Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Disruptive editor

Hey Doug,

The editor Mikola22 is pov pushing ([1]), edit warring with multiple editors and removing referenced content ([2]), edit warring with multiple editors and adding poorly referenced content ([3], [4]), adding poorly referenced content ([5]), WP:FORUM (Talk:Serbs of Croatia), etc. Can you take a look at this discussion? He's Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. He's in some mission to push his nationalist agenda. And I'm suspecting he have some relationship with the disruptive editor User:Ceha ([6], [7]) Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

ping editors who interacted with him: @Slatersteven:, @Sadko:, @TU-nor:, @Santasa99:, @Nicoljaus: -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Do i need to answer? For the Uskoks I put a book of historian Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011), as an additional source. For Stohkavian dialect there are no books or historians which talking about migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia and Bosnia(see talk page [8]). As far as Vlachs is concerned, historians and books of historians mentione Vlachs not me and we must put that information from the book on wikipedia. As for Telli Hasan Pasha I put information of Radoslav_Lopasić. Regarding Zachlumia I put information from book of Serbian academic and historian about arrival of the Serbs to Zachlumia Sima M. Ćirković, Srbi među europskim narodima,(Serbs) 2008. Everything can be checked and there will be no problems. Otherwise if there are any problems there is talk page. thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Do i need to answer? Yes you need to answer.
"I put a book of historian Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011), as an additional source." Actually, No! Jesuislafete removed your poorly sourced redundant paragraph then immidiatly you reverted his edit. Yes, there is a discussion in the talk page (Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documents). What the fuck is this? So you opened a discussion in "30 October" in the talk page with a title "Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documents". What are these "original historical documents"? Are these some historical documents you have that we can't access? And you added the historical facts you have in 31 October. What are those facts, two "Završni rad" (bachelor's thesis) ([9], [10])! Are you working with these universities and promoting their student's works? When Jesuislafete reverted you claimed in the edit commentary that "I return part of artical concerning the specific origin of Uskoks from Senj area which is extremely important and necessary" So now the two bachelor theses you added are important or what? Do you know something called WP:SCHOLARSHIP? And here again in 13 November 2019 you introduced another bachelor's thesis ([11]) You didn't "put a book of historian Catherine Wendy Bracewell" until I reverted you in 3 December 2019‎ and you re-reverted my revert in 6 December 2019.
"For Stohkavian dialect there are no books or historians which talking about migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia and Bosnia" The content you removed here is referenced, but you didn't care to check the two references by Miloš Okuka. Why you removed these two references? You're claiming that "there are no books or historians which talking about migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia and Bosnia" but the text is referenced! see talk page The talk page is a mess and again you're using as a title "Deleting parts of the article that have no evidence in the original historical records" My question again is what original historical records? Is "original historical records" == Your point of view ?
"As far as Vlachs is concerned, historians and books of historians mentione Vlachs not me and we must put that information from the book on wikipedia." Stop pushing your pov and using your "original historical records" as an evidence.
"As for Telli Hasan Pasha I put information of Radoslav_Lopasić." You actually used an outdated 1890 source by Radoslav Lopašić.
"Regarding Zachlumia I put information from book of Serbian academic and historian about arrival of the Serbs to Zachlumia Sima M. Ćirković, Srbi među europskim narodima,(Serbs) 2008" You actually used the Croatian translation of his 2004 book The Serbs
You're removing whatever goes against your agenda even if it's referenced by reliable sources, and adding poor content using poor sources (bachelor theses, outdated sources) just to push your pov. Sorry, but you're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, No! Jesuislafete removed your poorly sourced redundant paragraph then immidiatly you reverted his edit. Yes, there is a discussion in the talk page (Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documents). All three sources(master's thesis) i.e."poorly sourced redundant paragraph" have a source in the book of Uskok(Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011) and I put that book as extra evidence and the pages where this information are in the book. What the fuck is this? So you opened a discussion in "30 October" in the talk page with a title "Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documents". What are these "original historical documents"? Are these some historical documents you have that we can't access? And you added the And you added the historical facts you have in 31 October. What are those facts, two "Završni rad" (bachelor's thesis) ([12], [13])! Are you working with these universities and promoting their student's works? I answered earlier, all three "(bachelor's thesis)" have a source of quoted data in the book of Uskok(Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011) and this is now added as extra evidence. So now the two bachelor theses you added are important or what? Do you know something called WP:SCHOLARSHIP? And here again in 13 November 2019 you introduced another bachelor's thesis ([14]) You didn't "put a book of historian Catherine Wendy Bracewell" until I reverted you in 3 December 2019‎ and you re-reverted my revert in 6 December 2019 I thought it was enough because those sources mention book and pages of book Uskoks (Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011) and now that information has been added because it was requested, this is wikipedia and we are working together. The content you removed here is referenced, but you didn't care to check the two references by Miloš Okuka. Why you removed these two references? You're claiming that "there are no books or historians which talking about migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia and Bosnia" but the text is referenced! see talk page The talk page is a mess and again you're using as a title "Deleting parts of the article that have no evidence in the original historical records" My question again is what original historical records? Is "original historical records" == Your point of view ?We have a talk page, if I said that there is no historians and books that talking about migrations of someone from eastern Herzegovina to 60-70% of Croatia and most of Bosnia then you find information in books that say otherwise, but you didn't do it or anyone else. Croats are also stokhavians but they do not come from eastern Herzegovina, Bosniaks also. And for that reason that part of the citation cannot be an integral part of the article because it's simply not true. "As far as Vlachs is concerned, historians and books of historians mentione Vlachs not me and we must put that information from the book on wikipedia." Stop pushing your pov and using your "original historical records" as an evidence. This is information from the books of Croatian historians and if is there any problem with sources you can freely discuss on talk page in good faith. "As for Telli Hasan Pasha I put information of Radoslav_Lopasić." You actually used an outdated 1890 source by Radoslav Lopašić But i did not do it bad faith, this information is older but speaks about Telli Hasan Pasha Regarding Zachlumia you actually used the Croatian translation of his 2004 book The Serbs Whether in the English version of the book writes differently? Certainly not. Sorry, but You're not here to build a encyclopedia! Try to understand that this is wikipedia and we all need to work together. Bring any problem on talk page and we will discuss it together. Mikola22 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I will not clutter up a users talk page (even an admins, damn em), take this to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

New editor

Thanks. I was just about to ask if you would take a look at their talk, actually ECed with you, but you left basically what I was about to leave them. Heiro 19:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and living or recently deceased people

Hi, I note that you consider some, but not all editors of the white privilege page to fall under Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and living or recently deceased people. I wonder whether it would more efficient to place the page itself on the Discretionary sanctions list? This way all the editors of that page will be under notice. Keith Johnston (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. We put articles under sanctions, editors get alerts. Ssee Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. No one responsible for alerting everyone who edits a page, on some pages that would be an intolerable burden anyway. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand thank you. Does that mean the white privilege page is under sanction? Keith Johnston (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

\

dates

Re unlinking centuries, etc. In the MOS, it would very helpful if the MOS guidance on centuries, etc., could be explicit about not linking them. Otherwise, editors get accused of disruptive edits and told to revert their work, like me on my talk page. Hmains (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hmains: I couldn't agree more. So, boldly edit the guidance or use the talk page? Or pages, it seems that WP:DATELINK and MOS:UNLINKDATES would need changing. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
To date, I have been to always say I am just applying the MOS as it is and not changing it. I don't like getting into arguments. Not here for that. Hmains (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

protect Black Hebrew Israelites

I have been reverting many times ips who are adding that incident. I have requested a protection yesterday but there is no response.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Carter Page edits

Hi Doug,

With the release of IG Horowitz report, related comments by AG Barr and US Prosecutor Durham and the Senate Judiciary hearing December 11, 2019 regarding the report's findings, it is obvious massive edits to Carter Page's Wikipedia page are in order.

Wikipedia paints a highly unbalanced and, we now know, false picture of Carter Page. This Naval Academy graduate has been a lifelong patriot who worked with the CIA for decades. He worked with the FBI to uncover and succesfully prosecute a Russian spy ring. The IG report found it was this same FBI that knowingly and falsely accused him in a FISA warrant of being an FBI spy in order to gain access to spy on the Trump campaign and later Trump presidency. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith knowingly withheld exculpatory information from the warrants used to grant access to spy on Page and manufactured false evidence to support the warrant.

Wikipedia is refusing to publish those facts revealed by the Horowitz investigation including links to the report.

As you know, Carter Page is suing for defamation. Wikipedia's biased biography and refusal to permit edits exonerating him will be useful in his efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisDeToq (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I recommend you take this to the article Talk page soibangla (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@AlexisDeToq: I agree. I did edit the article once but don't plan to be more involved. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit 14 december

Hello Dough,

I wanted to show why I removed those two sources saying this:

  • "The friends from Peshawar would speak of Hindu and Sikh Pashtuns who had migrated to India."

Like I wanted to explain the Sikhs of Peshawar are indeed "Pashtun" Sikh but not by Ancestry, here is source that explains it:

How the Sikhs settled in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa

can you please with all your respect just take a look on this source so you will also understand what I am trying to say. Thank you.

Casperti (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy St Lucy's day to you too

  • Bishzilla Lucia
    Bishzilla Lucia
  • Cappuccino
    Cappuccino
  • Gingerbread
    Gingerbread
  • Saffron buns
    Saffron buns
  • Little helper bearing gift
    Little helper bearing gift

Have the traditional Lucia fare: coffee, gingerbread, saffron buns. A Nobel Day urban legend (or possibly a true story) tells of an American Nobel laureate who was woken early in the morning by Lucia and her handmaidens, all in long white sheets and carrying candles, and was terrified, thinking it was the KKK coming for him. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, I heard a similar story once, I think it was a visiting German priest in the 19:th century, also early awakened and served breakfast and snaps by singing young Swedish women in white sheets. He thought he'd died and gone to heaven. ~~
Bishonen, re-ping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Gourdine et al and Hawass et al

Hi, Doug. About Hawass et al, in fact, the study does not state that E1b1a is a sub-Saharan haplogroup, but merely states that the 8 mR Y-DNA markers of the mummies belong to the E1b1a haplogroup. But considering that the fact that E1b1a is sub-Saharan is public, notorious and incontroversial (including the specific Wikipedia article), I saw no problem mentioning it. But if you prefer to suppress information about the sub-Saharan origin of E1b1a to fit the edit on Wikipedia rules, I see no problem. I know that the main purpose of the paper by Hawass et al is not to address the population origin of mummies, but this does not nullify the fact that the authors categorically state that the 8 markers analyzed belong to haplogroup E1b1a, and this is of great relevance to those who is interested in the population history of Egypt. And this conclusion is not only about the relationship between the mummies, it is a conclusion resulting from the general analysis of the markers obtained.

About Gourdine et al, Wikipedia's own standards provide that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The article in question, although a preprint, was written by SOY Keita (renowned anthropologist, expert in Egypt, with a long history of publications on the subject), Alain Anselin (expert archaeologist in Egypt, also with long history of publications on the subject), Jean Luc Gourdine and Jean-Phillipe Gourdine (geneticists with numerous published articles). I believe that, considering the authors' notorious knowledge, they fit the Wikipedia rules for self-published articles, so I see no reason to reverse the publication.

I am not exactly new to Wikipedia, as I have been editing for some years in the Portuguese version. Anyway, thank you for your attention and apologize for exalting me. If you can reconsider your reversals, I will be happy. Dealmeida87 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well DW. MarnetteD|Talk 23:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Enforcement of global lock for Tirgil34

Hi. Tirgil34 was globally locked on October 27, 2019.[12] He is still editing with his sock Hirabutor at Wiktionary, making attacks against myself and others.[13] He has recently been making similar attacks against you at Gutian people[14] and on Youtube.[15] I do not appear to be able to file a request for a global lock for Hirabutor at Steward requests/Global. How do i do it? Krakkos (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I'm asking as I don't know. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
-revi, can you advise? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
See this thread also.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
(stalker) If the edits is purely vandalism and the user have no positive edits, it can be locked as vandalism-only account. Otherwise global ban may be more appropriate.--GZWDer (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Tirgil34 represents and organized, insidious, sophisticated attempt to infuse Wikipedia with fringe theories. This is much more destructive than "pure vandalism", which is easy to detect and revert. See WP:Tirgil34. Meanwhile, Tirgil34/Hirabutor is continuing his personal attacks at Wiktionary and is openly bragging about his intention to "restore all of my edits".[16] Krakkos (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The issue has now been resolved thanks to the efforts of Berean Hunter. Krakkos (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Krakkos: yes, that was a response to my question to Functionarie, glad it worked out. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you very much for your attention and kindness to me!! Laneus (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
(Thank you very much for helping and monitoring me!!) Laneus (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2019

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!
Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As I explained to someone else,

I did not remove anyone's section. That section was started by me, and removed because, looking back, my tone and approach seemed inappropriate. I then started a new section, and fine-tuned my argument. The original criticism is there, just re-framed in a new section.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet, and the blocks on me were lifted.

Please keep this in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Doug Weller, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry merry !


PrimeBOT (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Got it. So I can draft the dit with the proof and ask you to kindly look it over? I appreciate the help. JavierSeguraSr (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to the Eridu Page

Hi,

Thanks for the note about removing my edits. I'm obviously a noobie here. I was wondering if you could gve me pointers because after reading instructional documentation, I'm unsure how to proceed since the existing Eridu page is heavily dependent on the old location from a contribution standpoint and what I'm doing, is stating that the original location of Eridu, is wrong. How do I go about sharing the new location of Eridu on that page? Obviously, UNESCO won't be pleased but the location is incorrect and must be corrected. I also do not see how the original contributor proves the site is accurate, it does not state why that location was chosen. Seeing that it was published without a compelling argument fpr why that location was chosen says to me that I can refute without needing to prove them wrong. I can edit the location, and the onus is on the original contributors to prove me wrong. Thanks for your help. JavierSeguraSr (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @JavierSeguraSr: Um, no. Per our verifiability policy, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources for anything you wish to add or retain in an article if it has been challenged. - Donald Albury 21:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do that at Talk:Eridu. I've added the page to my watch list so I will see when you post something there. Note that with the holidays it may take me a day or two to respond. - Donald Albury 23:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to say that I agree with User:Donald Albury. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Chinese Century

Read List of regions by past GDP (PPP)#World.

China was largest economy from the 1500-1699 and 19th century. But not the 18th century. But the article at this moment claims that it was the largest economy from 1500 - 1830, which misrepresents history. Can you fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.165.89 (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi Doug. Would you be able to take a look at this diff, and if you agree that it is appropriate, revdel it? It seems abusive to use archive.org to look the the deadnames of trans people on old pages. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Etruscan civilization

Hi Doug, as you know there are continuous edits in recent days on Etruscans, Latins (Italic tribe), Etruscan origins of the same user, despite being rolled back several times. In general I think that this of the SNPs is irrelevant information with respect to what is the main focus of the articles, so much so that in the same study is only in the supp info and the authors do not draw any conclusions and do not make any comments. However, I have tried to improve the paragraph that is now more faithful to the graphic figure, and I left a message in the talk pages of each article. But the same user, now with the account User:LambdofGod, insists on imposing his version, without showing any willingness to cooperate. --Tursclan (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The figure in question is this one. The authors don't openly comment about it, but it's obvious from the facts that there is a steadily change in the frequencies of certain alleles overtime. Commenting about it is not against the rules. {https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y2_kdemGFeA/XeDxkX-WgwI/AAAAAAAABN0/G1-GE8SHHTkd4-hm5mrgS0jNRSWwjZQhQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/antonio2019-figS29.png] LambdofGod (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@LambdofGod: I've seen the figure, it is not behind a paywall as you claimed. And yes, commenting about it is very much against our policies, see WP:VERIFY and no original research. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It is located in the supplementary information. Even Tursclan found it. About commenting, I am exposing a fact, not my personal opinion, and the data are autoevident for anyone with a minimum of genetic knowledge. You can't really expect the authours to write a paragraph for all their 40-50 images. If you delete this, you have also to delete 70-80% of material about genetics from wikipedia. LambdofGod (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

For your interest

Hello Doug Weller. Please have a look at these exhausting discussions[17][18][19]. There are WP:COI, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:IDHT issues with a new editor. Puduḫepa 08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa He's using the talk page now, I'll keep an eye on him. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ho ho ho!! Only a few short hours away!!
Happy Holidays!
Wishing you much joy & happiness now and every year!!

Jeepers, Doug - can you believe how quickly the years have passed since
you first helped this lost little newbie? I believe it was 2014, but it seems like
yesterday. The kindness you showed will not be forgotten. 😊

Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️

  • When does New Year’s Day come before Christmas Day?
Every year!
  • What do you call a bankrupt Santa?
Saint Nickel-less.

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme Talk 📧 02:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDoug Wellerたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Doug Weller, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Donner60 (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Edits Reverted

Hi there Doug,

I made some changes to writer and director, Dianne Houston's page yesterday. It seems that you have reverted the page back to its original form. I see that I forgot to provide my reasoning for the edits. My apologies. I am a student of African American film and television and the information on her page was very much outdated and some of it was outright wrong. I just wanted to update it to reflect her most recent work as well as correct some discrepancies. I also added two new sources to the bottom and removed one that provided false information. Let me know how I go about having the changes I made reflected on the page. Thanks for all you do.


Hi Doug,

> The problem is that you have analysed a primary source, while what we need is an independent analysis from a source that meets WP:RS.

So for clarity, if I had cited a compliant source making the same observations as my analysis, that would have been permissible? Sorry for being thick. I am (as you guessed) a new editor with no formal journalism background and not much knowledge of how Wikipedia works.

responded on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom of Israel

Hello, my edits to the articles about Kingdom of Israel (both United and Samaria) has been removed because of lack of academic sources. I've just found a book about contemporary name of ancient Israel, but does it count as an 'academic source'? Medted (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Per Society of Biblical Literature and Christopher Rollston it seems a decent source to me. The Mesha Stele itself is not a good source for WP, but what Christopher Rollston says about it can be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Medted: I agree. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: thanks as always for your help. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Then I'll cite it, thanks. Medted (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know

[20]
Hope all is well with you and yours Doug. Long time no speak! - LouisAragon (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: that's what I thought when I saw a notification in my email, that I hadn't heard from you in a long time. We're all fine, and the sock has been blocked I see. And here I thought he was just an asshole. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "I thought he was just an asshole"
Everyone aspires to be a multitasker nowadays. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Exodus Movement

Hey Doug,

I added my thoughts to the Talk Page of the Exodus Movement. As I stated, I'm new to all of this, so I'm not sure what the next steps are or what to do to receive a response. Thanks for bearing with me. 108.29.173.226 (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Doug Weller,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

The same problem

Hello Doug Weller. It would be great if you watchlist certain pages related to PIE topics for some time. We currently have CU-blocked LTAs[21][22] and one SPA[23] making questionable and contentious edits - all push the same point of view. The pages need to be monitored by an admin. Puduḫepa 07:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: I'm not that knowledgable about the subject but have watchlisted it. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Doug Weller,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Wario-Man (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.


Happy New Year, Doug Weller!

Happy New Year!

Doug Weller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Regarding Soros edit

Regarding my source: The information was already on the page; I just did the date arithmetic. As for letting people do their own arithmetic, the previuos paragraph already specified how much younger his 2nd wife was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBuchbinder (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@BBuchbinder: it shouldn't have and doesn't now. Both seem to have been there only to make some sort of point. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Old Stock Americans

Hi Doug,

I was wondering if you're interested in fleshing out the article for a more proper inclusion of the deleted "see also" Wikilinks, because it's still pretty much a stub article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.11.75 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

adopted

Yes, I would like to be "adopted" by a more experienced editor, if you have time : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurarjun (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Gaurarjun (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I understand, time is something we are all short of : ) I appreciate you welcoming me and pls do let me know if i can be of help : ) Gaurarjun (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Hello :Doug
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

On edits

I provided a reason as to why I edited the Wikipedia article for national-anarchism. It was heavily biased, which goes against Wikipedia's claims to objectivity. The version I edited together provided a bunch of citations, and better citations than the ones formerly posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewRuins012 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen this: I already provided a reason as to why I blanked huge sections of that Wikipedia article. Firstly, as I pointed out, both in my original comment and in the one I sent to you, that the information was, entirely, biased. Unlike other articles on anarchism, and general politics and philosophy, the article only presented one side of the debate, claiming it was a far-right, or right-wing, belief system, despite the official movement claiming otherwise. These are all interpretations of national-anarchism, and not what national-anarchists have stated themselves. Hence, the necessity of leaving quotations. "We are not neutral" is the problem, especially when you criticise my editing as being biased. There is no bias in pointing out what an ideology claims it is, because, seeing the ideologues of this ideology, as for any ideology, quite literally created it, they're the only ones entitled to say what it is and isn't, not random editors who go in editing with an obvious absence of objectivity. Secondly, the sections I removed, and replaced with new ones, weren't saying anything of value, weren't adding anything productive to the page. It doesn't, at all, explain what national-anarchism is, or, what national-anarchists adhere to. It is biased and doesn't use their words at all, instead, inserting made up information, none of which has been confirmed by the political movement itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewRuins012 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Russian fascists and others

Note page history. It appears that whoever was behind Special:Contributions/177.135.52.200 back in April has returned again. [24] Home Lander (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Home Lander: yes, both from Brazil. If it continues I guess I could semi protect. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Account only used to quote himself

Hi Doug, There's a recently created account that seems on the basis of its edits only to be there to quote himself - OukBeta2020 = Steve Reece. Does this transgress self-publicity guidelines? Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SELFCITE. I'll see if I have time tomorrow to help. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaiah /era style

Dear Mr Weller : It would be better if you would reply to my points on the Isaiah talk page, rather than making remarks about me on the Mos page. I believe ‘lol’ stands for ‘laugh out loud’. I’m all in favour of a good laugh. What is the joke? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: I wasn't trying to make remarks about you, just, incorrectly it seems, the time line. If I was implying anything about you it was that you were acting correctly. Lol was a response to DeaconVorbis. Until the issue I raised at the MOS page is resolved I'm not sure there's any point in responding to you. For me it feels like wrestling with one arm tied behind my back. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

AE

Sorry Doug, I was sleeping when you posted this. I don't see a question asked of me other than Rusf10's demand for me to produce additional evidence of hounding. I think most of the admins saw through his wikilawyering, so I didn't bother to respond, knowing that it would generate even more chaotic discussion among Rusf10's defenders. I'm satisfied that he was warned not to do it again and that the incident is on record. I do appreciate you and the others taking it seriously though. Best. - MrX 🖋 12:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: no problem and thanks for responding here. I think the close, which I agree with, made it all very clear. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on proto-writing! I was about to but you got it first!

Appreciate your and the other admins and editors contributions to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.250.173.66 (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Re:Welcome back

Dear User:Doug Weller, thank you so much for the kind wish on my talk page! I really appreciate it and am happy to be back! With regards, AnupamTalk 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor logging out to edit war

Hi Doug,

Where do I go if I suspect an editor has been logging out to edit war? I know SPI doesn't really deal with IPs unless they're behaviorally similar to a blocked sockpuppeteer. Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Good question. ANI seems the logical place. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich, your question makes little sense. What makes you suspect the editor unless both the editor and the IP are supporting each other in an edit war or at least editing similar pages/topics with the same POV, in which case they would be "behaviorally similar"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23, the only time I took a case to SPI about an editor who appeared to be editing while logged out, absolutely nothing happened, although he was then later blocked for sockpuppeting. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codename Lisa/Archive. I would like to avoid that happening again. Just as then I have no reason to believe that the user in question is a blocked user socking (although in the old case they turned out to be).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
That's a completely different issue from saying that the IP and the registered editor are not behaviorally similar.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I finally get what you're saying. Not that the IP and the user's edits aren't similar but that you have no earlier sockmaster to point to. My apologies for taking so long to understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

strike through

Hi Doug, you've also struck through a couple of legit posts here, at the tail end (one your own). Presumbaly not your intention. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: I can't figure out why they are struck and am fixing dinner, can you figure it out? Doug Weller talk 17:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I had a quick look and it's a mystery also to me but similarly, I can't devote time to it as I need to head off. I'll address it in a couple of hours if I can. Sorry. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I noticed it too but was unable to see any format problem. Looks like a bug. Meters (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed, but I still don't know what the parsing bug was. Meters (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Meters and Mutt Lunker: I just had the problem again striking through some posts by an earlier version of the same sock - I think the answer is that you have to strike through every discrete paragraph - this particular sockmaster makes a mess of a talk page. Have you seen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo/Archive? Doug Weller talk 12:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Useful to know.
I hadn't. Prodigious so-and-so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I recognized the argumentative talk page style but I didn't have master's name to go with it. I've added him to my person SPI memory list so I'll be able to find the case for next time. Meters (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

For your action

You come across as impartial, please feel free to rephrase, and action on my edit request: Talk:Qadiani#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_11_January_2020. Thanks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Durranis

Hi, if you say can I delete or try to rephrase the page. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

I noticed that you deleted the sentence citing Graham Hancock's interview with Joe Rogan from the article on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH). I had included this reference not to promote either Hancock or Rogan, but to document the place of the YDIH in the discourse of popular pseudoarchaeology. This podcast had an exceptionally high number of listeners and therefore represented what I thought was a high-impact source. Hoopes (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There have been some recent edits to diminish the content of the article with respect to the place of the YDIH in pseudoarchaeology. However, this content is well-documented and relevant and highlights the ongoing place of the YDIH and previous theories about comet impacts and human history in popular culture. Hoopes (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hoopes: actually I've been planning to put more in using the SAA papers. I just haven't had the time. I keep getting requests like those above for help with stuff I'm not as interested in but feel I need to support other editors. I hadn't noticed that it was your edit but felt that it needed more context. I'll make it a goal for this week, Doug Weller talk 01:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Oops, I was doing this exhausted on my iPad, reping @Hoopes:. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion request

Greetings Doug, hope you're well. I was wondering if you could take a look at Warsangali Sultanate, an article of interest to Middayexpress that caught my attention as original research and/or potentially CIRCULAR pushed by Midday. Prior to creation of article on Wikipedia (9 Oct 2004), there is very little mention of the subject anywhere, Google returns nothing [25], nothing on Google Books either [26] or Scholar [27]. Much of the content of the original uploaded article was taken verbatim from a self-published site Warsangali.org [28]. Would appreciate any thoughts you have on this, my question is two fold 1) Is there something to the OR/CIRCULAR issue in your opinion? and 2) If there is, what can be done about it? Kind regards. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kzl55: apologies, I'm behind today and forgot about this. I'll look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Also see Warsangali. Doug Weller talk 21:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely no rush, please take your time. The Warsangali article relates to a clan, with plenty of sources going as far as 1893 [29], its the "Warsangali Sultanate" article/POV as pushed by Midday that has questionable sourcing I reckon. Best regards. --Kzl55 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kzl55: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warsangali Sultanate. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Have responded there, many thanks Doug. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding seeming WP:OR (and POV) on Human page by user showing little willingness to discuss

Hello. I am sorry to bother you, and I hope this post is not too long. I am writing regarding a user (USER:Dalhoa) repeatedly reinstated what I believe to be a WP:OR and WP:POV edit to the Human page while (for the most part) refusing to discuss and ignoring the issues raised by me regarding it, both in the edit notes and on the article's Talk page (along with showing a tendency toward blatant and quite aggressive incivility and a refusal to listen). I filed a report at "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" but no one there has responded (despite my complaint having been there for a while and all other complaints made later than mine having received responses). I also had made a complaint there on another occasion regarding the user Dalhoa, but I believe it also never got a response, and am now uncertain as to what to do about the issue.

Dalhoa made their edit to the Human page based on (I believe) a tenuous interpretation of one source (an interpretation not explicit in the source, or even really implicit) in contradiction to more general scholarly opinion of the subject (which was supported by several sources) and they put their interpretation the lede as though it was the authoritative opinion on the issue (which I believe to be WP:OR - and even if their one source did support them its use in the lede would still be WP:UNDUE)). I reverted them again after they (for a final time) continued to reinstate their desired edit (during the process of our discussion) without having adequately discussed the issue in Talk (having ignored several of the issues raised, and ignoring most recent responses to them, seemingly having little interest in reaching consensus), but I noticed that my latest reversion of them violated the 3-revert rule and so I self-reverted (undid my reversion), and so Dalhoa's edit is currently in the article's lede.

Here is the report I made at "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" for more detail (with links): My post is entitled "User:Dalhoa repeatedly making unsupported edit and reverting with little willingness to discuss" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dalhoa_repeatedly_making_unsupported_edit_and_reverting_with_little_willingness_to_discuss. (The post was getting no responses and so I reposted it at the ANI board (also informing Dalhoa again but specifying that it was about the same issue as before - I was unsure what to do)

For greater convenience, I have copied part of my complaint here below (since the link above does not seem, from my device at least, to directly link to it):

Here is the edit history of the Human article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&action=history and the incomplete discussion in that Article's Talk page (which the user Dalhoa refused to finish before reinstating their edit again): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human#Behavioral_modernity

Here is a recent exchange I had with them in which they persistently engaged in a uncivil manner (without making clear what their dispute was despite) and seemingly refused to listen and inaccurately characterized statements made by me while making accusations despite my requesting them to be civil repeatedly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#recent_changes Another instance of persistent incivility (my first exchange with them) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession

Again, I apologize for the length of this post. It is not my intention to post a wall of text, but rather I hope to include all necessary details. Would it be possible for you to take a look at this at some point? I hope this is not an inappropriate place to post this. I am still somewhat new to Wikipedia and its rules/protocols. Any response is appreciated. Thank you, and thank you for your time. Skllagyook (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for addressing this. Skllagyook (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


Hello. I am sorry to bother you again, but Dalhoa has not addressed the issues raised (despite the one message left on his Talk page by USER:EdJohnston, to which Dalhoa mainly responded by continuing to accuse me and others of misconduct and announce their intention to report me and possibly others to the No original research noticeboard. And EdJohnston did not responded to them again - (Here [[30]]). I am not sure what to do about this issue, or about the Human page particularly. If I try to continue to discuss the issue (regarding the Human page) with Dalhoa they will likely continue to ignore me (or make accusations without listening, as before), and if I edit it again, Dalhoa will likely simply revert me (and continue to be uncivil).Skllagyook (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • We need to look at what's going on here....we have 6 or 7 new editors all edit waring across 20 or so articles.... not sure if it's MeatPuppets are sockpuppets or simply new editors. Mongolian has a few as does Human etc....--Moxy 🍁 23:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: I see. Thank you for your response. Skllagyook (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: I think I understand, however, how long do you think it may take for this issue to (continue to) be addressed on the ANI page (or elsewhere); there were some responses there initially (here: [[31]]), but lately there have been no further responses, and it seems that no progress is being made. And no one has messaged Dalhoa (aside from the first initial message). I am not sure what to do. Dalhoa ignored my attempt to discuss on the Homo sapiens Talk page and is now ignoring me (after a few responses that did not address most of the issues raised) on the Human page as well. Their (Dalhoa's) behavior (aside from the incivility, mischaracterizations, and seeming hostility) seems to be somewhat disruptive and their problematic edits have been there for several days now, but I do not know what to do about it since little is being done (although, being relatively new to this, I am somewhat unfamiliar with the timescale at which things like this are done). Multiple complaints have been addressed on the ANI page since, but mine seems to no longer be getting responses. What can be done? Again, I am sorry to be a nuisance. Skllagyook (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: I don't know what articles are involved. The couple I looked at weren't that active recently, but I'm not sure if you meant Mongolian which is a dab page or something else. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shanidar Cave

I understand your decision to not include my edits. But, I wish that attention could be given to the Shanidar Cave page to see if you might agree that there exists opinions of others, that has been presented as fact. In the article, it is suggested that a medical amputation caused the loss of the limb of the skeletal remains on the basis of a break in a nearby bone of the arm. It states that the limb fell off later, after injury which quite possibly could be accurately be known on the basis of xray if bones do not deteriorate over thousands of years, that would show pockets in marrow as lucent lesions from disease throughout the bone. And then following this there is a speculation that appears to have a century 2000, medical-pharmaceutical trained rationalized assesment that is not based on fact, implicating that the arm was amputated. "If the arm was amputated, this demonstrates one of the earliest signs of surgery on a living individual. The arm had healed, but the injury may have caused some paralysis down his right side, leading to deformities in his lower legs and feet." Further, you might notice the speculation that the injury caused paralysis down his right side... This is blatently unscientific and likely not true. Paralysis does lead to non-use of a limb that would have affect on bone wear but this is highly speculative in the assessment giving. For certain, an injured arm does not cause paralysis of the right side. An injury to the brain, similar to stroke or a vertabral injury to the spinal column could. A bone infection might that spread to the vertebrae or spine but this is not mentioned. Further the bone spurs and growths noted in the article concerning the ear bones can be caused by conditions that affect trabacular bone. In long bones tumors can be caused by fractures in brittle bones, fibrous dysplasia, Paget's disease and osteosarcoma (These disease are well known in the scientific community in countries such as India, where water is naturally over fluoridated as being part of skeletal fluorosis. In the US, these same horrific conditions etiology is denied by medical research that states for the laymen that the the cause is either unknown or the cause is not clear. The same is true with the epidemic need for tooth whitening in the US- caused by fluoride exposure that makes brittle yellow teeth and for most is a condition that has little to do with a lack of brushing.) When there is fluoride exposure, the bone fractures due to brittleness and will heal abnormally due to the affect of the calcium metabolism; one of these formations is an onion skin boney callous over slight pathological fractures that would only occur in normal bone from either great stress but in fluorosis, moderate, normal or less than normal weight bearing. Some types of bone such as ear bones, hip and jaw are trabacular and respond differently to fluoride than medulary bone leading to all kinds of skeletal deformities. India has endemic skeletal fluorosis and hence images of severe examples can be readily accessed in their medical literature. Most countries in that region where there is ample fluoride deposits that contaminate drinking water and soil and hence vegetation and animals, do a better job than India has done in removing natural fluoride from water. Medulary bones, such as the leg bones in skeletal fluorosis do another peculiar thing during growth related to healing fractures, such as causing bow leggedness and what is called Shepherd's Crook, that has the appearance in what should be a staight strong bone like the femur, as being curved. (See xrays of fluorosis, Shepherd's crook, especially in India.) So, given this, What I included in my edit was only that knowledge that fluoride is abundant in the area where the skeletal remains were found because this could as likely be the cause of the bone deformity as having an early injury to the arm. In the current article it states that the deformity and limp were painful. This again is speculative- and if one believes their hypotheis of paralysis, this indicates loss of nerve continuity of a great magnitude, that would obliterate sensation such as pain, hot, cold--as well as tactile sensation. While perhaps my assessment of the condition of the skeleton is not accurate, which is why I stated "could have as likely been caused by" in reference to the severed limb by an animal bite), the assessment on the present Wikipedia page is full of assessments that even a person as ignorant as I may be can poke holes in. Hypothesis should not be come part of an encylopdia content, because when it is allowed, it opens the doors to other hypothesis. When Wikipedia allows for hypothesis to exist without allowing for other similar opinions, this gives rise to complaints against Wikipedia, such as appearing to desire influencing a topic for whatever reason. As such, I fully appreciate that you rejected my hypothesis but with all due respect, I believe that someone should also re-edit the current page to fully eliminate all the hypothesis state in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.159.97 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr

I think Humanengr needs a block or ban from BLPs and American politics. You've already commented at User_talk:Humanengr#1RR_violation, and I've added to the discussion, pointing out canvasing and long-term edit-warring. There's a related discussion, User_talk:Humanengr#Tulsi_Gabbard_and_SIF, by MrX, where a number of related problems have been pointed out. At this point, enforcement just for edit-warring seems to fall far short of addressing all the problems. I'm thinking WP:ANI or WP:AE. There are other problems from other editors, obviously, given all the edit-warring and lengthy talk page discussions. Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And the BLPN discussion, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi_Gabbard, is now blowing up. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz: AE I'd say. I haven't seen the BLPN discussion but I've been watching the article. I think I see a 1RR violation by another editor unless I've managed to confuse myself. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a bit of WP:OWN at Tulsi Gabbard by a couple of editors, but Humanengr's conduct is a pressing concern as I noted on their talk page. Some of it is probably due to inexperience, but there is also a pattern of WP:GAMING, and probably WP:POVPUSHING. Since there is no smoking gun, reporting it to AE will require meticulous presentation of the facts so that they can be relatively easily analyzed by any admins who look at the case. - MrX 🖋 19:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I've no time for that, but this is more than just edit-warring. I hope someone has the time to look further than I do. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Humanengr has self-reverted. I'm hoping that this indicates a major change in behavior. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Anyone have suggestions on editing restrictions to apply to everyone beyond 1RR that might help? --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras

User:Xenagoras has appealed your arbitration enforcement block at WP:AE. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

Help wanted

Hi Doug. I don't think we've ever really interacted before so I admit it's a bit awkward for me to come here asking what I'm about to ask. However, I think you might be the right person and generic pleas haven't worked. This revolves around a despute over drug pricing and what guidance should be in the MOS about it. If you click on that link I summarize things up until recently, but if that doesn't do it for you I'd be happy to do so here. At this point I think there needs to be a different person focused on mediating the RfC towards launch from the person addressing the behavior around that discussion, which is elgible for MOS AE. For a while I could do both, but I don't think that's tenable anymore. While I could be either of these people, it seemed like you might be a person who could handle the AE/behavior element of it. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: too busy today, sorry. This is not something I enjoy doing, but I'll try to find time tomorrow to look. I can't promises though, sorry.Doug Weller talk 19:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for considering and I surely understand how it's not something that is enjoyable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Charmer

Hi Doug, I have only encountered this bizarrely impolite level of hostility rarely and wondered if you had a perspective on the best way to respond to or deal with it. Might be a bit soon for ANI. I could ignore the tone and respond regarding the deficiencies of their argument but feel they may have forfeited much right to a continued dialogue. It's more strongly worded but not their first such remark and they appear to have a bit of a checkered past. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But what are they talking about with the "NPC", Mutt Lunker? It's mentioned in both the posts you link. Niagara Parks Commission scum? Bishonen | talk 21:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
@Bishonen: NPC (meme). Doug Weller talk 21:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Learn something every day. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
A new one on me too. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Durrani map

https://alchetron.com/Durrani-Empire#demo 

This is the most perfect map with time line, dates and details. Can you uploud it please. thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:B88F:9C6D:8AEE:6A9F (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned in dispatches

I namechecked you on WP:ANI re Keith Johnston. Guy (help!) 19:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User insisting on citing Fringe author

Might you be able to offer a little assistance with this very stubborn supporter of including the Christ myth theory supporter Richard Carrier as showing the flaws in academic methodology at Historicity of Jesus? Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Richard Carrier.He keeps asking me for the policy defining Carrier as a fringe figure even though I've pointed him to wp:fringe and wp:rs multiple times. In fact, despite preventing me from removing Carrier, he even made me tell him what Carrier was being cited for!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I see it's protected so I guess nothing for me to do? Sorry to be so late replying, I did see it this morning and checked. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Did both of you notice this edit? Strange coincidence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
hmm. Just the general mythicist internet or a case for SPI? And yeah Doug, he seems to have finally given up for the moment at least.—Ermenrich (talk)

Cluebot NG Response

I don’t believe I owe any editors an apology. One has finally come forward and posted a notice that the page I edited does appear to be a propaganda page. Perhaps this wasn’t known when this note was posted to my page?

If my edits were wrong, then you need to correct the page covering the 2009 security breach at the White House. That page (thanks to others, not me) has these facts. And there has been no explanation as to why the bot claims to do routine/tedious edits, but has delved I to things that would require judgement as to if it is “loaded” or “negative” — things requiring human judgement.

Are there bots operated by PR companies? Can’t imagine they wouldn’t try such a thing.

And also, on the question “why would you expect a tool to talk to you” the answer is that if it did talk to me by sending me a message saying it undid my edit, and if it put the accusation in the edit line that the edit was vandalism, then it is reasonable for me to think it could explain itself to me when it posts to my page. Simult2018 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Simult2018 you still owe them an apology for showing such lack of good faith. Whether the article is good or not doesn't excuse your behaviour. But I can see that you can't be convinced and still think that a computer program can hold a discussion with you. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I did leave them a note about ClueBot, with instructions for viewing each edit. -- Deepfriedokra 09:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone here showed good faith to me? No. Simult2018 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Simult2018 you started out with "I’m suspicious that this bot is actually working on behalf of the subject of the article." and then "I suspect both of the people that posted these replies are actually involved with the bot." You charged in showing a lack of good faith. Marking a major edit minor doesn't help either. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Another Fringe pusher

Hi Doug, Would you mind keeping an eye on User:Tympanus? He appears to be a single purpose account promoting the website of a single fringe author. See especially this post [32] where he threatens to edit war over the inclusion of the website and its fringe views? I'll note that he also appears to be at the very least in contact with the fringe author, Rolf Badenhausen, as evidenced here [33], but given the nature of his contributions it seems possible there's actually a conflict of interest going on here, i.e. he might actually be Badenhausen (because who else would care whether his website saying that Dietrich von Bern is from Bonn was included?). --Ermenrich (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Islamic Eschatology

Hello Doug,

My additions to the Islamic eschatology page are not unfounded. Also, I received this:

Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict Commons-emblem-notice.svg This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Commons-emblem-notice.svg This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

In my recollection, I do not recall editing any pages that have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict or American Politics. So I am confused by this. If sanctions are imposed on my editing they are completely unwarranted considering I have added is at all irrelevant or inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Answered on editor's talk page, the article is Clarion Project. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Russian fascists and others

Hello, days ago I made some edits that were reverted on Category:Russian fascists, and other categories, and also on the Anti-capitalism article, my edits were considered disruptive. I asked the user who reverted why that is the case, and he said I can refer to the reasons they were previously reverted by you, so I just came here to ask, what exactly is wrong with those edits? -- 177.159.25.172 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hard to be sure as you aren't pointing to specific edits and of course your IP hasn't edited anything but this page, but I'm guessing this[34] which looking at the category would make Khrushchev and Gorbachev fascists. There's clearly no consensus for this and it appears to be original research which we don't allow. Doug Weller talk
Well it isn't original research, Fascism was opposed to both Capitalism and Communism, and presented itself as an alternative to both, this was a core tenet of Fascist ideology, and it isn't hard to find information about this at all, even on Wikipedia's articles related to Fascism you can easily find sources about this, I don't know how you got the idea that I was calling Gorbachev or Khruschev, or any other Communist a Fascist though, I simply added the category because, since there was a specific category for Russian anti-capitalists, and given that Category:Russian communists was added as a subcategory to it, I thought it would be appropriate to add Russian fascists as a subcategory for it as well, sorry for this misunderstanding though. -- 177.159.25.172 (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI thread

You appear not to have been notified, despite being named in this ANI thread. I suspect you may want to respond: [35] 86.134.74.102 (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Message to two good editors

Could you and @Drmies: perhaps have a look at this article? As a non-logging editor, I am hesitant to do the sorts of bold edits that I had historically, and so call attention regarding the very major issues to you both. At the article Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys, the lead is largely unsourced material, and the opening 2 sections, the second a very long one (Production), are completely devoid of supporting citations—not a one, over 8 paragraphs and 4000 characters. The sections that follow fare only a little better, with 10-20% of content sourced in some sections following. I personally feel that such gross tracts that violate WP:OR and WP:VERIFY should simply be removed. But it takes a consensus of logging editors to accomplish this, so I leave it with you. Cheers. 204.62.118.241 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Germanic peoples

Hi Doug,

I don't know where to post it (ANI, EW, RPP?), but I think that Germanic peoples (>2000 views per day) needs admin attention. Two editors rip the page to pieces, and especially one of them plays a very unpleasant game (content forking and shifting the scope of the article under the guise of a size split), and becomes increasingly agressive and uncivil in his talk entries. The talk page is spammed with new topics every day, and I am not the only editor who holds back with comments, which likely will be drowned in the endless flood of exchanges by the two dominant and dominating editors. One of the warring editors already went to ANI which resulted in an admonition.

The scope of the article is disputed, and without consensus about the latter by the community, there should be no major changes from the last stable version (whatever it is in this case). Being relatively unexperienced in wikidrama (except for SPIs), I have no idea if this is achieved by full PP and/or other means directly involving the warring editors. –Austronesier (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I second Austronesier, things are really out of control there and I can’t even really figure out what it is they’re debating, the discussion has gotten so convoluted.—Ermenrich (talk)
I agree that the article Germanic peoples deserves attention from the rest the community, particularly administrators and people knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy and the subject in question. In order to save uninvolved editors the trouble of reading through the whole talk page, i would say there are two important sections.
The first important section is Talk:Germanic peoples#RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?. This RfC was initiated by me, and i have already requested it to be closed.
The second important section is Talk:Germanic peoples#Merge proposal. Germani to be merged back to here (new split off article by Krakkos). It discusses whether Germani should be merged with Germanic peoples.
I would also note that the discussion at Talk:Germanic peoples#Two simple and fundamental questions for Andrew Lancaster and Talk:Germanic peoples#Proposal would benefit from input by an editor skilled in interpreting WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Krakkos (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Some key diffs [36].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Some additional key diffs for balance.[37] Krakkos (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier, Krakkos, and Andrew Lancaster: I don't know the subject that well and frankly don't have time, but I have fully protected the page for 2 weeks which should give time to sort out the dispute. There's also DRN remember. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
You'll need to glance at Germani I'm afraid, a new version or split off which is already frozen but comes up for new status tomorrow? One debate/concern is about what seems to be an unannounced plan to recreate bits of the old article there and create a new situation as a fait accompli without prediscussion. That is one of the events which triggered a lot of concern on my part. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: that's fully protected until tomorrow. If edit warring starts there I'll protect it, but you and User:Krakkos should probably stay away from that page, to my surprise and disappointment you seem to be both teetering on the edge of being blocked. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we've agreed to hang back more now, hopefully also on article talk pages, and see what others say [38]. I would only note that I still would like to see an explanation by Krakkos on the Germanic peoples (talk) about what his "secret plan" has been in all these sudden actions, which he has made clear are part of a plan, without proposing any plan. Potentially, as I keep saying, that is all that was ever needed. I do get it that Krakkos is annoyed about the past of this article, and the fact that it is still not right (like everyone), but I think most of us would like nothing more than to consider an actual honest proposal instead of all the ambushes and surprise moves. I suspect other editors and watchers are like me quite open to consider ideas with two articles, but all past such discussions have tended to fade away when policy and sourcing concerns came up for discussion. User:Krakkos feel free to post any constructive ideas on my talk page perhaps while we are giving others a chance to absorb.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug! –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster - There is no secret plan. I have since the beginning openly expressed my dissatisfaction with the change of topic you performed in April 2019.[39] This is because it has yet to be backed up by sources and because i consider it a fringe and ambiguous definition of the topic. Germani was created because i consider it a distinct and notable subject akin to Gaut and Theodiscus. You're idea of having two articles is intriguing. Florian Blaschke has now come forward with a similar suggested solution at my talk page.[40] You, and everyone else interested, are more than welcome to participate in the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
If there is/was no plan then suddenly deleting much of the article and creating a new article with the same topic, are very questionable acts. There was also the strange RFC launched by you at the same time with no reference to any other actions. The idea of having two articles, just to be clear, comes from actions you already took: you made two articles already, supposedly with no plan?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see any concrete proposals on your talk page, though if that discussion leads to concrete proposals that's great. But for now that discussion is being kept fuzzy. I should remark that Krakkos clearly does not see the lead or topic as "fringe", has never said that before and has shown that he knows it is not so. Also Krakkos made the new article based on the old one, as also shown by edsums which talk of moving material. The supposed concern about the sourcing of the opening line only started to be mentioned as a core issue not long before this talk page discussion. Krakkos needs to be more open and honest.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Krakkos has admitted that the new article has the same topic, for example here: [41]. So the whole situation should be seen as a demand that the article topic is wrong. But Krakkos has refused to come to a point, and make a proposal for how to change without creating highly overlapping articles. Instead the frantic insertion of pointy footnotes and tags in the lead began, and the new talk page sections demanding that I answer important questions. Long term editors of the article such as User:Obenritter have always tended to argue against such a split also, so it is clear that making a good clear honest proposal is THE thing needed. This discussion perhaps shows it best.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please, start dispute resolution. There's been too much discussion now, WP:TLDR, while I don't doubt the good intentions of both of you. A volunteer may be able to help you out here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan that sounds fine but what kind of dispute resolution do you propose in concrete? The case is unusual in my opinion. Krakkos simply seems to like making massive controversial and un-thought-through changes without prediscussion. On my side I am not really pushing any particular result, but I can see Krakkos is working without plan or agreement - as always. Krakkos also refuses to propose any plan of action to check with others, which is the obvious way forward. Normally in such cases you can say please stop editing until you make a clear proposal and get some feedback. Krakkos won't (and I think can't) make a detailed practical proposal. (Have a look at the strange RFC which was in a sense apparently supposed to be playing that role.) Krakkos has had a long history of similar complaints and even at least one block, but I see no obvious sign that Krakkos cares/understands about this pattern of feedback from the community. (Examples starting with first archived talk page discussion [42], [43], [44] ) So I am not sure what the best approach is. Honestly I have to say I think there is a competence issue here, not necessarily bad intentions. I believe it might be the first time I've said this about an editor after many years editing. It would be great to be proved wrong of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Just quickly: WP:DRN is for content disputes only (according to the instructions). The highest priority question for Germanic peoples is the Merge proposal, for the new mirror article Germani. But then the talk pages were swamped, with dumb stuff. So for me it is not really a content dispute, at least concerning the most urgent matter, or is DRN suitable for this type of discussion? Anyway, can we address the Merge somehow to get it closed soon without controversy? Vote is currently 2 versus 4 in favor of Merging.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Update only. Krakkos has turned Germani back into a redirect, so the most awkward "urgent" problem is gone. We have time to keep working on the future of the old article (still frozen, which is appropriate I think). Wider range of feedback today from other editors also, and I have started a draft page for a new lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster continues to edit war

@Fram: - Last week Andrew Lancaster flagrantly broke the 3RR rule, and received a warning (i received one too). The article Germani was subsequently protected.[45] Andrew Lancaster then resumed edit warring at Germanic peoples. Dougweller then protected Germanic peoples,[46] and warned Andrew Lancaster (and me) that additional edit warring might result in a block.[47] Today i spent some time cleaning up the article Germania, while adding additional sources and content.[48] Andrew Lancaster has now followed me to the Germania article, and resumed edit warring by reverting the key content that i added.[49] Krakkos (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos cites a lot of policies and guidelines at me in every discussion we have, but clearly we have very different understandings of those. If anyone has time to look over the real interactions between us on various talk pages and articles, which are IMHO bizarrely twisted above, then third party feedback might be helpful, for example about such policy interpretations. Germania is a related article to Germani and Germanic peoples, and was mentioned in various other discussions involving us before I made some minor edits today. Am I missing something? In fact our latest "discussion" is on the talk page of Krakkos [50], but note that the post of mine which seems to trigger this discussion was cut and paste (date and all) by Krakkos from an older thread, in order to open what is apparently intended to be a sort of inquest intended to make some sort of impression, that will create a mandate to take over based on a technicality?? I can hardly follow what Krakkos must be thinking about how other people think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Should have mentioned, concerning the "hounding" allegation...
  • Krakkos began working on Germania on 17 Jan, same day as the wave of sudden actions on the other related articles, and clearly not by coincidence.
  • Krakkos more recently mentioned Germania as relevant to my new drafting work for Germanic peoples [51], i.e. as an argument against that work. There are now actions today on that page trying to define "Germanic peoples" linguistically - clearly derived from controversy on the other articles, the drafting page, the talk page of Krakkos etc. User:Sirfurboy who edits there wrote: "it feels as if there is something going on I am not aware of".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos: I really don't know enough about the area to kn ow about the content dispute, and I'm not monitoring these discussions on my talk page, if for no other reason than I simply don't have time, sorry. If there are policy issues we have noticeboards for the main policy areas. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Where we could perhaps use help is to have an outside opinion on policy accusations etc. Here is a new incident I find questionable [52].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Update - outside comment/advice needed?

@Doug Weller: Apart from the latest "leading question" RFC, I think someone should look at the systematic sweep of similar edits Krakkos has made today (26th Jan 2020). Most of the edits involve the loading up of massive footnotes which cite dictionaries and other weak sources in the middle of leads, often in the middles of sentences - all clearly to do with ON-GOING discussions on Germanic peoples. I see one revert already. I am thinking this is not "best practice". Perhaps @Krakkos: needs mentoring, but clearly my advice and the advice of many people over many years on his talk page archive about massive undiscussed styles of editing, have not yet been taken seriously. Krakkos is deliberately working to spill over the effects of disagreements on to as many articles as quickly as possible, apparently setting those articles up for something. This makes it hard to believe discussions which are still going as being in good faith?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources I'm adding are tertiary sources, most of them attributed to scholars in the respective field, and all of them published by Oxford University Press. These aren't "weak sources". This should be discussed somewhere else than on Dougweller's talk page. Krakkos (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Krakkos is notorious for these sort of tactics, and others he has pursued here, such as emptying existing categories and transferring the contents to new ethnic ones that he has created, never taking things to Cfd. They are designed to weary his opponents until they give up, and sometimes succeed. God knows what his agenda is for bringing everythinfg under a vast "Indo-European" umberella. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
...and Moving article names? See Herules -> Heruli now, and of course what started this whole round of discussion was the sudden creation Germani as a split from Germanic peoples. As I noted at the time it means anyone working on a subject Krakkos is interested can only know what is happening by watching his contribs and I think that can't be the right way? I do not see these problems as requiring much knowledge of the content. As far as content discussions go, you also don't have to be interested in the topic to see all the red flags: constantly demanding other editors answer questions first, never coming to a point or making a clear editing proposal, constantly calling RFCs which are leading questions designed to gaslight (and then cited in strange twisted way), constant bizarre misreadings of what other editors and the sources write, total lack of concern when other editors express concern or give good faith advice. The Krakkos talk page archive is amazingly repetitive. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Heruli is the WP:COMMONNAME for the Heruli.[53][54][55] I didn't think it would be controversial to make the move. If you're opposed to the move why can't you just revert it instead of spamming talk pages all over the place complaining about how horrible i am?[56][57] Krakkos (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It is just one example, and remember you recently accused me of edit warring for one single revert. Why not just revert me sounds a bit disingenuous to me. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
If i wanted to report you again for edit warring, i would have done it already.[58] You are free to make a move request at Heruli if you want it changed back to Herules. Krakkos (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The name change on Heruli without any good reason and no discussion was just one example of a secondary effect from a very big series of near identical edits made to a large number of articles. These inserted a mass of tertiary edits into the middles of first sentences of articles, all to make a point. Another secondary event was your creation of a whole section with one redundant sentence, just to hold those citations [59]. So after a mass of impulsive editing, at the first sign of criticism, you installed even more impulsive "fixes". As noted by others on your talk page by others, another secondary effect of your project yesterday was the creation of articles for some of the less notable authors of sources you are copy-pasting around Wikipedia. None of these types of edits are "best practice" to say the least, and I can't see how any of them can even be optimistically portrayed as being concerned with making Wikipedia better. But these are historically the main types of edits you make?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on Saint Rampal Ji article

Hello, I think you probably are not aware of the Subject completely. Your last edit to Saint Rampal Ji's article is incorrect. Saint Rampal Ji is acquitted in the wrongful confinement case. Please see [[60]]. Kabirisgod (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kabirisgod: of course I know that. But the later sources I've used say he was found guilty of wrongful confinement, and as that finding is later I presume it refers to something else. My edit doesn't contradict the acquittal, it just represents later events. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: But that's untrue. That case was finished in 2017 only. You don't use tabloid kind of sources for BLPs on Wikipedia, no? Kabirisgod (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kabirisgod: yes, and the case in question I am talking about is the 2018 sentence, and The Hindu[61] is not a tabloid. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Issues with User:Dalhoa again

I am sorry to bother you (yet again). But Dalhoa has again engaged with me, this time on my User Talk page (after several problematic edits to the Cushitic peoples page, which I reverted or revised (with explanatory edit notes). Dalhoa is again engaging in assumptions of bad faith and (again) appears unwilling to listen. They are now also making claims regarding sources (but refusing to name or cite them, while accusing me of "stonewalling" because I have asked for links to the sources they insist support their claim). They (Dalhoa) began civil initially on my Talk page, but have (for a reason I do not understand) again resumed the practice of not listening and making accusations of bad faith. They had not yet reinstated their edits on the page, but discussion with them (as before) did not seem to be helping/making progess. And there seemed to be no sign that they will listen or become more reasonable. Skllagyook (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Then they did began to edit war, and (ignoring my explanations in the discussion on my User Talk page) made an edit to the page based on their (in my view inaccurate) interpretation of the source, despite my recent response to them explaining why said interpretation was incorrect (ignoring my response, refusing to reply to it, and editing anyway). I have included a quote from the source repeatedly, which Dalhoa seems intent on misinterpreting. They seem to be showing no sign that they will engage reasonably. I have also recently seen them behave somewhat similarly with another user, User:MusIbr, also on the Cushitic peoples page (and their/Dalhoa's Talk page). They do not seem willing to listen. They continue ignore my replies or respond mainly with with hostile aspersions and accusations (and most recently accusing me of "bs" for some mystifying reason, among other things). I reverted their latest edit to the Cushitic peoples page, again with an explanation in the edit notes, but am afraid they may continue to edit war, as they have shown no willingness to listen and engage. Skllagyook (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skllagyook#A-Group_language

And the edit history of the page (with Dalhoa's latest edit made despite the information and explanations provided by me in our discussion): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cushitic_peoples&action=history

And their recent discussion with another User regarding the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalhoa#Okay_let’s_hash_this_out.

Again, thank you for any help regarding this matter. This seems to be a persistent problem. On my Talk page, the situation continues to deteriorate, and Dalhoa continues to grow more hostile and unreasonable. Skllagyook (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: as you can see they've been blocked for 31 hours. What's your username mean? Doug Weller talk 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what it means. I chose it almost at random. It's an odd story I suppose. Many years ago while on vacation, I was told by a scrimshaw carver that "Skllagyook" (or "Skellagyook" or something similar) was the name of the Inuit family from which he bought his whale bone. I since searched the name but didn't find anything (I might have misheard him or mispelled it). (Although I'm not Inuit myself) I decided to adopt it as my username on another site a long time ago, and have continued using it here/decided to use it for my Wikipedia account. Skllagyook (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the edits on Category:Russian fascists and others

Sorry for bringing up this subject again, but since I explained the reasons why I made the edits, I would like to know if I can restore the edits. Or will I get reverted if I do so? -- 186.213.52.100 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that puts all the members of the category into your category, ie people who are clearly not Fascists. You could get another opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeking experienced admin

On Balkan issues. See this link. The behavior seems to call for a response, though I am unsure where to start. There is also that big RfC running about the Croatian Wikipedia that doesn't seem to be moving very fast.[1] The matters it is trying to resolve were described in an August Signpost article. I suppose that English Wikipedia should still follow its own policy, even if a few people with a connection to one of the countries aren't doing the right thing. I was wondering about an equal-opportunity canvassing rule: if you notify one of the Balkan Wikipedias (sr, hr or bs) about an issue on enwiki you must notify *all* of them. But that might not be practical. What is more practical is an expectation of *no* canvassing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I really wish I could help but I just don't have the time and I hate East European stuff. I'd like to see such a canvassing rule - it might not always work but it might help, and I'm sure anyone breaking it would be reported by someone else. Or just forbid notifying other Wikipedias, that would be even better perhaps. I'm not usre. Sorry, that's not much help. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ meta:Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia

Apologies re minor edits

Doug my apologies, you’re absolutely correct. I’ve re-read my previous warning re minor edits and it’s 100% clear that any changes to meaning, no matter how subtle, cannot be marked as “minor”. I’m in the wrong and would like to express my regret for causing you extra work. It’s human nature to be defensive about criticism, but I realise you’re in the right and I’m wrong. All the best, GG Glen Gormley (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Glen Gormley: that's one of the most gracious responses I've ever had in all my many years and edits. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [62]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

IP that appears to be Frindle222

I see you just blocked Frindle222 recently. This IP has got to be them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1002:B028:9CCA:ED51:F846:27C4:1E0E

They are making the same edits to bisexuality articles, most obviously adding "bisexual activist" over and over: [63][64][65][66]

Thanks for your consideration. Crossroads -talk- 04:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: thanks. Feel free to revert any or all of their edits. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Since through you the discussion was initiated once again and the issue showing as General close at WP:DRN with comments "Procedural close due to lack of participation from the other party to this dispute despite having received a notification over 48 hours ago"

I request you to engage the user to either show how I tried to build the false narrative i.e. , Jamia students were involved in violence during the Jamia student protest, or remove the "resolved with false narrative" tag.223.225.34.191 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. If you are going to edit dynamically or whatever and say you discussed something on a talk page you should get an account. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
"Since through you the discussion was initiated once again ... so requested you to engage the user ... " , not necessarily to take part in the discussion.. Second,I have still not decided whether I need an account or not, please don't ask for that, a personal choice, I am the same person, For IP changes I have two connections used with which I had data, Onwards would stick to one, but IP do changes even when using one connection only, can't do anything for that. I did not say or mean that you have anything to do with DRN closure, DRN was closed due to lack of participation from the other user.110.225.87.44 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

False doors

Hello, would you mind sharing your thoughts about a current issue on Talk:False door? The opinion of someone way more archaeologist than me is quite needed here. Khruner (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

About the now deleted article (Kedatuan of Dapitan)

I noticed that you were the Admin who officiated the deletion of the article I made but it is now deleted and I couldn't find the contents. There is now ancient pre Spanish sources saying that Dapitan was an independent state according to Chinese archives (Ming Annals (vol. 333)) here: http://tulay.ph/2018/02/06/sayao-and-dapitan/. Considering the circumstances, I am respectfully requesting you to undelete the article or maybe just rename and transfer it or make a redirect. In fact, this shows my original research here led to an actual rediscovery that gives credit and merit to our community whereas people even in the Academe and News consider Wikipedia as "Not a reliable source" yet my work even helped and was used by a prestitgious newspaper and ironically that work was used to silence me (Accusation of Hoax peddling [The Dapitan article was tagged as a Hoax]). But I'm not going to do that (Original Research) anymore since it's against Wikipedia policy. Have a great day, thank you for disciplining me, now I realized that Wikipedia is not a proper forum for original research as per Wikipedia policy. I am sincerely sorry for wasting your time and may you have more sucesss as an admin. Don't worry I genuinely ask forgiveness from you and I forgive you too. But its' better that I become less creative in Wikipedia. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: Actually, this simply proves the importance of vetting against all kinds of hoaxes in WP, whether they are created malicously or in good faith. Outsider often uncritically cite WP, so the responsibility for the spread of unreliable information lies with the community of WP editors and admins, whenever we are lenient towards editors who use WP as a platform for original research and—even worse—creative writing in the guise of "research". –Austronesier (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
It is indeed important to vet Wikipedia for possible hoaxes, that I can agree with becuase Wikipedia has a large reader base.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your welcoming, but i am fed up of the thecnical anachronic POV use of history in wiki. Prof Joseph Davidovitz, astronomer Jaques Valle and multiple others first class scientists are trying to move forward our little scientific knowledge. I supose your aknowledgement of Actual arqueology dont explaining ancient civilizations. Just trying to NPOV wiki. Sorry if that hurts. --83.42.191.112 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt in the slightest. You simply don't understand about our policy of WP:NPOV and about WP:FRINGE. You're wrong about virtually everything above. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia with attribution

Hi Doug. I found out that a photo I had added under "fair use" was to be deleted as the article it had been added to was to be deleted because it was by Dante8's sockpuppet. The article in question looked sound but I wasn't aware of Dante8/JaneSwifty's history. I was very surprised to see that attributed copying of Wikipedia to Wikipedia was being [cited as copyright infringement]. Am I missing something? Victuallers (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Hi. First, let me apologise for the delay, real life swamped me. I see why you are confused. The copyright violations weren't about copying from other articles. The comments about that were to show the similarity between accounts per WP:DUCK. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Doug, I understand now. Cheers Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

New request to move Tulsa race riot -> Tulsa race massacre

Hi Doug -- I wanted to let you know that I just initiated a new request for a move at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tulsa_race_riot#Requested_move_7_February_2020 , and since you were involved in the last discussion I thought you might want to participate in this one as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waidawut (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack yourself, as you did in this edit. Please comment on the contributions and not yourself. If you make any further self-attacks you may have to report yourself to yourself, which may result in a self-block. Thank you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinion requested on tagging at Germanic peoples

Doug, the article is unfrozen. Without asking for too much of your time can you check whether this is over-tagging? I would think "multiple issues" covers the others?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug, I know your time is very limited and doubt whether you have enough of it to wade through the voluminous edit-war that Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos have been waging on each other over the talk pages of numerous allied articles. I find it surprising that an Administrator has not stepped in before now to suggest that their quarrel be taken to arbitration. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit war?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that immediately after the article was unfrozen, Andrew Lancaster completely rewrote the lead of the article.[67] There was no prior consensus on the talk page for such a drastic rewrite. The current lead has severe issues, which are pointed out here. Numerous editors have pointed out the problems with Andrew Lancaster's rewrite. As long as these issues remain unsolved, the tagging is appropriate. Krakkos (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Numerous editors? No prior consensus? The talk pages of the article and the special drafting page I set up has weeks of positive discussion, and even you posted a thank you Krakkos? Why do you always describe everything so obviously dishonestly? The talk page shows that your tagging is just another frantic effort to score WP:POINTs, so that you can keep the article in a confused state which contains no new conclusions from post WW2.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The basic question I wanted to ask from an outside opinion is whether the tagging is not doubled-up and deliberately over-dramatized. To me it appears to be deliberately disruptive tag bombing. The post above points to the fact that the tagging is driven only by a general annoyance that editing has started again. That is consistent with the sudden attacks on the article talk page, which similarly dramatize and distort while failing to come to any clear point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germanic_peoples#Drastic_and_highly_problematic_edit_to_the_lead --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: this is too far out of my comfort zone to comment. All I can suggest is the obvious, RfC or RSN. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem, it was an opinion request about a side issue. Someone has deleted the tags today I noticed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. [68] and talk [69]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

New request for outside opinions (not topic related). Is it ok to deliberately make duplicate sections in article which express contradictory opinions? [70], [71].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

2 removed comments M0YVE.

Hello Doug Weller. My name is John Gooch, 59, live in UK, background electronics repair of radio, am interested in Amateur radio, hence you know me as M0YVE. Thanks for the big effort you do for the Wiki. I am writing in regard, of the removal of 2 comments. 1 was in ColorForth, and the other was in the David M. Jacobs. These are the only 2 I have ever done. In both cases my concern was that they are getting on in years, so I thought to leave extra info on their Wikis. What tends to happen when a person dies, is that their web pages go away sadly. Anyway, having felt that I had sufficiently come to know of about them, I thought I would do those comments that I did do. If you ever have time to reconsider your objection. Then thanks for that. Yours sincerely John Gooch. M0YVE (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@M0YVE: - thanks. I did look for reliable sources to no avail. WP:VERIFY is basic policy and can't be ignored. For Jacobs we would need independent sources in fact. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Well i dont know how to verify. What i did was read and read what Chuck Moore said about ColorForth, and the same with David M. Jacobs, i read what he wrote himself as well. To find their writings i went to https://colorforth.github.io/ and http://www.ufoabduction.com/. I also found in a fellow Forth fans heaps a PDF of the advert of the ColorForth at http://www.forth.org/fd/FD-V04N5.pdf, but there were other publications with this advert.146.199.58.187 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet on the Vedda page?

An IP is currently active on the Vedda page making somewhat problematic and suspicious edits, who seems similar to a previously blocked sock puppet (who edited on South Asian topics such as Peopling of India, Andamanese, and I believe Negrito). If you coud possibly look into this it would be much appreciated. I may also contact User:Doug Weller regarding this. I have also messaged User:Ilber8000 (who engaged with a possibly similar IP editor in the recent past) regarding this. Here is their recent history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.10.217.91 Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook and Ilber8000: I've asked the Admin who last dealt with who I think is the master, WorldCreaterFighter, to look into this. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated.
(Also note the - inaccurate - claim, here [[72]], that the mention of 73% AASI ancestry and 27% Iranian-like ancestry in the ASI pooulation is unsourced or "WP:OR", seemingly the same claim made by a blocked sock on the Peopling of India and Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia pages). Skllagyook (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In the Uniform Civil Code page attempt is being made by User:Kautilya3 to prevent users from knowing the other side related to the topic. The user is continuously removing well quoted sections saying the references aren't acceptable to him/ her. He couldn't say any reason as to why they couldn't be treated as authentic. Bluntly removing the sections again and again. Please check the references yourself in the sections being removed by the user and you can take the help of any Hindi knowledgeable people also in this regard. Please don't remove the sections that shows the other side of the issue pertaining to the topic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.65.252 (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Øjay Kįßung

Blocked user, user:Øjay Kįßung is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Durrani map

I don't think that is a problem, (if fair use is applied) and in this case it is fair use. You can go ahead and change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:81D8:D659:FE96:D279 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I avoid doing images. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks. Is there a similar caution to editors for articles about Uganda, Greece, USA, Canada or Taiwan ? Aghore (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Aghore: discretionary sanctions are set by the WP:Arbitration Committee for areas where the community has failed to solve a conduct problem through WP:ANI, WP:AN etc. For the USA there are sanctions for post-1932 American politics. For more details and a list see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Note that Greece is covered by Eastern Europe. You can alert yourself if you are going to edit in any of the covered areas and would prefer not to have others do it. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

My edits were reverted claiming vandalism, and this is anything but the case.

From Wikipedia:Vandalism "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

From your own page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller/reversion you claim to quote the Wikipedia Vandalism pages saying, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

Yet, the revert was itself vandalism according to both page's definition & your own quote. Without any malice and in each case of my related edits, I provided cited & verifiable content so as to ensure the neutral point of view of the article in question. The revert removed content in a deliberate (your quote's wording, not mine) attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

--- Now with assertions that I "have shown an interest in post-1932 politics" and "have shown interest in abortion", I have been notified of an "administrative ruling in effect" while also being assured that the notification "does not imply that there are any issues with [my] contributions to date." What prompts these assertions? Certainly, I have an opinion as much as most people might, but I have not made my opinion explicit at any point. Rather by providing cited content so as to more reasonably provide a neutral point of view, I can only surmise that I have somehow offended your own interest in abortion and post-1932 politics. Your personal opinions should not effect your edits so heavily so as to disallow the neutral point of view. Again, the revert was the actual vandalism.

Of course, I still have my original edit saved, and I am more than willing to have objective, third-party persons take a look at my edits thus far. I apologize, but I do not believe you are as objective as you perhaps hope to be.

None of this is meant as an attack on your person, but I must deny the claimed vandalism against myself even while also putting a claim against your revert as the actual vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyBlueSky (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@BoyBlueSky: this isn't a good start for your account. No one actually accused you of vandalism and I haven't edited Focus on the Family for almost a year, so accusing me of reverting me is a bit silly. The assertions that you have shown an interest in those two topics is clear - you edited an article which was relevant to both. We ask editors to assume good faith - see WP:AGF, and you haven't done that with me. I do find it odd that you are discussing edits I've never made. The alerts are standard, look at the top of my page, I've alerted myself. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
{{re|Doug Weller|talk}

--- I really am trying, sir, to be respectful; and if at any point I am making an error, I truly & sincerely apologize. I was not saying that you reverted your own edit, but I was saying that you reverted *my* edit. Admittedly, I am new to this site, and an error on my part is possible. Either if I am mistaken & that someone else did this or if I am using incorrect terminology, then I do apologize. Again, no personal attack is meant to you or anyone else by saying this; and if you were not the one who reverted my edits, then I owe you & thus offer you an apology.

Still this having been said, the revert still constitutes as vandalism. This is said using the terminology as defined by Wikipedia, and it is not meant as an attack. Communication is important. I am more than willing to have objective, third-party persons take a look at my edits thus far. Thank you. BoyBlueSky (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) BoyBlueSky, if you click on the history tab for any article, you can see exactly who has reverted what. Here is the history tab for Focus on the Family. You can see there that it wasn't Doug W who reverted you, and that he hasn't indeed edited the article at all recently. As he told you. Your idea that he's not neutral is misconceived. And look at the edit summaries, which are all reproduced in the history: nobody's talking about vandalism — well, nobody except you. You say in an edit summary "A revert was inappropriately made using Huggle as though the edits were vandalism". "As though", really? That's very, very tenuous ground for coming here (to the talkpage of an admin who hasn't edited the article at all) to complain that your edits "were reverted claiming [sic] vandalism", with a whole argument from the vandalism policy, repeating the word vandalism again and again (not to mention your header). Grayfell reverted you saying your content was inappropriately promotional, as you must know, since you quote their words in your own next edit summary. I too have complained of your edits at Focus on the Family as being tendentious; see my warning on your page. Nobody thinks you're a vandal; quite a few people think you're a tendentious editor. Also, I think your notion that Grayfell's reverts of your additions "constitute vandalism" is far-fetched, and is a personal attack. You seem extremely fond of the word vandalism. You'll get on better here if you don't use it so much. As for your invocation of "objective, third-party persons" who could look at your edits, the system here is that that role is filled by administrators. Doug W is an admin, as am I, and we have in fact taken a look at your edits, and been worried by them. As Doug says above, you haven't made a good start with this account. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC).
{{re|Doug Weller|talk}

--- Doug, I owe you an apology. Again, I am very new to this, and it seems that I misread who made the revert.

Also, I had understood that Huggle was specifically used to revert vandalism. I see from it's page found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Huggle that "Huggle is a diff browser intended for dealing with vandalism and other unconstructive edits..." and that "the principal idea of Huggle [is] as an anti-vandalism tool". So, it is not necessarily exclusively for vandalism but is primarily for vandalism.

Bishonen, you are right that my idea that Doug must not be neutral was misconceived, and this was a result of the above mention misunderstanding. If Grayfell reverted me, then my issue is with Greyfell's reasoning and subsequent action, certainly not with Doug. (Sorry again Doug.) Your provided links were very helpful. Thank you. Bishonen, I am glad to hear that no one thinks that I am a vandal, but I am not happy by the assertion that "quite a few people think [I am] a tendentious editor". You had started by talking about my edits, but you then moved on to a generalization about me. This opinion of yours is more of a comment on me as an editor. Please, attempt to comment on content, not on the contributor. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks In any event, I understand that I upset you with my initial mistake, and I apologize to you as well.

I do still maintain that the revert does constitute vandalism, and this is absolutely not a personal attack. People certainly do have their own points of view, and I am merely saying the there should be an unbiased point of view presented in our pages. If the aforementioned quoted text stands: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", then the removal of my content could indeed by vandalism. Furthermore, I assert that it not only could be but rather actually was, and I am ready to make my case for this.

So, I guess I am the newbie with a question at this point. While I posted inaccurately to this talk wall, should I instead post to Grayfell's wall? I will mention here that my page edits were not "inappropriately promotional"; but rather, I merely followed normal protocol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol Unlike what happened to my edits through the revert, I did not delete salvageable text; and rather, I only added balancing material or made the wording more neutral while also including citations for any added material. After the revert, I understood the proper step was to address the person who was doing this via their talk page, but I then addressed the wrong person. I really want to resolve this issue, not merely allow the perceived bias on the page to continue. I want to do this right this time, and I am asking advice for how to do this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Finally to Doug, I am sorry that this conversation on your wall at all. While what I have to say must still be said, it shouldn't have been said here. This was my misunderstanding; and if you prefer, the conversation can, here on your wall at least, end. Yet if you are willing, I would still like to discuss advice about where to go from here in the dispute resolution process. BoyBlueSky (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Lebor Gabála Érenn

Sorry Doug, I'm bowing out. There's no reasoning with her. Brings back too many bad memories of similar disputes. Good luck, and if it gets too bad, remember - if Wikipedia is wrong, it's not your responsibility to fix it, any more than it is mine. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@NickNack009: forgot to tell you she's been indefinitely blocked. She wasn't even very competent, one reason I guess that she was blocked - ie no one could completely understand her complaints! Doug Weller talk 20:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I was careless and for some reason used the wrong case for your name, User:Nicknack009. And didn't preview, my bad. But I got a notification about it, and that was great. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Toven draft page

Hi Doug Weller,

I received what looks like a link only and it is noted. However, the article was rejected not for references or citing, but for not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I specifically am asking to address this issue only for now. The other issues raised can be addressed accordingly.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list

The independent sources in the published Wiki articles that were cited in this draft were previously verified by Wiki volunteers and administrators so why is it that when it comes to The Toven draft their is a indifference and rejection?

Thanks Spiritletters (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritletters (talk • contribs)


(talk page stalker) @Spiritletters: your sources all appear to be Wikipedia articles, which we never use, and their website, which can't be used to show notability. I'm wondering if your Wikipedia links were meant to go to the news media mentioned. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


Doug, Good solid point. Yes, news media mentioned (unless its biased or slandering with malicious intent like some) As well as Wiki articles and the news media links that were used to verify the notability of the article to begin with. Thanks Spiritletters (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritletters (talk • contribs)

Disruptive editing by GlassBones

Hello, I see you've communicated with User:GlassBones about hounding. He's reverted 3 times in about 23 hrs. at Conrad Black, and has ignored my instruction about leads as well as my request that he self-revert.

He opened this new account a few days after he was indefinitely blocked for abusing editing privileges; he seems to be asking to be banned. Would you kindly intervene? Thank you, YoPienso (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley sanctioned him while I was writing to you. YoPienso (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but I think Awilley's block template about BattleshipGray being indeffed for abusing editing privileges was a mistake. It doesn't fit with the other Awilley block template from the same day. I'm just writing to ask him now. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC).
The strange thing is he was blocked in November but hadn't edited since August. Nonetheless, his edits are generally not constructive. He seems to enjoy taunting and inserting his POV. YoPienso (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the "abuse of editing" template was a mistake. The block was mostly an uncontroversial way to link the old account to the new one. ~Awilley (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

More Roys

I've not bothered with SPI yet, but in case you'd like to look at it before I have the opportunity, a few suspects: Vaughnwyamhill, Larry M Neeley, I have more on a list but they may now be stale, I could check but it's not high priority for me... —PaleoNeonate – 03:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And a very recently blocked one, Volli Rainer —PaleoNeonate – 12:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ARBPIA - Charliefromadel

Hi, I thought you should know that despite your warnings to them about edits in the ARBPIA area like this one: [73] etc., user Charliefromadel has continued to make edits that look to me like they breach the restrictions, e.g.: [74]. Please let me know if there's some other procedure I should follow, thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@IamNotU:, no, this was fine. I've given them a final warning and also told them I'l block them if they continue to make edits that say "fix typo" but don't fix typos. Do let me know if there are further problems. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Will do, thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Kuiet

Hey, Doug. Are their issues with user's edits that might be concerning in the context of user's original user name, "Kike korrektor" and the rename/unblock discussion that ensued? In short, have we been misled? Any "dog-whistle politics" or pointiness? -- Deepfriedokra 18:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I haven't seen anything so far. Maybe later as he edits more. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ben Sabic

Hi Doug,

I hope you are doing well.

I apologize if I am not making this request in the appropriate area.

On the Ben Sabic page, I had noticed that you protected the page from being created on September 3, 2012. I was wondering if you could remove the protection tag, so I may proceed with creating the page for Mr. Sabic.

I do believe that he may meet the notability requirements and that quite a lot has changed since 2012 in regards to Mr. Sabic. This includes his connection to the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, Kids Help Phone, Future Leaders of Manitoba, Dakota Collegiate, Loizza Aquino, and Phil Hudson. Additionally, he spoke at WE Day Manitoba and attended WE Day Ottawa in 2017, rappelled down an office tower in Downtown Winnipeg in support of a Manitoba charity, moderated a keynote panel at a national conference in Toronto, hosted a screening of a documentary by the True Patriot Love Foundation, was featured in the Winnipeg Free Press, contributed to the Community News Commons, and involvement with the Global Coalition on Youth Mental Health. Additionally, I do have other content which I may include to further the significance of the subject.

Thank you so much for your time.

--Torontopedia (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Torontopedia: no problem. I think the best thing to do is create it through WP:AfC and then when you're told it's good to go either let me know or if it's an Admin reviewing it say it's ok to unsalt it. Read Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Layout at least. Remember we like secondary sources meeting WP:RS discussing him, not just him being at an event, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

It's unfortunate that none of us caught this edit at Kollerstrom. It's been sitting there since November 2018. No one's fault, just a pity, especially with Lipstadt appearing to be the source. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: damn. Thanks for catching it now though. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I got a fright when I saw it, because I had a vague memory of having written that sentence, so I was horrified that I might have written "poor support". It was a relief to find it was an SPA. SarahSV (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Verifications ?

Hello Doug, John Gooch again. You say that an independent verification is needed, where can I learn about getting some ? I could search for the word verification, but presently, imagine that there would be to many. Thanks for the many free strives that you do do.M0YVE (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

/* ALW Cipher */ putting the record straight. Again.

I've taken all mention of myself and the name of the system I use and the name of the man who discovered it out of the Wikipedia article. My contributions to the article have been met as if they are "vandalism". Frankly, I am at a loss as to the reason why I should be regarded an an unreliable source, and I'd just like some clarification, please. Even a brief explanation would be gratefully received, and appreciated. Thank you. Cath Thompson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.146.123 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Personal knowledge is not verifiable and therefore not acceptable. Sorry, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


What kind of knowledge isn't personal knowledge? I don't understand. Is second-hand knowledge preferable? Do book sales count as verification? Cath Thompson 81.157.146.123 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains it pretty good. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Young Conservatives of Texas

Doug, there's two IPs that keep restoring material; I have not checked whether they restored the stuff you deleted earlier. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies and Johnuniq: thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Wait, no! Drmies, I haven't edited the article, have I? Doug Weller talk 19:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I remember, I revision/deleted some names that I think were just being added by kids playing around. Unsourced anyway, possible BLPs. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks Doug. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Uncomfortable about your comment on a talk page

I was browsing the talk page on Fascism today and I came across a comment that you left on October 8, 2019. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism#Fascism_is_not_associated_with_any_political_party_by_its_very_definition)

I will be the first to admit that I am pretty new to the Wikipedia community and don't have the most experience yet, but seeing a comment like this coming from an administrator of the site makes me feel rather uncomfortable as it seems to convey a tone and message opposite to the ideals of the site that I've learned about from the introductory material for being a part of the Wikipedia community.

To me, your comment of "Anyone who thinks there can be such a thing as a "far-left liberal" has no business anywhere near articles about politics." feels like it violates Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, as WA:PA states that "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."

I hope you'll take my concern in to consideration, as your comment is the first time I've ever come across an administrator on Wikipedia and seeing comments like that from an administrator cause me to worry about the neutrality of the site as a whole and question the value of the contributions I make to the site.

Sincerely, FACP2007 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@FACP2007: I find it odd that you've singled me out. The first response to that editor was by User:Ian.thomson who wrote "If you're going to suggest that Routledge, Oxford UP, or Harper Collins are unreliable, we're going to show you the door. Maybe the problem is that you've trapped yourself in a far-right echo chamber?" Then User:Black Kite wrote " To be honest, there probably needs to be some sort of "block on sight" answer to statements such as the lunatic one above..." Since you've only complained about my post, I have to assume you are ok with them. You've misinterpreted my comment entirely. It was not about the editor's personal politics, it was about his competence. I've got a degree in political science from Yale and his comment was for me could be compared to someone saying that rusting is caused by phlogiston. If you are that ignorant about a subject you shouldn't be editing it. I also find it odd that you would take my comment and go from there to worrying about the neutrality of the site. That's not a very scientific approach. You also seem to misunderstand Wikipedia - it does not attempt to be neutral in the sense you seem to mean. It doesn't give equal weight to science and Creationism. It doesn't treat Breitbart as reliable as the New York Times or the Miami Herald. It is explicitly mainstream. Read WP:NPOV carefully. I'll also add that the editor in question had only made 3 edits 2 years before coming to the talk page to post, and hasn't posted since. I think I agree with the comment by other editors there that they were trolling. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Just sad replies should be more carefoul of fringe viewpoints in my opinion. Galileo would have enormous problems in actual wiki. --83.42.252.78 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Socks

Hi. I notice you blocked User:Truth is this as a sock of User:Asadul rasel, but actually, I think they're both socks of User:Smatrah. PepperBeast (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast: why? Doug Weller talk 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a duck. All of the articles edited by those two were previously edited by Smatrah. The writing style is similar, as is the combattiveness. That's actually what I was thinking when I commented on User:Truth is this's page. PepperBeast (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pepperbeast: that seems quite possible, and I've asked another CU. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
How did that CU go? I see Smatrah has joined the edit war on Women in Islam. PepperBeast (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pepperbeast: they couldn't help. They couldn't recall the earlier case where they blocked him and there's not enough evidence for a CU. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
No worries; thanks for checking. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar redirect

Hi, I have nominated a redirect of Ilhan Omar that implies that her father's name is the same as her ex-husband father's name. The name was made up by a conspiracy theorist right-wing blogs. It's defamatory and should be removed. However, I don't think editors here get how this fake name implies that, because they use a different naming system that make the first and the second name are the names of the same person and not his name and his father's name.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, regarding the MS-13 page

You're saying that adding text that is essentially a paraphrase of the same text that was shot down by the RfC is fine? And you're also saying that it's fine for you to come around to my talk page instead of discussing such a questionable addition on the talk page of the article? How are you an admin, exactly? PaganPanzer (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It was a short sentence summarising the material in the article - that's what the RfC suggested, but in fact I didn't see the RfC, the edit I made about 2 weeks ago, reverted in error and then restored by [[u|SummerPhDv2.0}} was my first edit to the article, so how about assuming good faith? I did not look at the bolded text at all. You haven't edited since last May and almost all of your edits with this account have been to this article. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hindustani language

Hi Doug! Can you consider to add a ds/talk notice-template to Talk:Hindustani language? The subject relates to India and Pakistan, so ACDS implicitly also apply to this topic. The scope of the page is debated, and one editor repeatedly resorts to quite odd assertions about the "motives" of other editors, which IMHO violates AGF (e.g. [75]). I know this can be reproachable even without ACDS, but lowering the threshold should help to stengthen awareness about proper conduct. –Austronesier (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: done. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you! –Austronesier (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

IP and likely sock puppet recently added extensive original research to Negrito page.

The same IP (81.10.217.91) that had disruptively edited the Vedda page not too long ago (and has a history of adding WP:OR to Peopling of India and Andamanese), and also seems to be a suck puppet of previous similar IPs (and several blocked accounts), has just made a very extensive edit to Negrito. Though I could not investigate all of it immediately (there was a lot) I looked it over it and noticed the it included several inaccurate statements and instances of what appeared to be WP:OR as well a the removal of sourced material that seemed to contradict that claims added by the IP. I reverted it with explanation in the edit notes including a points. This seems to be persistent. Here is the edit history of the Negrito page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negrito&action=history Hopefully something can be done. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

IP apparently just here on vandalism

Hi Doug,

Can something be done about IP 136.32.114.40. If you look at their contributions [76], all they do is delete/mangle article content leaving an edit summery of "≈≈≈".--Ermenrich (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Adolf Warski

I don’t know how to add a source to category. Can you look at my change when you get a chance? [77] Here is the source[78] GizzyCatBella🍁 10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Islam and domestic violence

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Koreangauteng (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hounding and continued edit warring by Andrew Lancaster

Hi. As i'm sure you remember, Andrew Lancaster and myself had strong disagreements on the article Germanic peoples a few weeks ago. Edit warring occurred as a result, and we were warned both by Fram[[79] and yourself[80] that future edit warring would result in a block. I eventually refrained from further editing at Germanic peoples, and Andrew Lancaster exploited this opportunity to completely rewrite the article.[81][82] In the meantime, i have instead worked on improving the article Goths, which is currently under a GA review. Having rewritten Germanic peoples the way he wants it, Andrew Lancaster has now exported the edit warring to the article Goths, an article which he has never edited before,[83] thereby seriously inhibiting my work. This seems like violations of WP:HOUNDING and WP:BATTLE to me. Krakkos (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Edit warring? This was posted after Krakkos started reverting publication date corrections I was making. I, in contrast, have not re-reverted, but posted on the talk page about this strange behaviour. [84] What are you trying to achieve here by complaining about such necessary corrections and the other remarks etc on the talk page? I note also that you are now constantly complaining about there being a GA review you started. Normally articles with content discussions on-going (and your own extensive re-writing shows the need for a lot of content work) are not proposed for GA review. It looks a bit like you started the process as a strategic act? Clearly what is really happening is POV pushing. On Germanic peoples you wrote about us having our own ("pet") parts of the article. Your parts were not allowed to mention anyone who agrees with Walter Goffart. As I pointed out, that is POV forking. I see you using a similar logic still in your complaints about me working on related articles, where you are trying to build up an censored anti Goffart block of articles (walled garden), by using older books, non-specialist works, and sometimes even re-dating them. Obviously that is not going to be something sustainable, so why not just work according to the accepted community norms?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Update is that Krakkos is now openly insisting on using supposed reprint dates as publication dates. I want to be clear: the post above is blatently dishonest, and not for the first time, and these edits are fraudulent. It just goes on and on. These are all systematically working to achieve a pattern of aims, over and over. I can't find any nice way to say it. This is not a competent editor of Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Goodplacefreak20 socking

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Goodplacefreak20. Pretty close to WP:DUCK, but to be sure... OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: WP:AN/I thread

This discussion probably should have been before now, but I've only started looking over it & it appears that one of the people involved is a sock of someone you blocked a while back. Any thoughts about said person, if this is the case? Feel free to email me with a response. Thanks in advance. --- llywrch (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Llywrch: What is your evidence to support this claim, and what account are you claiming that I'm a 'sock' of?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not a sock of any account....--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have seen your notification on my talk page, and understand what you are referring to. That old account was blocked indefinitely and at the time I didn't know that it could be unblocked. Additionally the user/editor name held personal significance for me at the time. Shortly before that occurrence, I endured a rather painful divorce that made me not want to even open the account again. That toxic relationship has connection to that log-in name (i.e. the screen-name was referring to something in that relationship)... is there a way to just delete it permanently? Thanks for your help m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This conversation has moved to DMH's Talk page. DG, feel free to close this section. -- llywrch (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

ECP for Talk:North East Delhi riots?

Hi Doug. I'm trying to make sense of the discussion on that talk page and it is impossible to figure out what is going on. What is clear is that there are numerous drive by editors with recent accounts with comments like one. With all the talk about the posts at the volunteer response team (for some reason redacted?), perhaps ECP on the talk page will bring some order to the process. What do you think?--regentspark (comment) 01:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: That post was suppressed but an Admin copied it to the editor's talk page. I've blocked the editor and suppressed the text. And told the Admin. It needs it but I don't know if doing it without consensus would be ok. It was done 4 years ago at WP:AE.[85] so maybe go to AE? Doug Weller talk 08:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bradv, El C, Wugapodes, Anachronist, and Nosebagbear: comments? Doug Weller talk 08:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Some kind of protection is a good idea. The signal to noise rating there is low due to the volume of non-autoconfirmed accounts using it as essentially a forum to air their concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so I semi-protected it for 31 hours to dissuade block evasion which I guess is my most immediate concern. I'm open to ECP protection for a longer term, but want to sleep on it; it's late here and things seem to have escalated quickly, so I'm a little off-kilter at the moment. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: - I'm inclined towards a week of semiprotect at this point - I think we gain an appreciable amount of actual secondary issues with EC, and that the number of editors who will stick around to build up the 10 edits to edit 4 days later is relatively low. We might want to encourage eyes in certain related articles in case it drives effort elsewhere (e.g the Delhi main article or CAA) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
At Opindia, now blacklisted, they are discussing setting up pov forks. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, am ready for firmer hand — though I'm not sure ECP is actually necessary for the article talk page. A more lengthy semi may, indeed, be due, though. El_C 18:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • That's was my approach after my 24-hour protection (to protect for a week). The result seems to have been: somewhat manageable for 24 hours, then a resurgence once I was gone. Had I not been away, I would have protected for a week rather than a day or so again. But sure, we can see what happens next. Perhaps things have dissipated by now. El_C 15:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems legit. As a side note, my cactus would like to tender a complaint about me, because I am subjecting it to the language I would like to use for certain individuals and one organisation involved in this field. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I am aware of the sanctions, was just trying to add a new twist that has come into the picture, maybe you can review it from your point of view and put it forth if you deem appropriate Amitized (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Amitized

@Amitized: sorry, no idea what twist you mean, but I'm not getting directly involved with the article. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article talk page for a week in the end — sorry forgot to mention that. El_C 19:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Pontiac's war edit thanks

Just got your message re helping with deletion. Thanks for that. You mention a way to reach you that involves "a new edit" but -- and here's my problem -- I do this SO rarely I was left not knowing: a new edit where? In answer to your question: with my original problem I looked for help several places -- Forget 1st effort. My 2nd effort was a search on help page, first with search term 'vandalism' then overwhelmed by options, tried search on 'BLP' (thinking it was related to my concern) and then search on 'speedy delete'. On each of those I clicked on various options that looked most likely of solving the problem, but then didn't seem to in the end. Too many options. In the end, it's like that wonderful joke from the old George Burns/Gracie Allen series: George is helping Gracie by reading from the recipe book while she cooks: George: Separate 2 eggs. Gracie: How far are you supposed to separate them? You old pros take a lot for granted. Those of us who never edit are overwhelmed. And so... we never edit. And you *are* an old pro; I've seen your name so often, I wonder whether I should ask for an autograph? (Smiley face) Thanks again alacarte 23:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor alacarte (talk • contribs)

Re:your blocking me

Point taken. I will use this block as an opportunity to try to improve my conduct as an editor, for example by always adding edit summaries, and being careful about the quality of sources. GergisBaki (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Notice.

Sir, actually I live near to Riot affected area and That's why I am Uploading the Pictures of Affected Area. One user( Slatersteven ) in North East Delhi Riots talk page express his problem regarding the verification of riot pictures. So, now I am in confusion that either I upload those Pictures which i have clicked or not? please suggest me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Banswalhemant: this may seem strange, but we cannot use our own knowledge or experience for articles, we can only use reliably published sources. Read WP:RS. So no, your photos aren't reliably published. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe there is a way, I'm checking. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hello DW. This thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking of User:Shashank5988 has just been started so I thought you should know about it ASAP. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

can you clarify plz

Can you tell me if there was something specific or particular that generated your post on my talk page? I'm searching my mind, which is half empty, and not sure what generated it. thxMikethewhistle-original (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

RevisionDelete request

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

NedFausa (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @NedFausa: if it's urgent I'm happy to take a look. Doug hasn't edited for a few hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: thanks for your thoughtful offer. It is not urgent and can wait for Doug. NedFausa (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

ACT For America

In response to what you said in your reversion summary for ACT For America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT!_for_America

I am the one who made the edit. Here is what you said:

"Our articles are meant to describe the subject according to what reliable sources say about it, they aren't vehicles for promotion, people can read their website for that."

Can you provide a link to a Wikipedia editing guide of some sort which backs up your claim that "articles are meant to describe the subject according to what reliable sources say about it?" And how exactly is it making the article a "vehicle for promotion" by simply stating in the article's introduction what the organisation says about themselves? Isn't "what reliable sources say about it" WELL covered in the main contents of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.94.82 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP, you might want to look at the site's foundational principles, as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Also, whitewashing the lede is a form of promotion. Granted, I would have just said "whitewashing" instead, but if you don't understand how the word "premier" is promotional, you must not know the meaning of the word(s) "premier" and/or "promotional." Ian.thomson (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) While an essay, WP:MISSION also seems relevant, also self published sources and identifying independent sources. —PaleoNeonate – 13:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson and PaleoNeonate: I've been trying to explain this to editors of American Descendants of Slavery‎ and must find time to reply at Talk:American Descendants of Slavery‎. See also[86]. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Are you unable to reply to ME as opposed to replying to others?

Authoritative source

Hello again Doug, as you were in ARBCOM and I've seen this used in several cases, I thought I'd ask here: I wonder if there's an authoritative source for statements such as the following, that's often been used in cases during decision making? Example: "Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopaedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors." Searching for the exact text only pointed me at other cases using it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: you seem to be referring to some of the "principles" we vote on in cases, and as they are voted on you can assume they are authoritative. It's also what happens in practice. Searching for "escalating blocks"[87] is more helpful I think, see as an example WP:NPA. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes, I am aware of the related policies but was wondering about these summary sentences in particular. So if I understand, these are summaries of important principles reflected in policy, that are reused as-is by precedent rather than found on a special list of sentences for ARBCOM? Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 13:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: yes. There's no such list although of course reusing old statements is common. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Negation?

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=945065920&oldid=945065445&diffmode=source this edit" I think you might be missing a "not" - i.e. you do not support a consensus required restriction? Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You've got 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.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Habesha peoples

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/June#Synthesis, POV. I noticed you'd raised similar concerns when editing that article in the not-too-distant past. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Recep ivedik

Please edit this page [88] name. It is turkish.Pouyasg (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

SPI anonbaby

Hello Doug, I guess we are both in sync and saw the same connection. I opened this SPI an hour and a half before yours: [[89]]. Please feel free to close it or let me know if I should note the relationship and link to yours in it. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: lol, that makes 3!. I'll post to it as I found the sockmaster, neither yours nor the other one mentions him. What a stupid mess (not the duplicate SPIs, the fanboy/girl war). Timewasting. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Ekponborobehi was indeed a sock. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
👍 Good work on finding the puppeteer! Yes, I agree that "stupid mess" is a good description, its not the first, nor it will be the last time that our project is used as a battlefield. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editor engaging in Sockpuppetry

Hi I noticed User:Spasiba5 has been blocked for 72 hours. Another editor with the same edit history has been engaging in the exact same editing and editing behaviours. Could you please block them? They are engaging in removal of reliable references and opposing opinion based on ridiculous reasoning and are refusing to engage in talk pages. The sockpuppet account is User:Carosalazar18. Please take a look at his contributions here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Carosalazar18 is a sock, but not of Spasiba5.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. NarSakSasLee (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Require help with a vandal

Hi Doug I require some help with a vandal.

  • Sweet6970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is engaging in mass deletion of reliably sourced material based on spurious reasoning in a clear act of vandalism. I have reverted their edits twice to no avail (see [90] [91]). but they are keeping at it. The sources that are being removed by the user are peer reviewed and the editor has repeatedly been removing these without an adequate reason (leaving dishonest edit summaries behind to cover their tracks). Examples stated here and here

Could you please take some action? The user engaged disagrees with the sources presented despite the sources being from an academic journal or reliable news organisations. The user is attempting to engage in censorship instead of constructively adding to the conversation. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mr Weller: I suggest you look at NarSakSasLee’s talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @NarSakSasLee: You reported Sweet6970 for vandalism to WP:AIV, despite the fact that you have left not a single warning on the editor's Talk page (indeed, there are no warnings of any kind on Sweet6970's Talk page). That report was obviously declined, and now you accuse them of vandalism here. This kind of behavior constitutes personal attacks. I'd be careful if I were you because you may end up being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
And this is despite the fact that the editor in question is obviously engaging in vandalism by removing entire subsections of reliably sourced material? Please have a look at the evidence I've cited. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm far too busy to get involved in this. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
This isn't that complicated Doug. The user is removing sourced content. That's it. He is a new user who thinks it's okay to delete entire sections of articles that disagree with his personal views. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@NarSakSasLee: I think I see now. The rape report is so large it's copyvio, please cut to 220 words or so. First use the talk page to make you objections. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all I ask for. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI re User:GirlishDriver

This (which you warned them for) was followed by this (after they deleted your talk-page messages). --JBL (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: I rev/del'd the edit and edit summary, Bishonen blocked them indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both! --JBL (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Samson's Riddle

Hello Doug

When I read the policies it said Wiki tried to be flexible. Boscawen (in 1895) linked the eater of Babylonian astral traditions to the words of the Riddle. The claim that the manna of Exodus tastes like honey is made by the author of Exodus I have just noted that manna or its pagan equivalent could provide the answer to explain the sweetness of the Riddle.

If this is correct this is really important. Technically it might be correct to say that the piece I included contained a new proposal. Some of this had been published previously on a forum for the Society of Interdisciplinary Studies. I am hoping to start a discussion and any comments on the proposal that either I make or that Boscawen makes are welcome but just shutting down discussion is not helpful.

If this solution for the Riddle is correct it is of major importance for Biblical studies. I am considering putting a shorter version back on. This is almost the first time I have have edited so sorting out references has not been easy.

There is nothing in my edit that can not be checked or for which references are provided as with the critical quote from Boscawen. The identity of Mesopotamian deities can be fluid the Underworld, Ereshkigal and Nergal are all linked with the title Irkalla and there is also an Egyptian goddess called Ammit who was named the 'devourer'.

Hopefully Wikipedia is a great educational source I use it for research all the time. If this piece about the Riddle and manna can be left on Wiki I hope it provide a better understanding of the text and informed comments are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsteethred (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dragonsteethred: "Wiki" is a software that many websites use. This is Wikipedia. We can ignore rules when they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, but that's not the case here.
Boscawen missed about a century and a quarter of major archaeological discoveries. You need a source written by someone at least aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls existed (if not, ya know, taking any evidence from them into account).
Ev Cochrane's work builds upon claims by Immanuel Velikovsky and so are just as utterly worthless as Velikovsky's.
Wikipedia does not use original research, so even if Boscawen's work was acceptable, your conclusions derived from them but not actually found in his work are not.
You can click this link to go to a guide I wrote that covers a variety of issues, including finding sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello you claim that Ev Cochrane and presumably Velikovsky are unreliable. What doesd this mean. We may disagree with their ideas but generally they quote source matefrial as accurastely as other authors. I pointed out beforecv what about the Bible do you regard the Bible as a reliable source. If you leave what I wrote perhaps it will encourage some to make some serious points. Boscawen noted Irksalla the Great Eater from Babylonian tradition reminded him of the eater of the Riddle. Are you trying to argue that Boscawen's claim was incorrect. He could have cited Ammit thge devourer from Egyptian mythology, I think some Bibles (perhaps the Luther Bible uses 'devourer' instead of eater.

I changed the reference from Ev to Robin Baker. Do we accept that he is a reliable reference. My point is that originally the Riddle belonged came from ancient Babylonian astral mythology, and this is what Boscawen was virtually proposing back in 1895 Around this time the language from many different cultures was full of astral symbolism and astral deities. Check ancient Greece, ancient Mesopotamia, and even the Hebrew Scriptures.

Yes I may be proposing that the food, bread, or 'meat' of the Riddle is celestial, ie. the bread of heaven. Do you know the story of the manna gathered in the Wilderness? Would you agree that 'manna' tasted sweet like honey?

Following Boscawen's proposal this provides evidence that answers the Riddle. If providing the correct answer is disruptive it is only disruptive in that it shows the other explanation are wrong or at least incomplete. Hopefully you do not think the other proposals such as honey from a dead lion or the love of a fair maiden are so fragile that you have to protect them from rational competition. Try putting it back up and see what other people think.

I am not sure what the Dead sea Scrolls have got to do with this. (I have heard that a story in the National Geographical talks of them being modern fakes but hopefully that is just fake news.) Perhaps you could be more specific withg your critism.

Are you denying the existence in Babylonian mythology literature of a deity titled the eater or great eater. Are you denying that the Babyloian god of Mars was described as and called the strong or strong one, or are you denying that the manna of Exodus (and the ambrosial food of pagan traditions) tasted like honey.

With regards, 

                   Dragonsteethred.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsteethred (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dragonsteethred: I am saying that you are violating our no original research policy and that you either get consensus at WP:NORN that I'm wrong or stop adding your edits. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

New account making POV edits at Jinn

Hi Doug,

Would you mind keeping an eye on the editer who's shown up at Jinn. They've been removing sourced info saying it's "wrong". I've been reverting them and have already left one template warning at their talk.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If they are seeming sock-like, might want to compare to: this one. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: belated thanks, but I don't think this is a sock, or at least not that sock. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Looking more closely, I don't think so, either. I suspect that one will be back eventually, however. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Please be more careful in ticking the Minor edits tick box.

Thank you for your elaboration. - MainBody (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor on Goths

Hi Doug, an editor has started adding a fringe theory that the Goths were Slavs at Goths. I've already reverted two edits and given him a template, but he's still at it. Might you step in? He's now reverted at least one edit I had reverted of his [92] [93] and he's not using edit summaries.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked through his history and he's been at this for years, but most recently [94], [95], [96], [97]. This is all wp:or.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Subject Mercy Eke

As regards the previous changes made to Mercy Eke’s article, subjects like Toke Makinwa Kim Kardashian, Nicki Minaj all have their personal business projects, listed out. What makes Mercy Eke Clothing line different? Mystique4788 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat frustrating dispute on Genetic studies on Jews Talk page.

Hello. Over the last few days I have been engaged in a dispute with another editor on the [Genetic studies on Jews]] page, which began when they added a paragraph to the "Recent studies" section describing the hypothesis/recent study of Eran Elhaik et al positing that Ashkenazi Jews (and other Jewish groups) lack significant Levantine ancestry. I removed the addition, noting that it was undue (a sentence describing it was already in the section) due to the history of controversy and academic criticism sorrounding Elhaik's work and thst it's inclusion would misleadingly suggest that his conclusions were more authoritative in the field than they in fact are (they represent a very small minority and appear to be a radical departure from scholarly mainstream/consensus opinion on the subject), in addition to the study's co-authorship by the fringe Linguist Paul Wexler.

We have been discussing the issue in the Talk page, but there seems to have been little progress. In some instances it seems that the other editor may not be listening. But they suggested getting another editor involved with knowledge of the subject ("an uninvolved editor prefereably with knowledge in Genetics") It does seem like a good idea at this point to seek an outside opinion/opinions, but I would think that an editor with knowlege of the subject would be likely to have engaged with it (i.e. have some history or "involvement"). I had previously messaged two users who seemed to have engaged with the subject (one of whom was User:Tritomex who seems to have a knowledge of genetics and to have engaged with this subject in particular, but I was left a link by another editor (on my personal Talk page) on canvassing (I would not have thought my messages were canvassing as I have also been asked by other editors for my opinion on issues and edits related to population genetics.) The Talk page discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Recent_Addition and the page's edit history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_studies_on_Jews&action=history

So I am now unsure how to do seek outside views on this. I considered filing at DRN (dispute resolution) but I am not sure the person responding would be knowledgeable in the subject (Is there a better option for cases such as this?). (Also Tritomex has suggested that the editor whith whom I am engaging may be a sock.). Thank you for your time. Skllagyook (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Avdmoh

I think this pov-pushing by User:Avdmoh is the limit; enough of this pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Best to take them to WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A 48-Hour Block?

For what exactly? I'd prefer you take to addressing my concerns about this immediately. This is completely unjustified -- if this is because I hatted a discussion beneath my vote because of disurptive formatting (The use of a bolded "Nope" immediately beneath my Include" vote), then the fact that you would immediately issue a 48-hour ban against me is pretty outrageous. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I see there was a misunderstanding because of improper formatting by the user making the bolded "Nope." Regardless, the fact that you'd issue a block for this is uncalled-for and I ask that you retract it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You've got 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.— MrClog (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Filelakeshoe to User talk:Filelakeshoe

Please restore it.It was a mistake.Caused by a finger slipping on a mouse button.Thanks.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Jagannath .

Hi, By reading your message, I knew that you are intelligent. Please let me edit Jagannath because I am from Puri, odisha, India🇮🇳. I am a great devotee of him and I have Researched about Jagannath for years. Pease unblock me. I can contribute better. Pratimatripathy (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

[98]

I'm going through edits made by socks; it's a particularly vile set. I just dropped a rangeblock as well, but I guess I should have mentioned anti-Islamic to the block notice as well... Drmies (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: sorry, lost track of this. I shouldn't look at messages before I'm really ready to edit. Anything I should do? Doug Weller talk 20:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it's more an FYI than anything else. I thought it was funny that I ran into you while investigating a sock of this nature. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

New message from MrClog

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at MrClog's talk page.
Message added 22:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You seemed to have missed my ping there--I asked a question about what your further plans for the article on VPS are. MrClog (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, MrClog I don't really have plans, so little time, so many fish. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor adding original research

Hi, could you or any of your page-watchers please intervene in Christchurch mosque shootings article? The article contains original research in the background section which seems to be added there to justify what that terrorist did. I was reverted by an editor who seems not to understand what an original research is.see here-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources there are related to the shooting. There should be no debate about this original research but yet I got reverted. It seems that it was added there just to justify the terrorist attacks against Muslims.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC) SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The contributions link at the top of your talk page (Halloween section) is linking to another editor contributions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: sorry, busy day. I see Drmies stepped in. The other editor was my first account, but I need to fix that. And maybe the Halloween bit when I can figure out what I did! Doug Weller talk 19:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Lukesitalsingh matching the name of a well-known, living person

Please could you look at the above username as there is an article Luke Sital-Singh which they have edited?SovalValtos (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch Hades (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia needs more happiness

Fringe theories are sometimes the truth of tomorrow. You need more respect with new ideas. Sad to cope with oldschoolers like you. Good luck. --95.127.172.55 (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BALL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

IP sock of Frindle222/Dante8

Very similar IP, same interests. See this article history for an example, and here's the SPI page for a refresher: [99] Suggesting rangeblock because their IP shifts: [100] And hopefully it can be lengthy. Let me know if you have any questions or need more info. Crossroads -talk- 04:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: looks like a duck so feel free to revert it all. I'm asking my CU colleagues about a larger rangeblock - I don't want a lot of collateral damage. Meanwhile I've blocked the /64,[101] but it seems to change every few days.Doug Weller talk 17:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for working on it. Crossroads -talk- 04:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Harran

Dear Doug Weller,

I've had a problem yesterday in the article Harran, there is an editor who seems to know quite a lot in the Archaeological field but he uses only his own books to reference what he writes, doesn't answer on the talk page, and writes on his user page he is the author (Mehmet Önal) of the books and an excavator of archaeological items. I checked the books, I only found them on academia, but they were about the subject. Yesterday he attempted to introduce empty sections he later probably would have wanted to fill. Like you can do it in the sandbox, and didn't stop to try. So the last time he attempted it I thought ah common...and I let the text stay, and him try. He didn't fill them during the night, so I removed them again. I've seen you are active in the archaeology project. He just joined yesterday, so he is new; how do you deal with thes editors who seem to have a good knowledge in the field the write in but not of the wikipedia guidelines? I'd like to get him on board, but he needs to also use other sources than his book and interact with the wikipedia community. What are your thoughts? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: he's clearly a prominent archaeologist in his country, at one point he was head of department. But yeah, there's a problem. I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology is the best place to ask this so that others can get involved, including Joe Roe another Admin. But read my note on their talk page first, ok? We want this expert to help us. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

...for catching and blocking the vandal, User:Shreksonion35. Your diligence is very much appreciated. I will look back at the effected articles in the coming week, to see if he returns under a different guise. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:9028:32A4:101A:458F (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_57&oldid=1077675423"