should be allowed to be displayed, so I collapsed it. Don't want to post this on the dramaboards because that will bring more eyes. Perhaps I'm being too cautious but then again, I thought, maybe if there was in fact a user who matched the alleged descriptions put forward by the IP, they would not want to remove it themselves, so maybe I should. Cheers, and thanks for your help. --Calthinus (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: sorry, I'm not sure how I missed this but it looks ok. I've put the article on my watch list. Doug Weller talk 21:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent contribution

Hi, for my last contribution, why it was not encyclopedic when the former locations recently added in this article is encyclopedic? Thank you to give me a response.✋😀--38.91.106.250 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not watching that article, but I've removed it. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Curious source

Your thoughts on this source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a reprint of the Thomas Johnes translation of 1848. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Belated reply

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.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you receive it? PS: related to the same matter.[17]-[18] Do you know who this is? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Update: Whoever's sock it was, he/she is now blocked.[19] - LouisAragon (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I opened an ANI case as the sockmaster is now using IP socks and more accounts to continue with the harassment.[20] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: sorry to take so long, but your nagging me just now inspired me to take care of it. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. "Don't shoot the messenger", as they say. Will you be able to reproduce the entire narrative/story? - LouisAragon (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Genealogy

Doug, I bowed out of Wikipedia for a couple of years, because I played by your rules, discussed as you suggested, and still had all of of my edits reverted. References to my published works were deleted, and corrections to the misinterpretations of the article writer were also deleted, along with the quotes from from the pieces she misinterpreted. She was supported, no argument, and I was quashed, no argument. That is why I made my comments about the poor reputation of wikipedia, which is true. It is still true, and why teachers and professors won't accept citations of wikipedia from their students' papers. If your contributors can not take constructive criticism, they shouldn't be composing articles. I don't write articles, because I hold myself to a higher standard than I feel that I can deliver in one installment. The corrections that I made to the Anglo-Saxon piece on the House of the Godwins were correct and valid, (and deleted and removed), and backed-up with citations, including the very work that the author of the article misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. Repeatedly. She is not the sole authority on the subject matter, as even a cursory reading of any of the sources, cited by her, or excluded, such as mine, would show. With all due respect, Stanford Mommaerts-Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smommss (talk • contribs) 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

GS case

Doug, you just opposed on General Reminder. Your earlier abstain vote is still there. I assume you forgot to strike it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I did indeed, thanks for the reminder. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Slow edit warring at Dinesh D'Souza

You recently restored a label "conspiracy theorist" to the lead of Dinesh D'Souza. Since you are obviously aware that the article is under BLP discretionary sanctions, though there are no any specific page restrictions in place, I'm asking you, were you aware of this RFC? I happened to discover the RFC in 2016 through a list of open RFCs, I think I decided not to participate because the consensus looked clear, and reckoned my opinion could not have swung the result one way or another.

The RFC was closed in December 2016, but the close was reverted several months later, in September 2017, because the closer was blocked for socking. Still, it looks like there was clear consensus to not include – or do you dispute this reading? If I recall correctly, it was never disputed what the consensus was and edit-warring stopped. I believe nobody ever bothered to request another closer. Politrukki (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The arguments presented in favor of excluding the term in that three-year-old RfC are not policy based. A proper close would have taken that into account. See WP:PNSD. Also see: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. That's just the first page or two of a google search, by the way. Every single one of those sources calls D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiricist". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Major changes to History of English

Hello, I see that you edit this page. There were major changes made that eliminated the topic paragraph with other major changes that didn't make sense. I don't know how to undo all of those changes, and I know you have special apps or whatever that can undo them in one shot. Thanks, 50.27.72.253 (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Issue of "Message to Kurds outside of Iran"

The pages related to Kurds and Azerbaijanis have been hijacked by extremists with dangerous ideologies which are full of misinformation mainly ideologies like Pan-Turkism and Pan-Kurdism which are both Neo-Facist ideologies. Facism has no place in this world. The large majority of these "hijackers" are not from Iran and they hijack the page and write nonsense but get away with it because they "back it up with sources", Wikipedia should seriously begin to start taking note that there are such things known as unreliable sources which are full of arguments which are literally an insult to intelligence. I addressed this issue and told these people in both an indirect and direct way that they have no right to vandalize these article and write rubbish all over the talk pages. When I read the articles I am infuriated at these lies known as "facts" (simply because they have "sources") especially due to the amount of readers which visit these articles and are influenced by these ideologies. I do not need to be told about writing "personal beliefs" (whatever that means because I haven't written anything on my personal beliefs but ok) and Wikipedia's rules such as writing with a neutral point of view and providing accurate sources. I was an IB Diploma student, we had an entire subject, Theory of Knowledge, dedicated to this issue. When you raise the issue of the "Turkic" edit you must know that there should be a clear clarification on the page that Turkic means a Turkic speaking person, it is a linguistic grouping. Without this addition it encourages many people under the influence of ideologies like Pan-Turkism to spread more alt-facts, just read the talk sections on issue related to Iran and you will see literal wars. I am an ethnic Azeri and when I read these articles, which have been largely vandalized, I am horrified. Let me set the record straight, what you are saying is absolutely correct, I must no write things without sources to back it up but the issue here is that many of the articles written on mainly topics related to Iran have been supported with articles which spread misinformation and alt-facts and when someone with no knowledge on this topic reads this they will definitely get the wrong idea. Basically, I am 100% against alt-facts and misinformation.

But here is an example of what I mean from the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds_in_Iran

"Although some Iranian Kurdish nationalist parties want Iranian Kurdistan to be separated from Iran to become an independent republic, there are also confederalist and communist parties with leftist and feminist tendencies which are not separatists and believe in non-nationalist solution for the Kurdish question."

I would just like to say that you should look at the source of this article, it is from an extremely biased source. This is one example of so many of the things I have said.

Anyways, I do not wish to continue this but I have raised my concerns and accepted my mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migboy123 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Totalitarianism page edit

You took down my edit earlier because I lacked a source for my distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. However, my edit was simply referencing an earlier statement made within the wikipedia page that contradicted the later statement.

The earlier statement read, "Totalitarianism is a political concept of a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism." This statement seemed to indicate that totalitarianism was a subset of authoritarianism.

However, the wikipedia entry contradicts itself later by stating that instead of totalitarianism being a subset of authoritarianism totalitarianism is instead distinct from authoritarianism. It says, "Totalitarian regimes are different from other authoritarian ones." I attempted to correct this contradiction.

If you still need a source let me know though!LDBen (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@LDBen: I've raised this at Totalitarianism#Relationship between totalitarianism and authoritarianism which allows other editors to comment. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Another one?

Hi, Doug Weller, I hope you are well? I noticed that this user re-created this as this, and wondered if it was the same editor again. I thought I'd ask you first, as you may already be familiar with the history, but can take this to SPI if you prefer. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are Most Welcome sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion

Hi, Thank you for your helpful contributions. I believe you have an interest regarding history and maintaining NPOV in Wikipedia. There have been a problem in the article Muhammad regarding the short description in the article Talk:Muhammad#Short Description:Founder vs. Promulgator. This problem has taken a long time and still unsolved ‎a lot of edit wars still happening because a lot of people think that the short description doesn't present a NPOV.. I believe if you or other admin editors gave your opinion there it would be very helpful. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam it appears that this has been resolved. I rather wish we didn't have these. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your help. I added the edit back in, this time with a citation. Sheabender (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Information icon Please avoid leaving passive aggressive messages on my page that accomplish nothing in the way of furthering productive discourse. Remember that the need for self-evaluation is ever-present when dealing with those you may not agree with. Please follow the relevant flow chart on how to stay cool. Thank you.Sotuman (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Advising Doug to "stay cool" after Doug (an admin) had previously reminded you not to personally attack other editors is a very odd way of announcing your intention to end up blocked from editing, though it does seem to be something of a tradition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Lol, he comes here to give me advice after writing "LOL, like why is this guy even here? He's like a little Gollum, waiting for my demise or something, and he has nothing to add to the discussion - how sad." Maybe he should take his own advice before dishing it out to others. Doug Weller talk 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It would have been relevant to include in your advice to me to "stay cool" on my talk page why you thought I wasn't doing just that. The fellow who I accurately labeled as like a little Gollum had contributed nothing to the discussion, and was just there to attack me. And if you can't take your own advice, maybe you shouldn't dish it out to me, regarding staying cool. Evaluate the content on the relevant article talk page, and if you must post on my talk page, please explain yourself a little better next time, otherwise it's just a passive-aggressive attack that doesn't address the content of whatever it is I previously said.Sotuman (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Doubling down on the baseless personal attacks. Another tradition of the indef-block-me tribe. All it will take is a complaint about censorship and we will hit the trifecta! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a look at the actual context will help to dispel whatever misgivings misgivings there may be. It is found here. The first contribution I saw from user:Hob Gadling had nothing to do with the discussion that was occurring. It was essentially an ad-hominem attack that did not demonstrate a connection to the content of the discussion as far as I had been involved, and I labeled it as such. He interrupted the discussion to wholly misrepresent me, and pretended to be adding context like some sort of impartial arbitrator, when really the only end-result stated was for user:Sotuman to get blocked. To add meaningful context, one must have observed and understood the peculiarities of the discussion at hand, not rely on information gleaned from any number of other discussions on separate topics. When this precious pseudoscience article is criticized from a couple of different angles, what is the response? To wait silently, hoping for the downfall of those who are not as fanatical about pseudoscience. Maybe my assessment of the situation seems harsh, and I acknowlege that it may certainly be premature, which is to say that there is always hope that any comments Hob may offer in the future will be based on actual discussion content, which would certainly force a re-evaluation of his mission here on Wikipedia.Sotuman (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
For starters; I already have looked up the context. You're POV pushing creationism, specifically flood geology.
For another thing; the context doesn't matter. I've worked with Doug on dozens of articles, seen him work with others on dozens more, and witnessed the rise and fall of dozens of editors who don't even make it to 1000 edits before being indefinitely blocked. I know how Doug behaves, and the behavior you're warning him to stop is something I've never seen him engage in. I also know how editors who are fated to be blocked act. Exactly like what I've seen of you, thus far. You might notice that I've yet to actually advocate for blocking you (which your edits over at Talk:Flood geology would provide me with enough evidence to accomplish), because there's a chance you might actually absorb what I'm saying here and start behaving differently. I don't really expect you to, but I'd be delighted if you surprised me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, thank-you for the kind benefit-of-the-doubt. May it continue to play a significant role in all your advocacies. Context always matters, at least if one wishes to arrive at a correct conclusion about the content. My interactions with Doug indicate that he is basically a nice, caring ,thoughtful person. My posting of the keep cool notice was a case of return-to-sender[1] which you probably didn't need to become involved in. I can't falsify any of your experiences with Doug or the dozens of bad editors whose rise and fall you've witnessed, because it's anecdotal information. I believe you, but there are no citations. I am glad that you didn't make the mistake of lumping me in with people who are not me, despite apparent similarities in behaviour. Every person is different than every other person.[2] So you've expressed some concern regarding the saltiness of my responses on these talk pages, which is "absorbed" and noted as a distinct quality from anyone's merit as a good editor.Sotuman (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty, the more you write, the more convinced I become that you are heading for an indef block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe that you are a nice, hopeful person who tries to bring out the best in everyone. Sometimes we may become frustrated with a person's writing style or some of the things they say, but if it cannot be countered logically, this could mean that introspection is in order. We're all on the same team, after all.Sotuman (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Return to Sender". YouTube. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  2. ^ "Mr. Rogers". Youtube. PBS. Retrieved 18 February 2019.

PrinceofFrancia sock

Per this, FlavusTitus has admitted to being PrinceofFrancia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Pashtuns wiki Page change religion section,

Hello Dough,

Can you please read the whole "Hindu Pashtun" talk page on Pashtuns. I have put more than a dozen sources of the ethnic minority group. But There is no specialist who looked at it yet. Can you find one? Or Can you please read it by yourself? Thanks in advance. Casperti (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong

I respectfully must disagree with you. Jews ARE, in fact, a race. They are an ethno-religious group, meaning they constitute an ethnicity, a religion, as well as a race. Please change the edit on W. E. B. Du Bois back. I don't want to do it, because I don't want it to be misconstrued as edit-warring. Thank you. Shui Yuena (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ethno-religious group != race. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not always, no. But in this particular case, it is true. Jews are a race. We come in many different colors, but we are all one people. That is what makes us our own race. Shui Yuena (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I somehow doubt all Jews would even agree that they are "one people". Regardless, some people, Jews and non-Jews, may refer to Jews as a race, but saying it doesn't make it so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I think all Jews would agree that we are one people. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't see it that way. And the same is true for the opposite: some people may say that Jews aren't a race, but that doesn't make it any more true. Historically and culturally speaking, Jews have always been seen as members of an outgroup, not as part of the mainstream ethnic or racial makeup of the society. Take a look at Jewish history in Europe, throughout the Arab world, in Ethiopia, etc. We aren't white, or black, or East Asian, or South Asian, we're Jews. We're Middle Easterners. Shui Yuena (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shui Yuena: You can think whatever you like, of course, but if you allow your unorthodox ideas to disrupt Wikipedia as you did at W. E. B. Du Bois, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shui Yuena: you are speaking for yourself, not all Jews. I grew up surrounded by Jews and even married one. None of them considered themselves Middle Easterners. Franz Boas whose grandparents were practicing Jews didn't consider himself Jewish. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert Temple/The Sirius Mystery/Nommo (3 entries)

Corrections to the above pages were unjustly 'reverted' by Doug Weller. Errors existed on those pages and defamatory attacks on that particular author, his book, and the 'Nommos' discussed in that book were published on Wikipedia which were a discredit to the reputation of Wikipedia and constituted 'fake news'. The attempts by Beaziepops to rectify these were rejected by Doug Weller who accused Beaziepops of a 'fringe pov'. Beaziepops does not have a fringe pov and resents being insulted by Doug Weller in this manner, which is unacceptable behaviour against someone trying to rectify inaccurate entries. Beaziepops is a new contributor and is getting the impression that the obstinate retention of erroneous and defamatory content is a policy adopted by Doug weller. Beaziepops has noticed some defamatory entries attacking other authors, as well as serious deficiencies in many many entries which Beaziepops had intended to try and rectify, most of them historical entries regarding long dead scientists etc. However Baziepops does not have the impression that Doug Weller is at all interested in the rectification of these problems and that Doug Weller would wish to delete anything which Beaziepops tries to corrrect. Returning to the issue of Temple, Doug Weller has for instance deleted brief descriptions of the contents of some of the books written by Temple. Why is that? Anyone looking at those books can check the accuracy of the brief descriptions of subject matter. These additions are not unreferenced. To claim such a thing is ludicrous. For instance, the fact that Temple's book The Sphinx Mystery contains all desriptions of the Sphinx from Roman times to 1837, many translated for the first time, is a simple statement of fact which anyone opening the book can confirm. How is it a fringe pov to add facts to a Wikipedia entry? The fact that Temple rebutted Carl Sagan and others in a 1997 booklet entitled The Sirius Mystery: Answering the Critics has been deleted. That is a simple sattement of fact. Why has Doug Weller deleted this? Is it a fringe pov to inform people consulting a Wikipedia entry that a publication exists, which had not previously been listed? Temple is listed on Researchgate and the full contents of the booklet Beaziepops has mentioned is available for download on Researchgate. And yet Doug Weller seems to want to conceal from the public the fact of its existence. I call for Doug Weller to recuse himself from having anything to do with Beaziepops's attempts at correcting faulty Wikipedia entries and hand over to some less biased and less offensive editor. Failure to do so would leave Wikipedia open to accusations of dishonesty. And contributors should not be grossly insulted by editors accusing them of having a fringe pov. Doug Weller should be ashamed of his behaviour and an apology to Beazipops seems in order. Beaziepops (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beaziepops: this discussion belongs at WP:FTN or on the talk page of one of the relevant articles. And like it or not, WP:VERIFY is core policy. To avoid cherry-picking or adding insignificant detail we need independent sources, not your analysis of his books. You've been violating WP:NPOV also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
@Beaziepops: Doug Weller was not calling you "fringe". He was referring to the encyclopedia's WP:FRINGE policy, which all contributors should familiarize themselves with before adding content to articles that cover topics that diverge from the mainstream understandings about a given subject. Emotional arguments will get you nowhere. We go by policy here, so it would benefit you to get familiar with our policy. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Could I add that I totally agree with the contributions from Doug Weller and LuckyLouie directly above. This new "editor" appears to be confusing his own WP:OR with fact WP:VERIFY and that reference to WP:FRINGE refers to Wikipedia policy. Further, their lengthy text above has no place on a editor's Talk page - they, if at all, should be on the article(s) Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A "discussion" may belong elsewhere, but the actual post by Beaziepops belongs nowhere on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Mail

Just replied to your email. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Refactoring

You put: "(Undid revision 884360923 by Sotuman (talk) really not a good idea to refactor the section heading, I'd already complained to Sotuman about his refactoring his talk page to put a comment of mine under an entirely different section heading)"

1. Please can you refer to me in the 2nd person, as it will then help me to refer to myself in the 1st person when making responses, as use of 3rd person is annoying for some people.
2. It was correct for me to refactor the heading, because
a. There wasn't even an entry in the log where the admin who gave me notice of topic ban said it would be. No entry = no ban = no violation.
b. Even still, it is only an alleged violation of a ban, as the banning admin has not yet mustered the energy to "...deal with the finer points buried in [my] page history...". compare further Presumption of innocence.
3. Chivalry is an excellent topic. If you had bothered to place your comment on my talk page under the respective user heading that was there at the time, I would not have bothered you by refactoring it under that heading.
4. In the interest of civility and to avoid potential conflicts of interest, I wish for you to not be a hostile witness. Please let Bishonen work through this on her own.
5. I do not care whether you like me or not. I know who I am, and I am happy with who I am. I may be banned or blocked completely from Wikipedia, the way thing have been progressing these past few days. Should that happen, I wish you all the best, and keep up the good work. Sotuman (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Sotuman made this edit at ANI which changed the heading from "Topic ban violation by Sotuman" to "Alleged by Tgeorgescu: Topic ban violation by Sotuman". Have a look at the rest of the page and its archives. I doubt you will find any support for adding "Alleged by X". Please stop wasting people's time. Do not reply here and do not comment at my talk. The issue is at ANI and that is where it should be discussed. The heading is the topic to be discussed. It is not a finding. FYI no sanction will occur for the topic ban violation because it is understood that people do not really grasp what WP:TBAN says until it is driven home. However, continuing to ramble while taking time and energy from other editors will result in a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There's no conflict of interest. Insulting the banning Admin will get you nowhere. I'm glad you apologised but then you come here with a derogatory comment. The original section heading was standard. As for your talk page, clear communication is aided by separate section headings for new threads. Saying "you" in an edit summary is confusing and edit summaries are meant to be clear. You call yourself Sotuman, that's what I'll call you except on your talk page or when clearly replying directly to you elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

CfDs

Since you've been nominating LumaNatic's WikiProjects for deletion, would you might closing or recruiting one of your admin friends to close the 2 CfDs at the bottom of this page? A consensus seemed to develop within days, but they've been open for a month and a half. Thanks, Natureium (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: I'll try to do them tomorrow if no one beats me to it. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Natureium: forgot, went to get xfd closer as I realised it would make life easier, and then found they'd already been closed. Damn, I wanted to try my new toy. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It's your lucky day! There are hundreds (possible exaggeration) of CfDs waiting to be closed! Natureium (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Adam and Eve

Hello Doug,

I do not agree with the face that it is misleading to remove "according to the creation myth" and change it to "according to the Abrahamic religion." I believe that adding the creation myth element is a form of discrediting the beliefs of those who believe in creation. There is no proven fact for how the universe was created, or how we came to be here, you may have separate beliefs, but that does not mean that you can subtly discredit the beliefs of others. There is no harm in stating that according to a religion this has come to be. the myth section was simply not needed and adds no value to the article and to think otherwise is delusion. If you have quarrel with my reasoning, please bring it up to me here instead of simply telling me that I am misleading individuals and reporting me for vandalism.

Thank you, Isaac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idough (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Idough: I'll be charitable and assume that you didn't look at your change, which was how I described it in my warning, not as you describe it above. I'm sonering also why you chose to ignore the message that said use the talk page, don't just remove the word myth. I'm guessing you've never read anything by Christian or Jewish theogians about myths either, or our articles on related subjects. You need to convince other editors to make such a major change. My warning was accurate, your edit summary misrepresented your edit. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

At risk user?

Please could you take a look at User:Hannahpartridgeig she is a minor or has special needs, she is posting her personal details and I am concerned that she is putting herself at risk. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: she's 24. I'm not sure we can do anything about it. Just keep an eye on her. Thanks for your concern though. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: Passing WikiJaguar here...I took a look at her User page and contributions. This is almost certainly a person with special needs, and the nature of the text is such that I doubt she is placing herself at risk, at least no more risk than her choice of username presents. Because her editing history indicates an almost exclusive focus upon her own, single-paragraph User page, I suspect the impact on enWP will be minimal and likely brief. I join Doug in thanking you for your concern, and I will also monitor her contributions. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
As a follow up, User:Hannahpartridgeig has now made some edits to Matt Smith (actor) (for example, here) that indicate my initial suspicions were incorrect. A WP:CIR block might now, unfortunately, be necessary to prevent things from getting out of hand. Pinging User:Theroadislong. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@JoJo Anthrax: I've oversighted her user page (but also asked others if that was correct). Doug Weller talk 17:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I hope things improve for her. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Just noting that I went there intending to oversight but decided to only rev/del, then came here forgetting what I'd actually done! Doug Weller talk 19:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk: Ilhan Omar

We have an IP who is disrupting the talk page from multiple addresses, with comments consisting of inane ramblings and even some personal attacks. I won't fill your page with quotes, but here are some of the diffs if you'd like to have a look for yourself: [48][49][50][51]. I'm sort of spinning my wheels here; I've hatted one discussion, and another editor has hatted the other, but the IP is returning from a new address to undo the closure. How would you suggest this be handled? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: its a bad time for me. I do the vandal fighting on my iPad while watching tv with my wife but I'd have to stop and use my PC and I really don't want to do that tonighy. Sorry about this. Take it to ANI. Doug Weller talk 21:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries, thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

RevisionDelete request

Hello. I'd like to suggest that a revision be deleted. The revision in question is here. The edit inserted a source which was a link to an individual's psychiatric report marked "confidential" that is not in the public domain. I think removing this would be best to avoid publicising a confidential document with sensitive information on the individual and their family. Thanks for your consideration. McPhail (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@McPhail: done. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: - thanks, much appreciated. McPhail (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC Request

Dear Fellow Wikipedian


I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.


Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

New Chronology article guidelines

Hello Doug,

I'm sorry for the tone of the remark on my edition to "New Chronology (Fomenko)" edit, but I was a little bit frustrated by the lack of dialogue I was expecting after my contribution to the talk page. I thank you, too, for the convenient rewriting of the matter as it is reflected now in the article, although I find it too elaborated to just illustrate the parallelism of the event.

Certainly I was perplexed to the alleged 'confusion' of citing 'In Greece' rather than 'In Spain' that seemed more clear despite being false??...

Well, now I'm asking you about the guidelines of the article at hand. At this time, more likely than not, you are perceiving me as something like a New Chronology advocate, apologetic, freak, etc. that's not the case.

The truth is, I have profounded for some time on Fomenko's writings and justifications, mainly its foundations. I think I can provide *objectivity* on what is claimed and what is not, what claims are presented as facts, or mere probable hypothesis, etc. I find that this theory, no matter if it's 'correct' or not, cannot easily be described as "pseudoscientific" (mathemathicians and astronomers are very cautious about this, historians being more prone to tag it as such, mainly by its consequences), and has its own 'internal coherence', is something like a 'system' or 'paradigm' which 'explains things' from another, sometimes radical, point of view.

What I'm thinking about is: explaining this 'system' (for now, lets refrain from arguing if true or false) is considered 'promoting' New Chronology? Or the other way around: Hiding this 'system' is trying to omit further interest from the reader?

My own experience: when I became to know NC, first place I went to inform myself was this article on wikipedia. Time passed, and I decided to throw my own judgement on this work. After some months my feeling is that wikipedia just wanted to 'prevent' me to know more, to 'save' me from 'mad theories'.... But now I know more orthodox history, more alternative views, the problems of chronology, the history of history, the history of chronology criticism, etc.

For this reason,I don't want to edit the article myself. But I want it to be an objective account of the subject, and in this regard, I think our goals are coincident.

That's why I'm asking you: what are the main guidelines of the article? Do you think it would be interesting that I would elaborate on some aspect, then present it to you, to consider its publication?.

Chronology refutation and its consequent radical historical revisionism is a deep, non trivial problem. For an impartial and deep primer on the problem I would suggest, from non Fomenko-affiliated mathematician Florin Diacu, Johns Hopkins University Press Book "The lost millenium, history timetables under siege".

Greetings and thanks for your time, Carlos

Cjbaiget (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cjbaiget: thanks. WP:VERIFY is key. Editors can add their own thoughts or analysis. If I can get hold of Diacu's book I'll have a look, meanwhile I have a review of it. I'm not sure what you mean about main guidelines. DO use the talk page though, not here, so others can see. I'd love to know how Diacu gets around dendrochronology. I'm busy though although right now is supposed to be the time my wife and I are together watching tv, most of the day we're busy with our own interests! I agree too much elaboration except without it I think people would be confused - as they were. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


I need your help on this, too.

Sorry for that. You are partly right. I have deleted so many thing because I feel there is a political agenda behind so many non-sense about the Kurdish regions that some Chaldean group are trying to campaign for. I discovered it accidentally and I regret the rushed changes that I did, but I hope that all the articles produced by the same group be revised carefully, if Wikipedia is going to remain a reliable source of information and knowledge. I will try to fulfill the objectivity you asked for. I will try to revise my previous edits, too. I appreciate your concern, but I hope that this is going to be a beginning for the revision of a whole set of articles about the region. I am sure that you know better than me how to do it. Thank you again. KurdoChali (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Doug, I am looking at this page [52] and have made a number of edits (generally trying to improve the info on Irish art world atm among other things). But after editing this one I hesitantly feel that it might be a case for deletion as all the references were from the subject himself. Thank you! Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hezbollah Talk

Hello Doug, I am a relatively inexperienced contributor who responded to the comment below. It appears that you deleted my response on the grounds that the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss the article's subject. I understand the principle but would like to understand your reasoning a little better. My intention was certainly to comment in a way that would in future help the article to be written in a less POV way. I certainly agree that citations would be needed for the article but it's quite hard to comment on the quality of the article without some mention of the subject. The contributor I'm responding to said "Their objective is the killing of innocent Israelies" - to me that is also part of a discussion on the article's subject which (if you are deleting me) should be deleted also - otherwise you are allowing a one sided discussion surely? :-

Terroist Group should be in the first line of the description. Their objective is the killing of innocent Israelies that is being a terrorist.173.48.197.65 (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:TERRORIST. “WarKosign” 09:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC) It is a recognized terrorist group by the U.S Western European nations and Israel that is sufficent.173.48.197.65 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You are an experienced administrator, there is no point in me getting into an edit war with you - and it wouldn't be my choice to censor the comments I was responding to. I find Wikipedia great in so many ways but to me a Worldwide Encyclopaedia should reflect a global viewpoint, I sometimes find it a shame that the English Language version ends up being biased towards the views of English speakers. Would be glad to know what you think and interested in any general advice you may have on what to do when the act of drawing attention to needed improvements might involve commenting on the subject! Thanks86.148.15.250 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That was responded to by WarKosign. Basically you need to concentrate on changes to the article, not an analysis of the subject no matter how tempting that can be. I might have deleted that first comment but it had been replied to by an experienced editor, whose comment would have made no sense if I removed what they were replying to. I've just removed a talk page comment by the same IP and note that he/she was blocked for a week for editing with an agenda. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply, it helps. I've taken an interest in a very wide variety of articles but this subject is the most controversial I've commented on so far.86.148.15.250 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

My contribution

Hello, my last contribution that I reverted from you, we can find the references of former locations in old catalogues. Do you think it’s right?--35.235.125.77 (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Check it

Don’t forget I added recently former locations on Consumers Distributing, is it OK?--35.235.125.77 (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

Former locations at Consumers Distributing page is not really encyclopedic as you did to Service Merchandise page. Check it.--37.148.210.161 (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model Talk

Hi, could you please look at Talk:Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model#New_Physics_Narrative and perhaps blank the whole section with a NOTAFORUM marker? I fail to convince User:J Mark Morris that the Talk page is not the right place for his original research and ideas. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That was quick :) Thank you. ♆ CUSH ♆

Holocaust denial article

I think the word 'false' in the first paragraph needs to be looked at. Presenting the arguments immediately as 'false' not only looks unprofessional and partial, but is inherently disproved by the statements that follow. This includes the estimate of 5-6 million Jews killed. That cannot be proved as an unequivocal fact as can't many of the arguments presented in the article. Thrusting opinions onto articles however factual you believe they are goes against NPOV does it not? Another user directed me to the GEVAL page, and the word 'false' isn't even seen anywhere in the articles referred within. I don't think I deserved the warning (I didn't even do 3 reverts and backed up my claims). I am also not a holocaust denier despite what the toxic user that reverted my changes claims, I simply came to the article to read about the subject and was in disbelief at the usually professionally written articles having such a bold statement. I read the talk page on the article and many others agree with me yet I believe the arguments put forward are dismissed as being a 'holocaust-denying neo-nazis'. Jjarkk (talk) 15:02, 02 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jjarkk: this is a discussion for the article's talk page, not here. You don't need 3 reverts to get a warning about WP:3RR and it's a good idea to let new users know about this important "rule" asap. It's there to prevent edit-warring. You also need to read assume good faith and WP:CIVIL. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Kilgore

I wasn’t objecting on the removal of the source itself, more so the removal of a source without replacement. Thank you for finding a more reliable citation, Rusted AutoParts 16:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

1RR exemption?

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Talk:Ilhan Omar.
Message added Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[[subst:alert|ap}}

The micronation of Essexia

Whilst I am related to the micronation of Essexia, I don't see it as a conflict of interest for the stuff I added to the wikipedia page of Danbury, Essex as the information I added was objective and whilst I suppose I probably should of placed less information about the importance of Danbury to Essexia, but I believe the information about it being a place of significance to the micronation is interesting and stating it as such on it's wikipedia page is not a conflict of interest and is not inapproiate for the page. Thank you for your time, FA Rehal —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Unless it's been reported in reliable sources (c.f. Sealand), unrecognized micronations are not inherently significant or meaningful to Wikipedia articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

James Ossuary "Koppel documentary" edit

@Doug Weller: Ted Koppel's critique (The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look) is never properly cited or listed in the references section. The page states that Koppel made three points in this documentary. The first point pretty much stands to reason - genetic testing is unable to prove a marriage; i.e., even if the genetic material from the Ossuary marked as "Yeshua bar Yehosef'" shows no genetic relation to "Mariamene e Mara", it in no way proves that these two were married. However, the latter two statements are important ones I think, warranting proper citation.

@In response to your question "what is 'which is slightly smaller for than other ossuaries' supposed to mean?"; all I did was add the word "average", so the sentence read "which is slightly smaller than average for other ossuaries" (admittedly, still poorly worded). You proceeded to correct this to "which is slightly smaller than average compared to other ossuaries", which is better wording. Davidlau17 (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Davidlau17: sorry to be slow.Sorry, I read your edit wrong. As for the citations, see here for how to cite films. That's normally enough but I'm sure you can find other sources. I found a couple but don't have time to edit the page again right now. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Matera

Ok, thanks. Next time I will look for a better source. 

DavideVeloria88 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

At risk user, part 2

Hi Doug - The special needs user User:Hannahpartridgeig has returned, and has restored much self-identifying information to their user page. I fear a block of some sort is necessary. Pinging Theroadislong. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, sadly I don't think they can realistically contribute to the encyclopedia per Wikipedia:Competence is required. Theroadislong (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

/* Judaism */ Added the Messiah to the list along with other information about the people on the list

Doug Weller,

I noticed that you reverted some of my changes to the Entering Heaven alive Wikipedia page in the "Judaism" section. It currently claims that, according to Jewish tradition, there are eight people who entered Heaven alive, with the reference saying, "Derekh Erez Zuta (post-Talmudic tractate) cited in Encyclopedia Judaica New York 1972". However, I am holding The Kuzari in my hand, and on pages 137-138, it says, "See Breishis 5:24. According to Derech Eretz Zuta, nine people entered the Garden of Eden alive: Chanoch; Eliyahu; Messiah; Avraham's servant Eliezer; Chiram, king of Tzor; Eved, king of Cushi; Yaavetz, son of R. Yehudah HaNasi; Pharoah's daughter Bisyah; and Serach bas Asher."

I checked Derech_Eretz_Zuta (using Google translate to translate it into English) and in the last paragraph of Chapter 1, it says "nine".

By the way, since Jewish tradition does say that the Messiah will enter Heaven alive, this is evidence that Jesus is the Messiah.


Ken69samuel (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC) (Ken Samuel)

P.S. The Wikipedia link to Derekh Eretz Zutta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derekh_Eretz_Zutta) doesn't seem to work.

(watching:) Derekh Eretz Zutta, you can't include the bold and italic mark-up in the link, you have to put them "outside" it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ken69samuel: I didn't know that was Jewish tradition and didn't find it in the articles I looked at, which is a surprise if it's mainstream. But I'm confused by saying that proves it was Jesus, who clearly didn't enter Heaven alive as he was God. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

RevDel 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving Northern Kurdish to Kurmanji

Hello can you move the page Northern Kurdish to Kurmanji because the requested move is closed and according to the talk page Talk:Northern Kurdish#Requested move 5 March 2019 it should be moved. I can not move it. Greetings—Jahmalm (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the name Khuzestan

Doug, do you or any of your talkpage-watchers know anything about this subject (see recent article/talk-page history for current dispute), or know of editors who can act as honest brokers? Abecedare (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: the article is a mess. Most isn't about the subject. Particularly that long list of people who have used the name. What in the world is that doing there? We don't have "Supporting documentation" sections. Or "Arabistan"? All the article should need is a short lead and probably one section on the origin of the name. Most of the talk page discussion is off topic as well. I think the first thing to do is to strip out everything that isn't directly about the origin of the name. I know nothing about the subject but I do know about articles! Doug Weller talk 16:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the sanity-check, Doug. Will try my hand at trimming the piece when I have some extended on-wiki time over the next couple of days. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Circe merge

Hi, Doug. An editor has one-sidedly decided to merge two articles - Circe in the arts and Circe - against consensus on the former's Talk page last year and a smiliar consensus on the latter's Talk page in 2012. It is clear from present discussion of this move that the editor concerned is not interested either in following procedures or in taking the discussion to a wider forum. Seeking dispute resolution would be one path to finding an answer, but perhaps raising the question of the advisability of a merge on a wider discussion page would be the best first move. Unfortunately I don't know how to do that, and anyway it would only antagonise the rogue editor further if I initiated it. Could you please take a look and offer advice? Thanks, Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I'm sorry, I couldn't find any discussion about a merge at Talk:Circe in the arts and a 6 or 7 year old discussion is really dead. I do see the recent discussion and I think the best move now is a WP:RfC to unmerge the two. I can't guarantee the outcome of course. Doug Weller talk 06:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 02:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

Chickamauga Creek definition edits

Thank you for your insight. Per your suggestion, I added links to sources, such as the EPA's watershed reports and the EPA's Waters GeoViewer. I also live along the West Chickamauga creek and am a naturalist and historian, so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about, in terms of the length of the creek and how big it is. DK 104.251.255.135 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I did add links. I tried to follow the guidelines (I'm an editor, and I'm sorry if I'm not following them correctly, but it seems okay to add on-line sources in-line as well, unless it's not. I'd also like to point out that one of the sources referenced in the original article is no longer a valid source. I'm not trying to be a butt... I'm just confused. The West Chickamauga Creek is the longest of the Chickamauga Creek subcreeks, and is the one usually referenced (since it's the boundary of the Chickamauga National Military Park, as I referenced), yet is not covered in the current description. DK 104.251.255.135 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@104.251.255.135: (talk page stalker) I am cleaning up your edits. The references you provided do not seem to fully support your edits. Try to use very specific pages/links. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank You!!

Giving Many Thanks for your helpful message!! Being a New Editor on Wikipedia feels very overwhelming, I apologize for any editing mistakes. My only intention is to edit Brooke Medicine Eagle's page content so that there is only the truth from a neutral perspective. There are many mistakes including her actual legal name plus AIM information is outdated as well as the S>P>I>R>I>T> information and the Snavely article does not exist, so the link goes to an empty page. I'm just wondering how it's possible for a page to exist with so many mistakes?? As I'm learning to investigate the editing history, I'm seeing there are many edits made back and forth, positive and negative. How does one know who to negotiate with when wanting to edit a page's content? Thank You for all assistance in all ways*** StarDaughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarDaughter (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If my edit is wrong , please revert

I was reverted the disruptive edit

(Tromdor (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

@Tromdor: thanks. He's been blocked now but I think you know that. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Content not approved on Eve page

Hi Doug,

Thank you for your welcome message!

Firstly, I’m brand new and therefore not managed to work out how to introduce citations yet...

However, in the passages I wrote that you changed back to their previous version, I didn’t need to cite outside sources. I was directly referring to the source text - Genesis.

Having said that, I can understand exactly why you’d think I was introducing new and un-documented ideas. I understand because before studying the ACTUAL Genesis text itself (in many different versions of the bible), I would have thought the same. And that is because some key elements we have learnt are in the text - for instance, the banishment of Adam AND Eve from paradise - are NOT actually there. In fact in Genesis 3.22-24 God is very specific in expelling the man only. Whereas by contrast, in the verse just before, 3.21, God makes garments for both man and woman.

Given the arguably shocking nature of that statement though, despite its accurate paraphrasing, I realise it is additionally important to introduce references to the specific source passage referred to. I’ll try and work out how to do that!

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violethais (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Unreliable source in article body

Sir, a user is adding Eupedia article as a source in Haplogroup R1a article body. I've explained to him multiple times, both in my talk page and edit summary that the article requires scientific journals, etc. I haven't reverted again as it would violate 3RR. He is also vandalizing my talk page. Kindly see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User Editorfornarrativesandparagraphs

I saw your ping on the user's talk page. I agree that enough rope has been given. If the user resumes their disruption, I'd say block him. Let me know if I can help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Golden Legend

semi-protect?. See talk also, Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

James Tuck (archaeologist) page

I changed the final sentence because it is factually incorrect. Patricia Sutherland's published papers say that she believes that the Norse had a presence in the eastern Canadian Arctic at the same time that they were in Greenland, not Europeans several centuries earlier than the discovery of Greenland. References 6-9 relate to a trolling effort to discredit Sutherland's work; they have nothing at all to do with James Tuck, and they have been removed. I will be removing these references on the Patricia Sutherland page, and adding valid references to her published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArctosNU (talk • contribs) 12:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned you at User talk:EllenCT#March 2019b. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Fringe

Since you actively work in these areas, what do you think of David Frawley? Is not he a fringe Hindutva figure? I am not much competent around these locuses but the article reads like a puff-piece. ∯WBGconverse 08:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: intriguing that no one has actually shown in the article, other than be a now-removed category, that he's Hindutva. However, an IP has added sources on his talk page and I've added one more. Also changed the lead slightly, see the history. Do you want to add a section? The sources on the talk page are an excellent start. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; those are nice to start with. I will indulge, once I get over the near-similar problems over Subhash_Kak, another fringe right-winger. ∯WBGconverse 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Check if these are a single user

Could you check if these are a single user? - focus of interest in the name YHWH seems very common across the articles Tetragrammaton and Names and titles of God in the New Testament: Rcontributor777, Defenderoftheorthodoxfaith, Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco. PiCo (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Also Theophil789 - someone is adding this Gerard Gertoux person to articles all over the place. All to do with "sacred name" I gather. PiCo (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo: Gertoux's paper is on a dvd I see[53] and he got a book published by a respectable academic press BUT despite that I don't think he's an RS, see [54] whose blurb includes "Historians consider the biblical account of Noah and the Deluge as a myth. However, this famous event occurred at the earliest times of recorded history (Sumerian King List). Today scientists believe in the last ice age called Pleistocene ending in 10,000 Bce, but there is no witness of this planetary cataclysmic event and its existence is based solely on the controversial interpretation of its consequences and their dating.". I'll chase this all up. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd missed the FTN discussion. I don't see enough resemblance between the accounts you mention for a CU. 15:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Third party needed to end stalemate

I've seen that you have been active on this topic[55], so I would like to ask if you could push for a solution. I've stated my case and they seem to be ignored by the user. There's a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but right now only personal attacks are being used. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the 2 IPs but am going out to walk my dog, just saw this as I was walking out. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
But what about the articles themselves? I'm hesitant from editing them myself without consultation from anyone. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you can. I've done a bit. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The user has returned. I won't engage for now, but felt that I had to revert since there was an edit conflict when I saved my edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ahmedo Semsurî: who and where? diffs please, I always need them. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Zeitgeist89, [56]. It seems to be the same person who had the Jahmalm (and all the other) accounts. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ahmedo Semsurî: I can't see enough to justify using checkuser. I doubt they are the same from what I've seen so far. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: fair enough. However, it doesn't seem like this one is willing to discuss in the talk page either. I'll continue to push for him to use the talk page. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Qahtanite

Hi. could you see the problem in article of Qahtanite. There is a comment sourced by unscholarly source and has a WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE problem. I have tried to remove it but I get reverted. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The source is from Amsterdam University Press. Doug, i would welcome your insight about how reliable this source is for modern historiography. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It is given due weight and it is sourced to someone who is not a historian or a genealogist see talk:Qahtanite.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Please note that other editors have also tried to reinstate this content that was removed by SharabSalam : [57].---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thus your removal clearly does not fit with WP:CONSENSUS since you have not achieved any consensus for it.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wikaviani: A revert from 11/2018 by like minded editor establishes WP:CONSENSUS?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
All that matters is that your removal with the mean of edit-warring does not, since you have not achieved consensus on the talk for your sourced content removal.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
And by the way, Gianluca P. Parolin is a Professor at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies, which makes him quite a reliable source for this topic, but i'll wait for Doug's opinion : [58]---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wikaviani and SharabSalam: I have no doubt that it's a reliable source. See[59] and [60]. But not for the text in that diff. It should be attributed to him (his name is enough, people can look him up) and it needs page numbers. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable insight Doug, the cite already had a page number : [61], i will include the attribution as you requested. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Dictionaries and Research Prove Useful

You are out of line to threaten me. I did not include any "unsourced" information to the page in question; I reverted an edit that was unsourced, erroneous, and dubious in intent. Oxford's definition of "historian" is "an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon." Merriam Webster offers two definitions of historian: "1) a student or writer of history especially one who produces a scholarly synthesis; and 2) a writer or compiler of a chronicle." No matter which definition you use, Supreme Understanding is a historian, as is evidenced in many of his books including Knowledge of Self, When the World Was Black Parts 1 and 2; and Black God. This information can be found in under two minutes, leaving one to wonder why someone felt it was necessary to belittle Supreme Understanding with the term "peusdohistorian" and why another individual rushed to defend and support support this egregious and racially charged insult. You, I, or another person may or may not like what Supreme Understanding has studied, written about, or what his research has uncovered, but one's personal prejudices do not give one the right to redefine him and attempt to negate his contributions to his field. In the future and with all due respect, Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Five-Percent Nation. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. OjogbonIjinle (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the three titles you give, the second sounds historical. However, I get the impression that it's self-published. Am I wrong? If SU has made contributions to history, where can we find others' informed appreciations (by historians or book critics) of these contributions? -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hoary: Supreme Understanding self-publishes his own works. I've added that to his article. He's proud of his publishing house and why shouldn't he be? It's original research to call him a historian, although User:OjogbonIjinle has done it again. OjogbonIjinle is misrepresenting what happened. At Five-Percent Nation someone added Supreme Understanding's description as an author to "author and historian". On the 22nd an IP removed the word "historian" and in an edit summary said he was more of a pseudohistorian (something I hadn't noticed until today). OjogbonIjinle restored "historian" and I checked Supreme Understanding's article to see if that matched his article. It didn't and there are no sources calling him "historian" so I removed it. And OjogbonIjinle restored this unsourced claim. We go by what reliable sources say about an author, not dictionary definitions, and our own article Historian says "A historian is a person who studies and writes about the past, and is regarded as an authority on it." It's of course nonsense claim I added anything at all, let alone something unsourced, as I simply removed a word. Of course in no way was I defending anything except our policies. It's OjogbonIjinle who is adding unsourced content. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


You wrote: "Of the three titles you give, the second sounds historical." The content of documents is not found in how their titles sound but in the actual contents of the texts. If you read (or even skim) the contents of the books, you will find they are history books. To be specific, the overview of the book Black God states, "In this book, historian Supreme Understanding explores the many Black gods of the ancient world, from Africa to the Near East, to Europe, to India, to China, to Japan, to Australia, all the way to the Black Gods of the Americas" emphasis added (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/black-god-supreme-understanding/1127260720?ean=9781935721123).

Wikipedia is not an academic, legitimate, or authoritative source: any individual can access Wikipedia and mock, praise, ridicule, validate, belittle, or negate someone or something based on their personal prejudices, biases, and/or racism. Consequently, the attempt to use a definition from Wikipedia--which can be offered or altered by anyone, including you--is laughable. However, Supreme Understanding is a historian by Wikipedia's definition; he is certainly an expert in his field who has published history books. The real issue appears to be that certain individuals wish to negate and belittle Supreme Understanding because his research doesn't fit a particular racial/political agenda or because his research makes certain people uncomfortable or angry. The attempt to belittle Supreme Understanding's research is also evident in on your assumption that his books are self-published, which you apparently see as a demerit. Do you also take such an imperious and dismissive tone with other self-published authors, like Ben Franklin, William Blake, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf? What makes it acceptable for them and not Supreme Understanding? What roles do the ethnicity and politics of the authors play in determining who is legitimate or not in your eyes? The consistent over-reliance on the superficial notions, the desire to ignore or embrace information based on one's personal predilections, and the desire to negate and denigrate sources that you do not like is disturbing. It is both sad and petty to attempt to claim that Supreme Understanding is only a pseudohistorian, if any type of historian at all. This entire issue seems rooted in some Wikipedians personal biases and insecurities rather than in Supreme Understanding's career, research, and publication.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In your reversion, I see you have referenced David Irving. This reference is bizarre and has nothing to do with the fact that Supreme Understanding is a scholar of Black history, philosophy, sociology, and religion. Your desire to conflate these two persons--in a sad attempt to justify your refusal to admit that an author of several books on history is a historian--needs clarification. Supreme Understanding is listed as a historian in the synopsis of his book Black Gods (as I shared above) he has written historical books. What is your justification for removing "historian"? What is the purpose of referencing David Irving? It seems you are projecting your personal, racial/racist issues into this topic rather than being led by evidence, references, and logic. This type of illogical tyrannical behavior is the precise reason Wikipedia is NOT an academic source and is not allowed in serious academic conversations or publications. Wikipedia has an acknowledged problem with racism/racial bias. This discussion about Supreme Understanding and much of what occurs on pages about Black people, movements, and organizations--especially those that do not kow-tow to the Caucasian status quo--are emblematic of Wikipedia's deeply rooted problems.

Just because you do not personally like the sources does not mean those sources are not valid.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@OjogbonIjinle: Badgering Doug on his talk page is not productive. Doug is an experienced editor who is well versed in the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Discussion on whether to use a particular source in an article should take place on the talk page for that article. More general guestions about the reliability of a source may be presented for discussion by the Wikipedia community at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - Donald Albury 13:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Unjustified "Good Faith" complaint

You recently left a complaint on my Talk Page about assuming good faith. I have removed it. This was in response to my referencing Wikipedia's guidelines. Referencing these guidelines is standard procedure, whereas making baseless accusations is not. Please explain to me how it is you find my referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and other rules in response to a person accusing me of being a member of an organization with no evidence, is a failure to assume good faith on my part. Additionally, please let me know whether you found the baseless accusation against me to be a violation of good faith and if you do not, please inform me how it is you don't find this a violation of the assumption of good faith.SamSamuel11 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@SamSamuel11: you were never accused of anything. What I see is "if you are a member of either of these organizations, you have a conflict of interest, and should act accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 8:43 pm, 24 March 2019, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)". Note that User:Grayfell used the word "if". Your accusation is entirely unjustified. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't find that a convincing excuse. I have never made any claim to be of an organization, nor have I provided any evidence of such, so he was unjustified in interrogating me on these grounds. I could easily imply anyone could be a member of an organization, but and have a conflict of interest, but instead I stick to the actual arguments they are making. And my referencing the good faith rule is totally reasonable given his unjustified interrogation of my motives based simply on the rational and critical arguments I was presenting.SamSamuel11 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Israel page...

Hi Doug. I have been a member for 4 years, but I don't have 500 edits. I did leave a comment in talk, is that being removed? I have been debating the Israel/Palestine situation for almost 20 years, and I did leave credible citations. I do realize I forgot to sign it and didn't use the <ref> and instead used 'link'. This is the 1st time I have used talk, is that the issue?

Markusgarvey (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Markusgarvey: it only applies to the articles themselves. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 27 March 2019 (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.

~ Rob13Talk 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Where to go for dispute resuolution

Doug, I'm having a dispute on Dhul-Qarnayn and Alexander the Great in the Quran. It seems intractable. Can you suggest the best step for dispute resolution? PiCo (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC) @Pico: sorry, rl and ISP prolems. WP:DRN. Or an RfC. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Hello. You have stated your reason for rejecting my proposal on Talk:Answers in Genesis as "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". In fact, Roxy the Dog has since quoted this statement as an argument against my latest proposal. However, I don't understand how this serves as a justification for reverting someone's edit, and, moreover, such an action violates WP:ROWN. Even without regard for Wikipedia policies, though, isn't it still preferable to keep the version about which there exists the least disagreement? If both versions are fine, but one version attracts serious criticism from a group of users and one doesn't, what's the logic behind keeping the former? Note that I am not criticising you but instead trying to gain insight into your reasoning, so that I can then address it better in my proposal.OlJa 20:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hi Doug, just to let you know you've created a duplicate merger proposal at Talk:White supremacy – an IP had already beaten you to it, so now there are two threads on the proposal on the talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I fixed that as soon as I saw it, I was helping the IP who couldn't put a merge tag on the protected article. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Hello. You have stated your reason for rejecting my proposal on Talk:Answers in Genesis as "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". In fact, Roxy the Dog has since quoted this statement as an argument against my latest proposal. However, I don't understand how this serves as a justification for reverting someone's edit, and, moreover, such an action violates WP:ROWN. Even without regard for Wikipedia policies, though, isn't it still preferable to keep the version about which there exists the least disagreement? If both versions are fine, but one version attracts serious criticism from a group of users and one doesn't, what's the logic behind keeping the former? Note that I am not criticising you but instead trying to gain insight into your reasoning, so that I can then address it better in my proposal.OlJa 14:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are having difficulty understanding the phrase, I will translate for you. It means that there is nothing wrong with the way it is and doesn't need changing. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
2 people including James want James's wording, 3 want the current wording. What is "serious" is usually in the eye of the beholder. There's clearly no WP:CONSENSUS for the change. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
2 people want my wording. 2 more people are neutral. 1 person opposes, but hasn't stated what issue they have with my wording. I am not arguing that there is a consensus yet, of course. But you are not answering my question. How can 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it' count as an argument?OlJa 16:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearly no WP:CONSENSUS so no change. I'm telling you that it is acceptable as it stands. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Specifically, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view" and "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change". So far, the two editors who agree with the proposal have made arguments, while the three who don't have just stated that the proposal is not an improvement (which is not an argument as per WP:ROWN), and have not objected to the change. Please tell me where I am wrong.OlJa 17:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
James, You say above "1 person opposes" which is of course either deliberate lies, or WP:CIR, (you don't appear to be competent enough in basic counting.)I cannot decide which. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: One person has commented 'support', and one (me) has proposed the change, so altogether 1+1=how many people support the change? Good, Roxy, 2. Now one person has commented 'oppose', and the other person who commented 'oppose' said they are OK with my version. So, altogether, how many people are not OK with my version? Wow, brilliant, seems like you got this one as well, it's 1 person! Good progress, Roxy! Maybe we can get to multiplication next time!OlJa 17:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

SPI case

Would you please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34 A checkuser has decided to close it just because those obvious WP:DUCKs are stale on EN WP. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: just ask a steward as you were advised by someone with much more experience than I have. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Patricia Sutherland

A few days ago you objected to my edits on this page. These are useful edits that I have revised and put back:

Para 1: added “in some circles” to “controversial” to increase accuracy

Research para 1: refined the subject’s research history and deleted irrelevant material (her discoveries at Quttinirpaaq and on Axel Heiberg Island); deleted incorrect material (her presentations in 2000 and 2012, the statement that she suggests pre-Norse contact, and the sentence about “spoils of war”); added the most important (2009) academic publication on the evidence for Norse presence in Arctic Canada; added 2018 reference

Research para 2: deleted paragraph which was added January 16 by Jerry Stockton. This addition is part of a trolling effort against Sutherland’s research, and in any case is not particularly relevant to a biography (note that this material was also added to the bio of James Tuck, where it is even more irrelevant.)

Personal: deleted irrelevant material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArctosNU (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

CRYBLP

Check this edit. What's your opinion? Nearly every respectable scholar says him to be a leading Hindutva idealogue. ∯WBGconverse 05:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you’re going to call someone names, the least you can do is spell them correctly. (See wikt:ideologue.)—Odysseus1479 06:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Eh, typo:-( @DW:--See trhis t/p thread.∯WBGconverse 07:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 02:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:RonBot

user:RonBot this bot is adding broken image tags to articles that doesn't contain images with broken links. Could you check it and possibly shut it down until this problem be fixed. It's already all over my watchlist. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: to be sure I asked a bot specialist, but I see you wisely reported it at ANI and it's shut. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Case of Active Vandalism

User:Doug Weller, please check the edit history of Jewish religious clothing. There is a case of active vandalism right now. Can someone please stop this guy? The editor who is being very disruptive calls himself D Gums (talk · contribs · Gums WHOIS). Can someone please stop him? ---- Davidbena (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: blocked him for the use of "Yid" in his edits. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ban

I decided to live it out without commenting or appealing. I see your point. I'll show more respect next time. I target no religious or ethnic group. D Gums (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Do you know of any WP policy/guidance/essay that says/hints that old "secondary" sources like Josephus and Herodotus should mostly be seen/used as primary sources in WP-context? Or is this just something I've dreamed up myself? For transparancy, this [62] discussion made me wonder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Davidbena has been in a discussion about this before. @Zero0000, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, Tgeorgescu, and Greyshark09: you've all discussed this, can you help? Probably not here though. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Have no time to get mixed up in the redirected page debate but no ancient text should be ever cited on Wikipedia without a reliable secondary academic commentary on it. I wrote up Dionysius Thrax to stub level recently and conserved the famous primary source about the cup of Nestor that scholar is said to have fashioned. But I added both Rudolf Pfeiffer and R. H. Robins as the required secondary authority in doing so. The reason is very simple: every other sentence, however clear the grammar, has a long history of modern textual commentary on it, and, in many crucial passages interpretations as to the reliability of the report are various and contested. One can of course use such primary sources with attribution, but the information thus presented will be defective by omission, partial and partisan if the editor does not show how it is interpreted, skeptically or otherwise. For a classicist Herodotus/Josephus are primary sources, but at the same time, they are secondary sources in the sense that much of what they write reworks earlier sources (which by turn then are 'primary'). I don't think Wikipedia policy on this shows any awareness of the bullshit that emerges if you define a premodern text as 'secondary' because we know it drew on other works which have disappeared. Xerxes' army numbered 3 million according to Herodotus (7.334.1) or the land forces at roughly half that, 1,700,000 (7.60.1). It's actually more complex that even that, on Herodotus's own internal evidence. Logistically, we know that the maximum army could not have exceeded 200-250,000. Josephus's 1,100,000 Jewish casualties for the siege of Jerusalem by Titus is tantamount to the total carrying capacity of Palestine at that time, and clearly exaggerated. Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a final note posted here, to avoid possible suspicions by one editor there I am being intrusive. Just a quick read through several articles and sources underlines that one should not cite responsa as is done, unless via a scholarly source. The rabbi in question Joseph Colon is a fascinating figure in his own right, noted for the unexceptional length of his responsa, so who controls what is being excerpted from that text? Secondly, in northern Italy at that time, despite his eminence, there were two influential halakhic cultures. One was of Savoyid origin, Colon being the palmary representative. The other was the distinct Ashkenazic tradition brought in by German migrants. At times their views clashes, so an editor can't just cite a primary source as evidence for a clothing fashion, without contextualizing the specific halakhic viewpoint within the more general rabbinical tradition of that area and time. The reigning expert on Colon is Jeffrey Woolf, and neither here nor on the Joseph Colon article is his research used (except in the bibliography), when it is readily available online.See the several sources by Woolf listed in Jacob R. Marcus, Marc Saperstein, The Jews in Christian Europe: A Source Book, 315-1791, ISD LLC, 2016 978-0-822-98123-7 p.323
More specifically there is an excellent study of the problem in
Beth A. Berkowitz Defining Jewish Difference: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 2012 978-1-107-01371-1 pp.176-189. And see also
Moses Avigdor Shulvass, The Jews in the World of the Renaissance Brill Archive, 1973 978-9-004-03646-8 pp.186ff.
Most of our articles on these areas either lift from an encyclopedia, come from direct familiarity with a primary source, or just from random google clicks, despite the fact that beautiful secondary scholarship covers nearly everything. I think the fault is that one is tempted to google so specifically for a quick laconic answer, that one never throws a broad net to trawl up numerous sources which, if you then sit down and read through them for several hours, will give you an education while providing context, background and details, and much new material for articles, new or established, one never gets with quick fixes. Alas. I found out, for example, that there is much solid documentation showing that despite halakhic rules, there was a widespread tendency from Poland to Italy, for Jews to wear the same dress as other Poles, Germans, French or Italians as the case may be. Often the gorgeousness of Jewish women's dress was so admired, Christian neighbours borrowed from their Jewish friends in order to cut a figure when going to mass. I.e. the standard clichés of the received narrative Jews were compelled to wear distinctive dress (often legally true) by Christian laws, corresponding to the rabbinical insistence that they might not adopt alien dress codes, was in reality often ignored.(Edward Fram, Ideals Face Reality: Jewish Law and Life in Poland, 1550-1655, ISD LLC, 1997 978-0-878-20097-9, gives a charming Polish sample) Hope this helps.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Coming to this from a historian's perspective - no, we should not consider Josephus and Herodotus (or similar) sources as secondary sources in the Wikipedia sense. A large part of a historian's training is learning how to use sources such as those - at least if you're studying in fields outside of modern history. In my own editing interests - no one would consider using Bede without filtering him through a modern historian.. or they shouldn't be at least. (The entire Classical WP indulges entirely too much in the use of primary sourcing for my comfort, but it's so freaking entrenched over there that it's not worth the fight.) This would extend well into the Enlightenment, quite honestly - technically Edward Gibbon is a secondary source, but except for quotes for color, he really shouldn't be used for a source on wikipedia. (The fact that James Ussher is being used as a source is frightening... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the extensive replies NishidaniEaldgyth (and apologies to Doug Weller. Btw, "noted for the unexceptional length of his response"?)! It seems to me that you are saying that this is pretty much WP:Use common sense (or at least you wish it was), but none of you know any helpful WP:HOW TO DEAL WITH JOSEPHUS AND SIMILAR to point to. WP:AGEMATTERS doesn't really help in this case. I remember once I talked with an editor who wanted to insert criticism in 300: Rise of an Empire based on Herodotus, which I felt was wrong on so many levels.
I think WP should mention this somewhere, at least at guideline-level. I suppose I could try to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources or somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the slip. It's 'exceptional length of his responsa' and that comes from the second article I think by Woolf, though I can't remember the page no.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Or someone will start one for me: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#pre-modern_historians_as_sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a good essay at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) - its helpful. The problem is that what is "primary" has a much more elastic definition in ancient and medieval/post-classical studies compared to modern historiography. For say... the American Revolution, works written 100 years after the events are definitely secondary (if perhaps outdated), where in ancient/medieval history, they are likely primary. The problem comes in when Wikipedia makes a hard and fast declaration of primary/secondary/tertiary that allows for the consideration of someone like Herodotus as "secondary" when no scholar working in that subject area would consider him such. And then, of course, you get folks who argue that Wikipedia policies should be prioritized over what actual experts consider/do... which just leads to messes. I own many of the primary sources for my main "subject area" - but I never consult them when editing for wikipedia - it's just too much of a temptation to sneak just a tiny little bit of interpretation into my editing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That essay also seems unwilling to take Herodotus by the horns, as it were. It mentions "Any primary source" but that's it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Yup, I told Davidbena to be careful about WP:OR, see e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bdub2018/Archive. In the end, I got tired of reminding him the basic WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
How quickly, it seems, that you forget the case. We were discussing issues on a Talk-Page, when I was no more than 1 or 2 months old on Wikipedia, and, as usual in such discussions, we began to throw ideas back-and-forth between us, and which views have absolutely NOTHING to do with Wikipedia:OR.Davidbena (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The gist is: you are not an ignorant about Judaism, but if we don't have 20th and 21st century WP:RS to go by, what you write is consigned to the limbo of the unverifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
My friend, I assure you that I will do my utmost best to add more recent opinions as touching upon Jewish Halacha. Only, I think that it is fair to mention here that religious Jews, as a whole, not secular Jews, rely heavily upon halachic works written well-over 500 years ago. You see, tradition still means much to most religious Jews. Still, we can prove this by citing more recent sources on Jewish Halacha. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The point being made is very simple, David. On Wikipedia, you cannot or should not cite a primary source for this material, but cite it via a secondary source. If you want to note the halakhic status of non-kosher hydrolyzed collagen i.e. gelatin in kosher marshmallows, you can't just cite or translate some primary source like the deliberation of Rav Moshe Feinstein for this, for the simple reason that Rav Ovadia Yosef and others disagreed. What you have to do is cite a secondary source for either or both, and never just cite one text penned by this or that halakhic authority. In short, editors must not cite primary sources unless they draw on a secondary source which explains them in context. This is a technical matter and has nothing to do with some dispute about the status of halakha, as you seem to think.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Short answer: It's standard practice in the real world. The closer in time a "reporter" is to the events on which they are reporting, and the further in time those events recede from the present, the less reliable the source, because a) the writer is too close to the events, with a view about them colored by their perceptions in their time, which may be radically different from ours today, and b) more facts come to light with more research, and c) the actual cultural/historical/encyclopedic impact of something isn't clear until long after the event (and may change over time as society changes under those influences). For some clear indications of why we can't treat ancient Greek, Roman, and medieval writers as reliable secondary sources, just skim through our articles on Historia Regum Britanniae and Historia Brittonum, works that were generally taken at face value in their time. But it's not just about ancient manuscripts. The "primarizing" of modern news reportage can happen quickly, if the original reports were faulty and better information becomes available. It's important to remember that no sources are intrinsically reliable, for everything, forever. They're sometimes reliable for certain things, used certain ways, in certain contexts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Amusement

Despite the laugh I'm getting from this, I feel this person needs some guidance from an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

NRM and neutrality:

It's an issue where obscure religions and new religious movements can have a few editors with a strong POV who can sit on a page and revert anyone else making changes to it. The religions are obscure, so few people visit those pages and notice anything wrong, so it takes just 1-2 people to sit on a page and prevent changes.

I'll just randomly come across a page and find that it'll read like some religious apologetics, and try to make changes. I noticed it on the 5 Percent nation as well as the Providence (religious movement) pages. Both have had those issues resolved. Long term I'm not sure how to deal with this. Maybe some kind of task force for just new religious movements to ensure they're neutral? Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Some similar issues with Sahaja Yoga and Nirmala Srivastava. At the very least, they read sorta like they're written by proponents. I'm gonna keep an eye on them and learn more about the group. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: have fun. I'm struggling with Iyami Aje. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_54&oldid=1142974090"