Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

2020-04 Eurabia

Hello,

About your request in special:diff/948338568, you can find several sources about the Eurabia conspiracy theory at wikidata:Q737979#P973, wikidata:Q737979#P1343, wikidata:Q737979#P7775. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Dear Doug I am very new to this so I hope I use the right words! I'm sorry, but I don't know what a tilde is, or how to do it.

I hope you will consider replacing the new links I added. The two groups I mentioned - the Companions of Dion Fortune and the Gareth Knight Group are not commercial, nor are they run for profit. The Companions of Dion Fortune is a free resource of information about Dion Fortune including some scholarly articles about her work and a forum for discussion. The Gareth Knight Group is the group established by Gareth Knight himself in the 1970s, which continues to thrive, for educational and training purposes, and the study of his work. I do believe that these are worthy and useful additions to the Wikipedia pages.

Ysobelarcher (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ysobelarcher: it appears you learned how to use a tilde (~). :) I think those links will in fact be ok on the Dion Fortune and Gareth Knight pages, but if you read WP:EL I hope you can see why they wouldn't be on other pages. People far too often fail to understand the purpose of external links. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

3RR ticket

Your edit: Just reminding you you've been blocked for this before and 3RR is not an entitlement [1] brought to mind an old, supposed, de facto rule in Texas. It was said that a speeding ticket "was good for all day". After you signed the ticket, you could burn rubber and speed away. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I do know that when I worked as a campus cop, I was told that I shouldn't write more than one parking ticket on a car in the same day, no matter how many different places I found it parked illegally. - Donald Albury 11:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Came out to my car once and it had a huge "illegally parked in a fire zone" sign glued to my windshield. A fireman yelled at me: "Don't you see the yellow paint on the curb?" I replied: "Don't you see the yellow paint on my tires?" They had painted the curb while I was parked. To his credit, he produced a razor blade and helped remove the sign. Guess this is why you can't take someone to AE without first a DS warning. O3000 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Love these, thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

BAC LIGHTNING

Regarding the issue of climb rates in aircraft. In all the aircraft in wili regarding military jets they refer to climb rate in terms of zoom climb but yet we have a situation regarding the BAC lightning F.6 and they keep using the constant climb rate from pilot notes and yet the zoom climb has always being 50,000 ft per min not matched until the advent of the US F-15 EAGLE. Can we please have this listed correctly. Pet.Cay (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pet.Cay: besides my lack of time, I can't violate the policy at WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 05:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on Satlok Ashram Page

Hello, i saw you deleted the Teachings section there stating that we need unaffiliated sources for that, but did you look at the Dera Sacha Sauda article? There is only one source cited there for the whole teaching section. The Satlok Ashram Page also has one unaffiliated source for the Teaching's section and other sources from the official Website itself since only the official Websites can be relied upon to verify its true Preaching, no? So, Kindly reconsider your edit. Thanks. Kabirisgod (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello, I've noticed some persistent disruptive editing on a few high priority pages of WikiProject India. At first it seemed like it was just on the page of Lok Sabha but they seem to have edited in various other pages in a similar pattern over multiple days. I gave them warn but then noticed they have received blocks earlier as well due to disruptive editing. Can you please take a look at the activities of User:Yashodhan Ganu? Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: sorry but I really can't figure out what's going on there. Why not go to WP:ANI? Doug Weller talk 10:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source ?

Hey Doug, i hope that you're doing well. Could you please take a look at this source and tell me if it's reliable for the origin of the Azerbaijanis ? Thanks very much. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani yes, I'm fine. Self-isolating but we are walking our dogs. Hope you're ok. To answer your question I'd at least have to know what in the thesis you want to use to back what text. Also, would you use it to say "one view is"...? Her publication list seems ok.[2] And that leaves the question as to whether she's the only one with that view, WP:UNDUE. Sorry I can't give you a clear answer. Doug Weller talk 08:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Doug,
i'm happy to find you safe and sound. The source is used in the Azerbaijanis article for the "Genetics" section. This source is the only one i know that is denying an elite dominance model for the Turkification of Azerbaijan, 3 other sources are cited in the article and support this model. the part of the source used in the article is on page V : "The presence of a 20% or more admixture proportion in the RLR, and the presence of even higher contributions around the region, suggested that language might not be replaced inaccordance with “elite dominance model”. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wikaviani: that source seems to source "Some genetic studies support the view that the Azerbaijanis originate from a native population long resident in the area who adopted a Turkic language through a process of "elite dominance", i.e. a limited number of Turkic immigrants had a substantial cultural impact but left only weak patrilineal genetic traces." which confuses me. It looks as though it fails under WP:UNDUE This needs removing: "However, it is also significant that the evidence of genetic admixture derived from Central Asians (specifically Haplogroup H12), notably the Turkmen, is higher for Azerbaijanis than that of their Georgian and Armenian neighbors.[151][failed verification]" that is, if it does fail verification, and of course we can't tell readers what is significant. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: The source was used to support this sentence : "However, an autosomal study conducted on Turks and Azerbaijanis conclude that Central Asian contribution to Azerbaijan was "18% in females and 32% in males", and concludes that "The presence of a 20% or more admixture proportion suggested that language might not be replaced inaccordance with “elite dominance model”." but i removed it from the article in order to wait for your expertise. That said, as you said, it sounds WP:UNDUE to me too, so my opinion would be to see if the editors who tried to add that sentence with that source can find more sources that deny the elite dominance model before inclusion. Either way, thank you very much for your time and insight. Stay safe.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to your messages on my page

Hey Dough Weller,

Just noticed that you left me a message. I wasnt'a able to look at the archieved version and add a citation. Yuo can look at insta to see that the term Kammanhattan is picking up. Do add this as a citiation if you think it fits the bill. https://www.picuki.com/tag/kammanhattan

An estimate of Constantia Flexibles revenue was from their very own website https://www.cflex.com/news/detail/view/constantia-flexibles-surpasses-e2-billion-sales-in-2016

As far as the unknown years of christ are concerned, the paras sub heading did start with "Claims" which did not make any sense to me given that people often get caried away with mythology and find it difficult to distinguish fact from fiction! What that para suggested was that Jesus was a deciple of the Hindu god Krishna which again is speculation.

The subheading in the article - "Claims of Jesus Christ in India and/or Tibet before crucifixion"

I feel that articles that include a "claims" section just tend to not remain neutral thereafter! It is infact very easy to pick out faults. Then again if you feel that all I'm doing is vandalizing Wiki, then by all means, you're the boss. Feel free to fire me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgr12386 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vgr12386: Instagram is not a reliable source. You need professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not dependent upon, affiliated with, nor connected to Kammanhattan nor Constantia Flexibles.
Your edit to Unknown years of Jesus was disruptive because this site is not the Hindi Wikipedia. Furthermore, we don't put our own personal commentary in articles -- cite a professional mainstream academic source. At any rate, that section does not even support Jacolliot's claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, because i not can't use it FamilySearch. Where you want to get better sources than on that site, it seems unusual to use genealogical sources, which are derived from the original records. Ford489 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Melungeons in Appalachia practiced what is called"folk religion"

So I am Melungeon I have multiple healers via the laying of the hands I grew up always hearing about little people stealing stuff. There are numerous online articles confirming my own family history as in synch with families throughout Kentucky, Tennessee, & virginia. People can look up the phrase "granny witch" and find numerous articles about Appalachian folk traditions

This way central in my family who got called "melungeon" by racist know it alls.

So im trying to add a link to the page "Folk religion" under the religions section on the Melungeon page Despite the fact that Melungeon is a group of mountain folks with zero centralized authority whatsoever someone has made "Baptist" the official religion of the people called "Melungeon"

We just cherry picked from what was offered and did alot of things anthropologists would call "magic" like use charms and create barriers spirits couldn't cross.

I think that all this absolutely 100% justifies putting the link to the "Folk religion" page on the "Melungeon" page Under the religion section right next to "Baptist" because there are Melungeons who very much are Baptist Christians But not all Melungeons are baptist Melunkun (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Concepts like "mountain healers", "granny witches" & "water witches" were very real things in the hollars & were the stand in for preachers, doctors, judges. They gave us medicine from herbs all our lives. My grandmother's great grandmother was said to have had the power to heal by touch and was respected for it. Melunkun (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

New IP sock

Hi Doug, I'd like to draw your attention to this new sockpuppet investigation for a WP:DUCK-like reappearance of an indeffed IP, an earlier of sock of which you blocked in January. I hope you don't mind me asking as I've found that sockpuppet investigations largely seem to lay unaddressed these days until the edits are deemed too old, the investigation then archived. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Doug, the IP has now been blocked, so you can disregard this issue. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mutt Lunker: damn, I forgot this. I've got this problem that I look at stuff like your post first thing in the morning, but as we go out with our dogs as soon as we can get dressed etc so to avoid other people, I don't have time then to work on it. 4 to 6 miles later I've forgotten it! I'll try better. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
No problem whatsoever, I imagined it was something like that. Cheers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party

Hey Doug... BJP has never identified itself as "Right Wing". Why is my change reverted? They have been fervently speaking against "wing-based" ideologies and so far have refused to identify themselves in the spectrum of left-centre-right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmmanjesh (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bmmanjesh: do politicians always tell the truth? Or do they try to put a spin on things sometimes perhaps to make them look better? In any case, if you use the talk page you'll be told we depend upon reliable sources meeting WP:RS, not possibly self-serving statement. They have the right to say anything they want about "wings", that doesn't stop others from saying nope, that doesn't work. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

So, who is going to decide what is reliable source? Some leftist group of people? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be what people say? Put it to public poll and let people's opinion decide. You can't decide you are the sole caretaker of "truth" and others aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmmanjesh (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is pointless. Use the article's talk page please. We don't have polls on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines and you should read them. And as the saying goes, "Truth is in the eye of the beholder". That's why we use sources, not our opinions. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Truth is in the eye of the beholder" - "That's why we use sources, not our opinions"... That's exactly what I said. Using a news article or a book as reference is equally misleading because a news article or a book too are "someone's opinion". So, it is better to go with what factual information indicates or official classification in the absence of factual information. In India, except CPI(M) and other communist parties, none of the major political outfits such as BJP, INC, AAP subscribe to "wing-based" politics. Why trying to force it upon Indian polity? Looks malevolent and some kind of vilification against the country to make it fit into a Western dogma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmmanjesh (talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bmmanjesh: if all you want to do is complain about our policies, please stay off my talk page. They aren't going to change to meet Indian political dogma or anyone's dogma. They are built into Wikipedia, without them we wouldn't exist. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, Doug. I'm not complaining to you about anything. I'm just offering a view that is missing in Wikipedia articles especially related to India. Not sure how can I initiate a discussion about it to bring tangible changes. May be you can advice. Anyway, I initiated a thread on the talk page of the article about BJP.

BTW, are you a Wiki employee? Bmmanjesh (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bmmanjesh: no, I do not work for the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Administration. Except for those editors who are paid to edit by companies, etc, all editors here are volunteers. If you look at

Wikipedia administrative structure

the left-hand, non-purple or whatever it is, describes the community. Everyone who changes a page is an editor. There are various roles editors can have besides straight-forward editing. I'm also an WP:Administrator, an ex-member of the WP:Arbitration Committee and a WP:CHECKUSER and WP:OVERSIGHTER. None of those gives anyone control over content other than the fact that Administrators can delete content that is libelous, copyright, reveals personal information etc so that only other Admins can see it, and I can do the same so that other Admins can't see it. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Rama Setu (Adam's Bridge)

I viewed the talk page for Adam's Bridge properly. There were many talks requesting the article to be renamed to it's actual name! There are very good evidence on why it needs to be done.

The name Adam's Bridge is unsubstantiated, based on opinion without proper citations. The name Rama Setu has been used by Sri-Lankans and Indians both. It is even mentioned in Ramayana and many other texts. It being named Adam's Bridge just so english readers are comfortable with it is not so good a reason. Can anyone show any evidence that the bridge was traversed by Adam? Are there any religious texts that state the Setu as Adam's setu? All i saw there was bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishkafle (talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ashishkafle: You're confused. Adam never never existed. Religious texts are irrelevant. There isn't even a real bridge. I don't think you read all the discussions at the top of the page I said you should read: "This page has previously been nominated to be moved." Are you willing to tell me what website or media suggested you come here? Doug Weller talk 14:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I am a Nepali from Nepal. I have no political affiliations. I have no media affiliations. I am a Hindu by birth. Literally everyone (even my grandmother) knows about the bridge that Ram built to cross over to Lanka(Ram setu). If religious texts don't matter then why is an unknown(relatively), unrelated figure associated with the structure? The name Rama Setu is linked to Ramayana but has been used by the people of the land(India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and many more). What gives Wikipedia editors right to change the name to something else? And what is this with me being from website or media? I am genuinely interested in Wikipedia. I want to contribute. But the things that are written in articles amazes me. Most of the information is from misinformed western authors. --Ashishkafle (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That's the way Wikipedia works: articles are based on reliable sources, not what certain people know. You did not mention how someone from Nepal started taking an interest in this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: So someone from Nepal shouldn't be interested in these topics? I have read Ramayana, wanted to know more about Ram Setu, google searched it and I get Adam's bridge as result. You see Jesus is referred as Isa in Indic, Arabic, Persian languages. That doesn't mean Jesus should be named Isa. If i were the creator of the article I wouldn't have named the article Isa because it is disrespectful and frankly biased(doesn't mean there are not reliable sources referring him as Isa!).--Ashishkafle (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Adam's Bridge Situation

Your argument is that the Adam's Bridge article should still have the "Adam's Bridge" name is because Wikipedia is an English site and not an Indian one.

But then, "Bhakti","Bhajan" etc. are also not English words and yet, they have their own articles with their original name! So why should Ram Setu article not get same treatment? Restore the original name of the location to the article, please. Otherwise, you will just be trying to alter history! And Wikipedia trying to alter facts and history is dangerous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakyra (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

For any article, we use the common name as used by reliable English-language sources. Some topics, such as Adam's bridge, have an English name, and that is what English sources overwhelmingly use. Others, such as Bhakti, do not have an English name, and so we use names from other languages, as appropriate. Please read our relevant policies (to begin with, WP:RS, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:DUE, which all of us are bound to follow, and please don't berate individual editors for following a community-created policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


Durrani

Sorry. I forgot that en.wiki has its own rules, which do not follow those of the best international scientific publications, starting from The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Obviously you can legitimately revert all to the previous version, with all my blessings and thanks. Cordial greeting. --Cloj (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Cloj I'm not sure that's the right title, that's why I suggested a move request that would get more input. I found several spellings. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you. I changed the name because it was written incorrectly Shujah. The correct name is Shujāʿ, as we can see in the authoritative link below.

https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/history-of-afghanistan/shah-shuja-leaves-kabul-for-jalalabad-and-is-killed-COM_000171

Moreover in the Arabic/Persian/Pashtu/Urdu name-making the proper name Shujah does not exist, Instead Shujāʿ exist, and means "valiant", "brave", "hero". That is: Shujāʿ ad-Dawla --> "Hero of the Dynasty". Thank for your kind explanation. Bye --Cloj (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

One America News

I properly cited multiple sources which refer to One American News as conservative instead of far right. It is not "far right" just because you do not like it. I reserve my right to make that edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbell30119:46, 1 April 2020 (talk • contribs)

Looking at this comment makes me think, you too are not impartial to the conversation here, and that now you are going after me personally. Please refrain from getting involved waiving an administrator stick around because you are taking an opposing opinion on an open discussion. It's not appropriate. If you think I have done something wrong, get another administrator who is impartial to follow-up. Aeonx (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I reverted that editor for edit-warring, my edit summaries made no comment on the content of their edits. If you look at their talk page (which you could have found easily) the Admin who blocked them after the post above wrote "on Doug Weller's page that you "properly cited multiple sources which refer to One American News as conservative instead of far right". I don't know where those multiple sources are meant to be; you added one source (which does not support your change) and removed three." As the song goes, "That don't impress me much." They finally ended up blocked from even using their talk page. Of course, I'm not taking part in any discussions on at Talk:One America News Network and in fact haven't commented there since February 2019 - so you got that wrong also. And of course you got involved in the article days after Campbell's post above. So no, I'm not involved in any dispute with you. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 15 April 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.Schazjmd (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick help! Schazjmd (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long-term issues at Habesha peoples. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:27, 17 April 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.trackratte (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked IP returns with ID

Hi Doug, User talk:203.142.136.254, whom you have on a 3-month block, has reappeared, newly having signed up with an ID to repeat themselves at Talk:Lothian#"Greater_Lothian"?. It may possibly be an attempt at socking but I have difficulty believing anyone could think they've passed themself off as a different person with this post, so they may be unaware that the block applies to them as an individual and think it's okay to continue their campaign with a new, named ID. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

AP2 notice

You put an AP2 notice on Eternal Father (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His latest edits include adding an RfC re-raising the perennial demand to classify Mike Cernovich as a "journalist", based on sources that, with one exception, don't call him that - and including one source in which Cernovich frankly admits that he uses the term solely to trigger people, and actually considers himself a writer; and adding James O'Keefe to the list of notable investigative reporters. Taken with the hagiographic tone of his Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film) and his other edits, most of which appear to promote fringe right wing provocateurs, I think we might need to keep an eye on that one. Guy (help!) 07:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: and when I looked this morning no one had removed it from Investigative journalism. Ah, I see you did. I'm loathe to but I might warn him about it - but now I see that you marked it good faith.... Doug Weller talk 08:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I think he is acting out of wrongteous anger at our bias. I do not think he is evil, but I think he lives inside the right wing media bubble. This is still a problem, but likely to be a slow-burning one. Guy (help!) 21:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars

Hey Doug, I started removing some names from the article on the basis of the wikipedia policy (WP:OR). Am I interpreting the policy wrong? An editor (MWahaiibii) has a WP:OWNER relationship with the article. He reverts everyone that goes against his POV. In my opinion the burden of proof is on those who are addiding and/or created the article whithout giving sufficient evidence. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. Thanks for your help. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to skip the false accusations part that you somehow feel the need to say every time you mention me. All i'm saying here is you made major edits and removed several entries that had been there for a very long time, therefore discuss the changes you want to make in the talk page first. That's all. -MWahaiibii (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
All i'm saying here is you made major edits and removed several entries that had been there for a very long time
Being there for a long time doesn't negate the fact that it's WP:OR. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
And where exactly did i say whether it's WP:OR or not? Once again i'm suggesting you discuss them in the talk page of the article before making major changes, what's so difficult about that. -MWahaiibii (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@MWahaiibii and TheseusHeLl: there is no requirement to discuss the removal of unsourced material, anyone replacing it should never replace it without a reliable source. MWahaiibii, you violated WP:VERIFY. I have seen far too much material that has been in articles for a long time that should have been removed years ago to take much notice of that argument. Now that a talk page discussion has been started, I expect you to take part and to find reliable sources for those you think should be in the article. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I started a discussion in the talk page three days ago and he didn't reply. For now, I will revert his revert and remove more WP:OR. Kind Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, after a long discussion in the Talk:Averroes where he didn't reach a consenus. He stopped the discussion in that talk page and now he reverted my revert in the List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars and added the same sources that were contested in Talk:Averroes. I think the two ediors are working together. That's suspicious... 🤨 -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

TheseusHeLl, are you accusing me of sockpuppeting?! You can fill a report against me if you want. There are multiple reliable sources that says Averroes is an Arab. If you have a problem with these solid sources you need to make your case in WP:RSN. Currently all you can do is to fill your eyes with these sources. [3][4][5][6] SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion in Talk:Averroes and you didn't reach consensus -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
TheseusHeLl, we didn't reach a consensus? I just left that discussion after you start with changing the goalpost.
First: the source should have an expertise.
Second: should tell what is the tribe
I mean, we can remove all Persian scholars if the tribes are needed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
What goalpost you're talking about? This is you pov. His origins are unknown. Tangential mentions of Arab does not constitute reliable sources. I mean, we can remove all Persian scholars if the tribes are needed. It's not my problem. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
TheseusHeLl I have started a RfC. You are the one proposing a change and youre the one who is editwarring to implement your change. Also, the only thing we need are sources that says he is an Arab. We don't need to have his tribe. That's only your need and you keep making disruptive removal based on your need.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my points. I said "I didn't say that the term Arab is generic. I said: "Arab philosopher/writer/poet, etc are just generic designations. It can mean anything from an arabic-speaking Iranian to an Andalusian with unknown tribal affiliations. Are there any sources that talks about the Arab origin of his family? His tribal claims (Tanukh, Kinda, Zuhr, Taghlib, Qays, etc)? You know that the majority of people in Al-Andalus were claiming arab tribal affiliations, but they were muladi/Berber/Saqaliba in origin?" and "It actually disputes that. It says about his grandfather (Ibn Rushd al-jadd), "Little is known about the origins and activities of his family." and "This suggests that it was the grandfather of Ibn Rushd’s great-grandfather...who converted to Islam. Assuming that the average lifespan in al-Andalus was forty lunar years, and that twenty-five was the average age of conversion, Ibn Rushd’s ancestors would have converted to Islam about the middle of the 3rd/9th century, approximately two centuries after the Muslims arrived in the Iberian Peninsula."" -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I started a discussion in the talk page three days ago and he didn't reply
I don't think 3 days is enough to find sources for 40 scholar, give us some time. -MWahaiibii (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the kindness, guidance, wisdom, and patience! Zurkhardo (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please help...

Hello, I need your help.

There's this "HistoryOfIran" guy who has been vandalizing countless wikipedia articles. Here's the link to one he just recently vandalized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamazkayin

He removed sourced information I had added and threatened to have me banned for it...

Thank you.

Note: this IP was blocked just a few weeks ago by Favonian and Widr for disruptive editing, and now he's at it again. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I see the IP has been given a partial block from the page for 3 months by Oshwah. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

edit on First Business

Doug...

The source for the change I cited is me. I am Jody Davis. I know the year First Business as owned by Conus Communications was sold and when our DC/Minneapolis broadcasts ended. And I was the news update anchor. 2601:704:281:2510:F08D:9348:D190:C3AA (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Jody Davis

Happy Wikibirthday!

Thank you for banning a user that's clearly not here to help. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Doug Weller, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Aasim 07:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


Sodom and Gomorrah thing/Happy First Edit day

Realized I didn't say anything yesterday, thanks for the undos at the page for Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm glad you caught that the "scholarly paper" was shoddy, because I definitely wouldn't have. Also, happy first edit day! Zhomron (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zhomron: you're very welcome. And thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Amendment on Domestic Terrorism

721 yuen long incident is merely a violent clash between two groups of people who have opposite political stance.

831 prince edward incident was actually an arrest operation by the Police to apprehend a group of rioters who had conducted vandalism behaviors at the train station on the same night.

How could you classify them as domestic terrorism??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mandy221: I didn't, someone else did. They were wrong and I removed them after I reverted you. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Amendment on Domestic Terrorism

According to the below links, there were extremist groups claiming responsibility for the Lo Wu bombing and Cityplaza bombing. From their claims of responsibility, you could see that their motives and actions perfectly match the definition of domestic terrorism.

Lo Wu: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3048604/train-services-hong-kongs-lo-wu-mtr-station-suspended https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1506245-20200202.htm https://www.ejinsight.com/eji/article/id/2366802/20200203-increased-terror-threat-explosives-found-at-lo-wu-station

Cityplaza: https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20140708/52659249 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 April 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.Zweifel (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Copts

I'm getting tired of that Greek IP-hopper who keeps POV-pushing all those Copts-related issues, such as on Seti I and now on Egyptian language. Their argument that "since ancient/true/native Egyptians are Copts, then Egyptian-related articles can be edited accordingly" is clearly a fallacy. Any idea? Khruner (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Khruner: not really. It looks as though semi-protection would be unfair to other users editing through IP addresses. I think at the moment we just keep reverting. Let me know if it spread. I'm involved so can't act as an Admin and in any case don't see anything yet that an Admin should do. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh I couldn't ask for semi-protection: there could be so many articles involved and semi-protecting all of these would be unfeasible. I just wanted to know if it was actually OK to revert and if NNPOV is indeed the most suitable reason to do so. Khruner (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Khruner: well, you need to avoid edit-warring but that's not yet a problem. I'm not sure if it's an NPOV issue or what. We may even have guidelines somewhere about names in different languages, who knows? Sorry, that's not much help. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Amendment on Domestic Terrorism

i am new to wikipedia.. how could i turn the draft into an article? does it mean I can only add the "Lo Wu bombing" to "domestic terrorism" after it has been approved by your team?

Besides, please see the section of "Acts of Terrorism" under the draft Lo Wu Bombing, it explains why it is a domestic terrorist incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with BLP.

Hi, I would like your help with taking steps to alert wikipedia about an article that I believe is in violation of the BLP policy but I am not familiar with the steps I need to follow. Can you help me through the steps? Britcom 12:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Britcom, your can raise a concern on the BLP noticeboard - you'll need to say which article you're worried about, and what your concern with it is. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah - never mind, I'm assuming that it's Stefan Molyneux, and I see that discussion is already taking place on the talk page there. GirthSummit (blether) 13:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


Heptagram

Doug. You removed my comment from Heptagram. Likely it was in reference to a drawing in the book "Children of the Rainbow" by Leinani Melville, ©1969. Pp. 152-153

A seven-pointed star with a circle and dot in the center.

Melville contends that it was a Hawaiian religious symbol. Modern Hawaiians sometimes use this for tattoos.

[1]


Kaonohiula (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kaonohiula: you mean "Leinani Melville, Children of the Rainbow Hawaii's Pre-Christian myths, legends and stories tell of the enlightened people of the Mu who lived on a vast land that was before Hawai'i, " but there was no Mu (lost continent), a mythical continent in the Pacific Ocean and it appears that there was no Leinani Melville. If you look at reviews on amazon.com "I am a 6th generation Polynesian and it saddens me that this kind of publication has reached so many folks who lap up the New Age mumbo-jumbo without questioning the authenticity of the author. First off, I believe that this book was written by Max Freedom Long, creator of the "Huna" cult. The name "Leinani Melville" is an obvious smokescreen. Leinani, or beautiful wreath, coupled with Melville, as in Herman, author of Typee, Oomo, and Mardi, among others. There is no information out there regarding Leinani Melville, as a person, other than the name that is on this book. I believe that Long concocted this story in order to validate his 'research' on Hawaiian religious practices. This research, ultimately created the Huna belief system.

See Max Freedom Long although it doesn't make the identification, it's interesting. The book is not reliably published either, see WP:VERIFY. No way can we use it. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Children of the Rainbow Author: Leinani Melville ©1969 Leinani Melville Library of Congress Catalog Number 69-17715 SBN: 8356-0002-5

Discretionary Sanctions & Bias

Hi Doug,

Thank you for politely making me aware of the discretionary sanctions in areas where I edited. I am a new user here, so I wasn't aware of the heightened scrutiny on controversial topics. One of my goals, however is to make Wikipedia neutral and unbiased, particularly in controversial topics. While that is difficult, I think it is important. I have seen examples of clear bias on here. Although I will refrain from editing controversial topics for a while, I would like to know if there is somewhere where such edits could be reviewed? I am particularly fearful that editing such articles could lead to me being banned, which could ultimately cement bias into the wikipedia community. Again, I thank you for reaching out to me, and I will work to make sure that I check my own biases to make sure they aren't influencing the work I write.

Diegosames1789 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Diegosames1789

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What should we do when templates are removed repeatedly, and edsums are misleading

I don't want to do the wrong thing here, but two tags have been removed twice on Jordanes [7][8], a simple section move proposal template by me has been deleted twice, and an older "dubious" tag I had tried to act upon. Every edit this editor has made since early March was directed at something I was doing, and the edsums and other explanations are remarkable and have effectively no connection to reality. (They are clearly based on sillier accusations directed at me by one editor some months back, on Germanic peoples. This is not an editor that has any significant history working with me or on such articles as far as I can see.) Previous attempts to have discussions with this editor indicate that more such attempts aren't going to help either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Doug D.

I wonder if [9] is a hint that she intends to create that article again. Oh well, time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed a statement that I could not verify. You reverted saying that it could be verified by someone else but not by me. How does that exactly work, and how can I find the veracity of wikipedia content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunmk95 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

athens history

some sources about Athens. a lot of sources write that Athens founded from 3000bc to 7000bc https://www.oldest.org/geography/cities-in-europe/ https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/eco-tourism/stories/12-oldest-continuously-inhabited-cities https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/lebanon/articles/the-10-oldest-cities-in-the-world/--2A02:587:4402:C87B:159C:901D:115D:5DD4 (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an interesting too https://greece.greekreporter.com/2016/06/12/the-original-names-of-the-city-athens-and-their-history/ --2A02:587:4402:C87B:159C:901D:115D:5DD4 (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not my talk page, the article talk page. These aren't reliable sources and the only one I looked at, oldest.org, doesn't back the continuously inhabited claim. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your tireless responses at various India related pages from someone who simply cannot suffer fools gladly! Shyamal (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is The Tall al-Hammam Excavations.
Message added 07:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC). 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.

SERIAL# 07:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Yahwism Question

What makes you consider Dr. Heiser an unreliable source? The dissertation is hosted at Liberty University, but was originally submitted for a doctoral program at University of Madison-Wisconsin. He's definitely not the only one that advocates for this- I am not sure what makes you consider this unreliable (and what makes Liberty University fringe?) Asides from that specific citation, it is clear in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible that it a monotheistic worship wasn't the case historically- it is a major misunderstanding to say that it implies it was monotheistic- rather it advocates for a monotheistic worship it says it should've been but makes it clear that there were many false idols (and the archaeological record does indeed corroborate and really clarifies how widespread it is). The claim that the Hebrew Bible implies worship was monotheistic is not something that seems to be clearly cited. At the very least, the article should incorporate a more balanced and inclusive view of scholarship from the conservative (not naive and reputably sourced) as well as progressive/minimalist angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdadsuper (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Superdadsuper: I see that you called Michael S. Heiser "Micahel Hesier " who I couldn't find mentioned anywhere. Still, WP:UNDUE also comes into play. I suggest you take this to the talk page. I'm afraid I can't figure out what you are saying above, but I think you are saying that Judaism didn't start as a monotheistic religion and only developed into one, which seems to be the mainstream position now. Anyway, please take this to the article talk page, I don't want it to be a conversation that others interested in the article won't see. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Christian Bigotry in your edits (Census of Quirinius)

Sir, I noticed you deleted my source for the Census of Quirinius article. Did you even read it? Are you afraid of the truth? The “fact” that the current article presents that the census occurred in 6 AD comes down to one account only. (Antiquities by Josephus the Roman historian.) My source uses Josephus’s own words to destroy the credibility of this date. Any use of Biblical material serves to simply further discredit the already highly-suspect dates. I know you are an atheist, but as an editor you should put your beliefs aside and pursue facts and truth. Sincerely Ron Glenn Ronald.glenn.us.af.mil (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Evangelical Theological Society is not the sole keeper of "the truth." You ignored a number of cited reliable historical sources in those sections and replaced them with an overtly-apologetic source which has declared an a priori belief in the "inerrancy" of Scripture. That's not going to fly here. And no, it's not "bigotry" to adhere to what the vast majority of mainstream reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Ronald.glenn.us.af.mil: Even Paul could see things as though in a darkened mirror, don't jump so quickly to the assumption that your sources are the only ones that have truth. I'm a Christian and Doug has never shown any sort of bigotry toward me -- "assume good faith" (that is assume the other person is here to help the site) is a foundational site policy. Cast the beam out of thine own eye before telling Doug to put aside his beliefs (whatever they may be).
Wikipedia sticks to academic sourcing over sectarian sourcing. There are a lot of Christians working in academia, so we don't need to stick to sectarian think tanks. If what academia comes up with doesn't immediately jive with what the sectarian think tanks have concluded, that doesn't mean scripture is inherently wrong, it just suggests that we haven't interpreted scripture correctly (even literalism is an interpretation). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm a Jewish atheist, respect the teachings of Christ, and lived with a Muslim. Never understood this bigotry thingy some humans are saddled with. Weller certainly isn't one of these. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

May 5 Minor Edit...

Hello! Just wanted to know which article wasn't a minor edit? Just wondering because I do believe that before I make an edit, I need further proof to substantiate it and if I don't, then I cancel the edit. I would like to know which article, thanks for informing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhiladelphiaWanderer34: virtually all of your edits made content changes, so weren't minor edits. Nor did you explain them in the edit summary. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doug!!! Just wanted to let you know that I've made sure that I provided links as well as why the articles were changed on the summary. If it's the minor edit box that I marked, then it's my fault, as I've never been prompted before while using Wikipedia. I can assure you, however that I did leave messages informing Wikipedia why I made the change as well as providing links to substantiate the changes. Once again, my apologies if I did something wrong and hopefully the articles that I helped redact don't change for now, especially the ethnic group pages because they're very important research, especially for the city of Philadelphia. We'll still talk about the changes, and hopefully once the 2020 census estimates become public this year, I'll help make the proper changes and mark the right box this time. Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Appealing the topic ban

I wish to appeal it. Let me know what information is needed.

Also, another related issue is that the original accuser, JZG, has been trolling my edits and trying to get me banned. he claims that a documentary film is considered, political, and has been likely canvassing a discussion to elicit a consensus saying that it is. So I'd like to know where to report him for that as well. Eternal Father (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanction makes no sense

This is regarding an edit I made on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons page. I deleted the claim that this organisation was "politically conservative or ultra conservative" (questionable use of "or" but that's asides from the point) and furthermore that "its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypothesis, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDs, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism". My only issue with this is that none of these claims are cited. If we want the page to look credible then you need to cite claims such as these. My edit should stand until somebody can verify these claims via citations. *Edit* It's also worth noting that further down the page those claims are cited. All somebody needs to do is apply them to the top of the page. Perhaps a note to that effect could be added to the edit.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShizakiWasabi (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

More trouble from User:Dalhoa (deletions, edit-warring, accusations)

It seems that User:Dalhoa is making unreasonable aspersions again on the People of Ethiopia, Somalis, and Ethiopid race pages, and beginning to edit war. Dalhoa is now removing content supported by the sources and inexplicably accusing me and/or my edits of racism ([[10]]) and POV and attributing statements to me that I have never made. I fear it is pointless to (as I did in the past) attempt to reason with them, as in the past they have consistently been utterly unreasonable. Any help is much appreciated. Here are the page histories: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_of_Ethiopia&action=history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Ethiopid_race Skllagyook (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Now Dalhoa has reported me for edit warring. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Skllagyook_reported_by_User:Dalhoa_(Result:_) Criticizing me for not engaging them it the Talk page (although time and time again that has failed). I am not sure what to do. I responded to them on the ANI page and have begun a discussion on the Talk page of Ethiopid race (where Dalhoa ignored the explanation given in my edit note and simply accusing me of being "racially motivated: [[11]]), but I fear it may not go well. Skllagyook (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Dalhoa (here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/956027132) continues to make baseless (and frankly seemingly not honest) accusations (accusing me of having a history of WP:Sythesis and POV) and I fear that continuing to dispute them/defend myself may have little point, as they resolutely refuse to listen. I really hope as much as possible to avoid a long drawn out circular exchange (as I have had so many times before) with Dalhoa in which I endlessly explain, clarify, and defend myself only to be repeatedly accused of the same things and insulted. Again, thank you for any help in this matter. Skllagyook (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Dubious promotional image and harrassment of

Hi Doug (and benevolent talk page stalkers)!

A team of three novice SPAs is busy promoting the image of a bronze statuette of dubious provinience (File:OrdosAncientCeremonialBronzeFinialWithStandingHorse.png) in various pages (e.g. Xiongnu, Dayuan, Ordos culture and others). User:Kanguole has reverted these additions because their dubious nature and has filed an SPI regarding these accounts, plus a delete request at Commons. Now they are starting to "retaliate" with personal talk page attacks and a nonsense SPI against User:Kanguole. This needs to be stopped. –Austronesier (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Many  Thanks to you and Callanecc for the quick action! –Austronesier (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Never Have I ever (TV Series)

Hello, I made edits before on Never Have I ever (tv series) page and you stepped in before. I previously cleared some disruptive edits from username: Crispsoaks on the Never Have I ever (TV Series) page. Crispsoaks edits have been reverted mutiple times by users of wikipedia. This is going on for the past couple of days. Crispsoaks even has been warned, but keeps on making disruptive edits and he also keeps accusing multiple users. Can you step in, because I don't want to spend another 40 minutes cleaning up the mess Crispsoaks made on that page. Multiple user explained why his edits aren't valid and you can see his talkpage for yourself and the history view of Never Have I ever (tv series). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck2020 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you are the one who uses multiple accounts to revert my edits and your edit was stated as nonconstructive by another experienced user. My edit follows Netflix official poster and I utilize official source as evidence. Crispsoaks (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Impending edit war on Ethiopid race

On Ethiopid race, Dalhoa (talk · contribs) inserted off-topic content. It was reverted by Skllagyook (talk · contribs), Dalhoa reverted, I reverted, Dalhoa reverted. On Talk:Ethiopid_race#Regarding_AMH_addition Dalhoa doesn't understand what Skllagyook and I are trying to say. I also saw Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Skllagyook_reported_by_User:Dalhoa_(Result:_Both_warned).

Now I'm just confused about what to do, seek conflict resolution, report on the administrators' notice board, revert once again ? So before I act, I ask your advice. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In the mean time, another editor completely changed the article. Since I didn't want to revert to Dalhoa's revision, I restored mine instead. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know!

I can't feel the love!71.174.128.111 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


My history

Banned for posting that Greek king that conquered Persia was Alexander the Great as he was the ONLY Greek king to conquer Persia. This is common knowledge to anyone who knows a it of history and per wikipedia guidelines DOES NOT require citations. I therefore ignored those that demanded citations. I was then banned for restoring this language in an article after it got repeatedly deleted by someone demanding citations.

I was again banned for posting from a range of IP addresses. Everyone posts from a range of IP addresses. I can see it if I was banned for using multiple addresses at the same time to fake being multiple people, but I only posted as one IP address.

Banned a third time - same as no 2

Banned a fourth time - The most likely reason being I asked if the references I provided in response to Alexander being the Greek King that conquered Persia were sufficient - see first ban

Now banned again for pointing out that Bible translations differ. At least I assume so as Eponia reverted my post that pointed this out.

Was it his request that I got banned from certain sections? Because he seriously dislikes me as he refuses to recognize that Alexander the Great was Greek and I keep confronting him on it. His latest on that issue was a flat out misinformation about the League of Corinth, which I called him out on! see his talk page.71.174.128.111 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, isn't it?

Dear Doug,

I must see (is this of nowadays?) that you have blocked my entrance to Wikipedia. You have the authority? Regards. 145.129.136.48 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You're blocked from article talk pages only. You had enough warnings. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was warned. But the question is if you are authorized to do it. That puts the question if the foundator and his successors of the Wikipedia are happy with your company. I am afraid that you don't understand anything about the Wikipedia principle and you help it to deteriorate. Regards. 145.129.136.48 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Cabal and Anti-Semitic Conspiracies

Hebrew etymology (lore), in Maltese (agreement). Conspiracy theorists equate cabal with (conspirators) which is not related to the etymology, You can revert it if needed, thanks ToddGrande (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thanks, but 7 years of...? Doug Weller talk 13:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Seven years of dealing with Wikipedia and remaining sane. O3000 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Objective3000: thanks, but 14 years, with 11 yrs 7 months as an Admin. And an ArbCom member 2015-2018. But 7? Doug Weller talk 14:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Seven years since this post: [12]. O3000 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Objective3000: doh, 2x7=14, of course. Thanks Gerda! Doug Weller talk 14:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by recently blocked used

The user you recently blocked Skyz7888, continued with their disruptive editing as soon as their block ended. Please look into this, this needs a more permanent solution. Gotitbro (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: that was User:Ferret, not me. Momo is Napalese, if that's the issue. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

template

  • You had a question about the template? In my opinion the template is in error. Also it was placed a while ago; most of the time old template placements are not applicable. Momentum7 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how old a template is if the problem hasn't been solved. And I don't think the 3 1/2 months since User:Gamaliel added it makes it "old time". Not only that, it was clearly relevant - the lead is still far too short and doesn't comply with WP:LEAD at all. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Arnlodg

Just to say I've given up on this one. I tried to get the editor to check edits but met with nothing other than more nonsense. We now have the recurrence of the pattern of placing nonsensival requests on talk pages and the odd edit to articles all of which get reverted. Wasting time, no evidence of any willingess to change. I warned on Philosophy and the same behaviour just happened again on Meditation. Personally I think the editor is just unable to understand what it is to edit - Ive had the odd "I'm 72" excuse but .... -----Snowded TALK 07:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: I'll try to spend more time tomorrow. I did take a look, I'm not sure it's obvious enough yet. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - he is easy to ignore most of the time. But my attempts to mentor failed completely -----Snowded TALK 18:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Trumper lawyer"

I remember you went out of your way to retitle my section on Gretchen Whitmer from "Kissing Whitmer's behind" (frankly, a worthy summarization of the political hackery ongoing in that article) to "Section needs removal".

Maybe it'd interest you to see "Trumper lawyer" as a section header as well, which has had quite the lifespan compared to mine, unless activism is more virtuous than being blunt. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As for my edit summary therein calling you a "kind raccoon", that was a complimentary allusion, not a racist dehumanization. At least, that was my intent. I'm sorry if I hurt you or your public image. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken:, I can assure you that it was no trouble, I didn't go out of my way. As for the Biden page, I'm not here to carry your water and that page, unlike Whitmer's where I added the DS notice, is not on my watchlist and I have intention of getting involved. If you are convinced it needs changing, there's no reason you can't do it yourself. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Very well. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk I don't know what you're talking about, but you made me laugh nonetheless, which I assume was partially your intention. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Just something I heard a king tell a plumber who ate a leaf to board an airship to enter a pipe to stomp a dinosaur to get a wand to revert a terrible transformation and make Big World its old self again. It could have been much less funny and more confusing if your second choice of username reminded me of a hammer, brother. I'd have asked if we might trade clothes (no dice, what a drag!). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I named that section "Trumper lawyer", more as shorthand than anything else. To avoid the perception of bias, I renamed it. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Father

If Plandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in scope then Judy Mikovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) surely also is. See [13]. I have raised at WP:AE but if you want to warn and close that then I will be fine with it. Guy (help!) 08:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your reversion of my edit to "The Spotlight"

Hello Doug,

Respectfully, I do not think my edit approaches any reasonable definition of "vandalism", nor was it done in error. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of factual information. Using over-arching, opinion-based trigger words like "antisemitic" to describe the multivarious activities of the Liberty Lobby over 40+ years. Such incendiary language not only fails to add anything of substance to the article, it is (in my reading) intentionally used in such a way as to discredit the Liberty Lobby and cause the reader to dismiss their work out-of-hand. In fact, over the course of my years as a political science researcher, I have consumed a great deal of literature published by the Liberty Lobby that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jews, Judaica, Jewishness, Israel etc. You don't have to be a fan of the Liberty Lobby's work (I'm not) to recognize that using language that blatantly expresses the editor's personal political opinion in an encyclopedia does not pass muster under any reasonable definition of "neutrality".

In fact, when one reads the subsection "Antisemitism", one finds that the evidence presented is 1) Information from the founder's leaked private letters, and 2) the "charge" that pro-Nazi and KKK literature was found in the group's private file cabinets. Neither of these pieces of "evidence" have anything to do with the literature publicly disseminated by the Liberty Lobby, but are concerned with the private thoughts and correspondence of one person connected to the group. Additionally, neither of the claims are properly cited. I can't imagine how anyone operating in good faith, guided by the principles of neutrality and striking an encyclopedic tone, could take these poorly-sourced circumstantial allegations as sufficient evidence to describe the activities of the Liberty Lobby over almost half a century of existence with one, politically-charged and provocative word.

Since you took the time to contact me and stake out a clear position on this issue, I will go a step further in hopes of engaging you on the topic. In undoing my edit and re-elevating inadequately-sourced, politically-charged language that conflates opinions with facts and private correspondence with public statements, I believe that you have come much closer to violating Wikipedia's vandalism policy than I have. Simply put, the choice to dismissively describe a public organization as "antisemitic" in such a lazy way betrays more about the political opinions of the article's writers than it does about the Liberty Lobby's supposed motives.

I have corrected what I believe to be your well-intentioned but misguided reversion, and I invite and look forward to your response to the above post.

Sincerely,

E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomathes2357 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted your second edit. Use the talkpage to discuss and find consensus before you remove content. The attribution of antisemitism to Carto and his organizations s extensively referenced at our article on the Liberty Lobby. That said, the single-word summary of the Liberty Lobby in The Spotlight is perhaps over-specific, but it was clearly one of the LL's distinguishing characteristics. Acroterion (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
And I'm very happy with expanding it, I just didn't have time today. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I see absolutely no substantive argument from either of you that the single-word summary of the Liberty Lobby is 1) useful, 2) In keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality policy, or 3) accurate. For this reason, I have reverted your edits once more. If you feel strongly that the inclusion of this word is both critically necessary and in keeping with neutrality, objectivity, and the separation of fact from opinion, I invite you to continue this conversation on the article's 'talk' page, where I have copied the above conversation. Sincerely, E. Philomathes2357

Edit Reverted

Pasting previous email here at your request, since you didn't address anything in it I'm assuming it was just ignored.

I was recently told that an edit I made to the Oathkeepers page violates your NPOV policy, which I read and couldn't disagree more. That page that was up was both Politically biased, accusation and basically called people who want to uphold and oath terrorists. I reverted the page to last time is was accurate.


Direct Quote from https://oathkeepers.org/about/

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial.


Current nonsense on the Wiki claims they're an "Anti-Goverment" (they work/worked for the gov't) right wing (their non-partisan) asserts that their a terror group,

How does saying their Anti Government and "Far Right" OR that they're a "Militia" not violate the NPOV's "Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Prefer nonjudgmental language" or "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" when it clearly does all of that. My revision lines up with the official mission statement of the group, so if the OFFICIAL version isn't good enough, all that's left is opinion. The CURRENT page is the one in violation of the NPOV. It's also pretty telling that the person who edited it labels himself as a Liberal Hippy on his own page, pretty beyond obvious that he's making politically motivated edits that don't line up with the fact of the organization.

I never thought Wikipedia practiced censorship, distorting truth and engaged in gatekeeping. This is beyond disturbing. Especially seeing how many times I've given money when asked.

Shamful.

Snatale42, this was lazily written and lazily researched, and filled with assumptions which have no basis in fact. If anything, it serves as a badge of shame about yourself rather than Doug Weller. El_C 23:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@El C: and I explicitly asked them at their talk page to use the article talk page, yet here they are. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong Notice

@Doug Weller: Hi! I wanted to ask you if you added the notice: "I'm finding what appear to be Falun Gong adherents pushing anti-Chinese government edits on various articles, hence this notice" because of me. I was in the middle of an argument regarding a preprint one of my friend shared with me and that I wanted to add to this page because of it's relevance to the issue. I just wanted to have your thoughts on this and basically see if I have to learn from this or not. Thank you! Feynstein (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: definitely not. There were good reasons to add that but I don't want to point fingers at anyone, but you had nothing to do with it. If I had time though I'd add the alert at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 for editors to everyone editing, ie {{subst:gs/alert|topic=covid}} Hm, looking at the talk page while I'm writing this, I think I will for those discussing the preprint, that seems a bit of a heated argument. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It's really confusing to see you signing article talk pages with a different username. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Hi I just started editing in wikipadia and I wasnt aware of the signature mechanics yet, I changed it now. But thank you for your explanations. I think I will be distancing myself from such subjects as users are not keen to respect the ideas of others.

@Doug Weller: "heated" or humorous? I think the discussion is a perfect demonstration of why MEDRS is so important right now. -Darouet (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: MEDRS has nothing to do with it. The context of adding this preprint at this place does not involve any health-related topic. People cannot use this is any way to make decisions about their health, and you know it. I think you're willfully trying to crash and burn this specific section of the page and you are obviously non-neutral about the subject. You should also distance yourself from it, as you obviously did not read at all what I wrote. You also used intricated ways to insult me lol. If I was as half as stupid as you think I am I would have went with your game and insulted you back and then gotten kicked or blocked, which is the reason why you used these insults my friend. Too bad I'm not stupid. Take a good hard look at yourself and try to see how all of your arguments made no sense at all. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

Regardless of source, must be a mistake (unless you are paraconsistent). --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Solved. She didn't say he wasn't African-American, she said he wasn't black. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Pssst

They're still at it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 03:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

False Accusation

You falsely accused me of making personal attacks against another editor on Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II. I did not personally attack anyone. I await your apology. Saxophilist (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You would do well to read WP:AGF and stop making remarks which are not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Doug Weller is a respected member and administrator of the Wikipedia community. I have not been involved in your current dispute, but have to state that an "apology" is totally unnecessary. 16:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David J Johnson (talk • contribs)

An apology is absolutely necessary. He claimed I made a personal attack on Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II without any proof or involvement in the discussion. I don't care who he is, he can't just go around falsely accusing people. Saxophilist (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@David J Johnson: thanks. Saxophilist started a section called "King Tgeorgescu". I'm certainly not going to apologise for considering that a personal attack. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I called him "king" of the article because he acts like he has supreme rule over it. Calling someone "king" is hardly a personal attack....Saxophilist (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly not WP:AGF or "commenting on the content and not the editor". Continuing to belabor the point is also asking for a WP:BOOMERANG block by the first uninvolved admin to see this chicanery. Heiro 21:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I don't know if i'm at the right place, but I think I need help here, I was unjustly accused of rambling on a block report that was later reverted. Who should I contact? This was very unrespectful! Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#General_Sanctions_Request_at_Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You could probably take it to WP:ANI, but by looking at what was said and why, I doubt things will go the way you are hoping they will and you will probably need to duck a WP:BOOMERANG. Heiro 00:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Heironymous Rowe: I am still learning about all this, can you explain what would be the problem with my statements? I will correct them accordingly. Is what I wrote in the talk page bad? I really don't understand... thanks PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I mean... I want to help participate in the discussion here, but when I try to use comparison as an argument, I get slammed and nobody cares, but I got blocked withing 5 minutes of editing the WIV page and it was all because of a misunderstanding. I would like to stop adding stuff to the discussion but I can't. I feel too compeled by the subject and I feel like no one really wants to help me by correcting me except @Coffee:. I repeated and repeated that I am new but no one really seems to care about that. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe slow down a little and get a hang of the rules, policies, and in/outs here? If you are that new of an editor, how much do you know about editing here? If you have a recent agreement re: being unblocked and you are treading perilously close to the line on it, maybe you should pull back? You're best course of action per that statement is to wait for User:Boing!_said_Zebedee to check his own talkpage. If he considers the statement to be out of line, he will warn the user or apply appropriate sanctions. I don't know the whole situation, but having a sneaking suspicion the editor may have a valid point. It's unlikely to be considered a personal attack. Heiro 00:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You think I acted in bad faith? I was transparent and asked user:Boing!_said_Zebedee if adding stuff in talk pages was ok and didn't get a response. You'll noticed that I refrained from editing any other pages after the accidental BRD in Tedros page. But does that block means I also can't participate in talk pages? I asked for help at the teahouse now, this is getting ridiculous. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not say you "acted in bad faith". I said you should slow down. Take a breath. How many places have you now posted about this situation, demanding immediate help? Everyone here is a volunteer, including admins like Zeb. As I said, your best course of action is to wait for Zeb to return to their own talkpage, they will know the ins/outs of the situation and be best suited to advise you. But, s/he might be working, sleeping, visiting with their kids/dogs/cats/special tree, or having some "me" time alone in a WC somewhere. Have you stopped for a second and wondered if your insistent attitude, demand for immediate attention, and perplexed expression that others aren't agreeing with you could be part of the problem here? The issue you want to correct will still be here tomorrow, and Wikipedia has no deadline. Regards, Heiro 01:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: Not slowing down is something I pathologically(yes read between the lines here) tend to do, as my thoughts are running around quickly in my head, like a tornado sometimes. I'm sorry if it was perceived as if I wanted everything done now, this is not what I want. I will slow down now and only comment in the teahouse page as it seems like the right place to do so. I think that people like me with ideas flowing like crazy still have a place here though. You were right to tell me to slow down, this made me realize what I was doing. Thanks... PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

New socks at Talk:Kayastha

Is it possible to check for sleepers of the following accounts at/related to Kayastha:

These are all obvious sock/meat-puppets active over the last day, although the Devaputra account was originally created a month back. Not listing the numerous older ones that have previously been blocked by RegentsPark, Bishonen, Boing! said Zebedee, Zzuuzz, and me. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug, just noticed that Ponyo CU-blocked a bunch of related accounts (thx!). So we all get a break... until the next batch arrives. :) Abecedare (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

User talk:LukeMontgomery99

Please revoke talk page access from User talk:LukeMontgomery99 as it's being used for sports. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia take everything the SPLC says as the absolute truth?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If the SPLC says something, does Wikipedia take it as the absolute truth? It seems to me, especially given their blatant bias against Trump, that they are a highly politically charged pressure group, and not an objective source?AndyWill22 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What does their position on Trump have to do with whether or not their reporting is credible and relevant? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I also note that the section you seem to be discussing is not taken as "the absolute truth" - to the contrary, it is attributed to the SPLC and not stated in Wikivoice, so that readers may judge for themselves whether or not it is credible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There was a long discussion about them at the Reliable Sources noticeboard not long ago, which came to a rather nuanced conclusion. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about the category selection which Doug Weller was using, which was based on an opinion expressed by the SPLC. I just cannot imagine that anyone would not see that the SPLC is an extremely partisan political pressure group, occupying a position on the far left, and therefore not acceptable as an objective source. It would be like using using a right wing group as a basis to categorize Joe Biden. It just makes no sense to me.AndyWill22 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. It is by no means an extremist organization. As for the "absolute truth"; never run across it. O3000 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@AndyWill22: SPLC would be categorized as far right by the Maoists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Documentation of extremism does not make the documenting organization extremist. You are advocating a false symmetry, implying that those opposed to exremism are themselves extremists. In any case, assessments by the SPLC are normally attributed to the SPLC and not stated in WIkipedia's voice unless there is a broad consensus among sources. Acroterion (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You can find something resembling WP:s current opinion on that at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Southern Poverty Law Center. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center this was the most recent of the 16 discussions, that I was referring to above. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
SPLC really should be yellow at RSP, seeing as even the table shows qualifiers as to what it's considered reliable for, and the last few discussions don't show a consensus about it being reliable. Natureium (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Revisions on Denialism

Denialism: Scientific --> Biological Sex =

Hi Admin, my Wikipedia edit for denialism for "biological sex" has been deleted. Now, I know it sounds crazy that people will deny the biological sex but I've found sufficient evidence that there are people who deny biological sex differences. Most notably Labour Party Politican Dawn Butler and others I've list in the original wikipedia edit. This is a really broad topic, Denial of the difference in biological sex can come in many forms, be it explaining it as a social construct (which is true in some cases BUT there are countries with great gender equality that shows that women and men prefer certain occupations, eg Bangladesh vs Norway),or saying that babies are not born with a biological sex as seen in Dawn Butler interview with Good Morning Britain OR saying that men can get menstrual cycles as seen in Huffington Post. [1]
Please consider all the sources I put and come to your own conclusion, please tell me the improvements that I can edit. Happy to hear from you, thanks!

References

  1. ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cass-clemmer-trans-periods_n_597101bce4b0aa14ea78a251

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buster672 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buster672: The default procedure is to address this in the talk page Talk:Denialism. You can ping the editors that disagreed with your edits for attention by using the template {{ping|User1|User2|...}}. –Austronesier (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I sent you an email

Hi, I have sent you an email.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Tandreasen0421

Hi there. I just noticed the "skip the drama" link at ANI and saw you listed as a recently active admin. I wonder if you could help with User:Tandreasen0421, who is making a lot of work.

They continue to add unsourced or incorrect information to US county articles (though some edits are correct). Specifically, adding information to the "named for" infobox parameter.

Edits began with three IPs out of Oak Creek, Wisconsin: User:2603:6000:D709:D6F8:F0E3:29C9:8A2F:23D5, User:2603:6000:D709:D6F8:A0DE:F81C:2B60:CA9A, and User:2603:6000:D709:D6F8:EC70:E407:1B2D:6E80 (each was cautioned). The editor then created User:Tandreasen0421.

Examples:

  • [14] - nothing in article supports the county is named for the Battle of Tippecanoe.
  • [15] - nothing in article suggests county is named after the Manitowoc River.
  • [16] - nothing in article suggests county is named after Shawano Lake.

User:Fettlemap reverted several edits as well. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Now editing with User:2603:6000:D709:D6F8:FD17:37B8:B52D:98EC. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: range blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing, they need to start responding. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. Now using User:2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:AE. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

#AflibWk editors

Hi. I've sent a similar message to Kuru, who I've had some brief discussion with already. Has there been a centralized discussion about these editors? I only ran across some of them yesterday. I think it best if the rapid-fire additions coming from these accounts was stopped. The editors clearly don't have enough time between edits to review the current article content and references, nor the reliability and independence of their new additions. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I've mentioned that I'm getting complaints to User:RexxS who I've been talking to. WP:ANI I guess asking for a solution, not blocks of course, I'll support you there. Politely etc, as it's a shame as they are trying hard but what a mess. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hipal: I've commented at User talk:Kuru##AflibWk_editors, and although I'm keen to make the new editors as welcome as possible, it can't be at the expense of our recent change patrollers who are cleaning up after them. I'll see if I can get in touch via their outreach dashboard. --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hipal and Doug Weller: I've left a note at User talk:FNartey (WMF), one of the facilitators, and hopefully he or she will take some action to alleviate the issues we're seeing. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad a number of editors are aware and watching it closely. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

" I have a script that shows your edit count, privileges, etc at the top of your talk page"

Is this script only for admins? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User scripts/List. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Hey, what's up with the notification below? Is it true you haven't edited English Wikipedia for three years!!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Doug Weller! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

  1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
  2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
  3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
  4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone wondering about this (hi BMK) can see an explanation at WT:Feedback request service#Notice. Doug would have added User:Dougweller years ago and it is that account that has been unsubscribed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, it seemed weird to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trevor Loudon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joey Gibson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

By chance, I looked at my watchlist during the few seconds yesterday between your first and second revert at Ham (son of Noah). I had time enough for a shocked feeling of "What's that ?" before your second revert showed up. It was funny, but the words of that other editor that were the consequence of it were not funny. That's why I just want to say: Good that WP has rules, and good that people like you enforce them. Thanks, Robert Rsk6400 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ds/notice on Bitchute

Hi, observed your Ds/talk notice on Talk:BitChute topic ab and while I am totally in support of a Ds/talk notice on the article I am concerned the ab topic seems contrived, possibly to the extent I find it inappropriate. I can appreciate the likely problem is no Ds topic really covers the problem area but shoehorning one to fit may also be a problem. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: if you look at my edit summary it says "AP discretionary sanctions". ab was a typo in the notice and I've correct it. Thanks for pointing it out, but I wasn't trying to shoehorn anything. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok... no problems and thanks for the correction which seem perfectly ok for me. Simple typo as and I understand that as I am the king of typos. Nice thing is correctly quickly. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theory maps being pushed

I wonder if you remember a problem that was reported about a month ago: Several wikis being flooded with a map based on a study by Yuan et al. 2019 claiming a scientific revolution in racial anthropology, but not even peer reviewed. I have a vague idea that you were involved, but I may be completely mistaken. These days there are three maps claiming to represent the distribution of Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid races. They were inserted into many wikis (among them Persian, French, Yakut language), but not into English WP. I informed administrator Hiàn of the simple English wiki (here), who in turn started a deletion discussion (here). Rsk6400 (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock IPs making somewhat familiar edits

Two very similar-looking IPs have begun to make edits somewhat similar to those of earlier (new-blocked) IPs that were socks (ultimately I believe) of User:WorldCreaterFighter to pages related to y-haplogroup D and South Asian genetics (and Turkic-related topics). User:5.188.0.140 has been making edits to pages related to y-haplogroup D (one of which appeared to be WP:OR) and User:5.188.0.144 has made a somewhat suspicious edit to the Peopling of India page (removing information removed by similar IP socks before, and misleadingly, perhaps desceptively, describing their edit as correcting "typos/grammar"- see here: [[17]]) which I reverted. Thank you. The two IPs' histories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.188.0.140 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.188.0.144 Skllagyook (talk)

Skllagyook, I'm afraid I can't see enough to do anything. Sorry, maybe time will tell. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Might you be able to help me with another admin?

I’m writing to you on the strength of your being listed first on Recently Active Users.

This fellow admin is coming on awfully strong, for example saying “It's time for you to drop the stick and back away” on my own talk page.

User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS

And all of this started from speech and advocacy on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019, not from actual edits on the article page.

Look, I’m used to sports sites and think of myself as a cool customer. I try not to make jabs at fellow participants. Realistically, I probably do from time to time, but I don’t want to.

Any help you can give would be most appreciated. Thank you for your consideration of this request. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

————

I understand 100% that people are busy and have to choose their own projects. I’m going to start a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: thanks. It's been a bit insane recently, and now my root canal is flaring up for the 2nd time in two weeks, oh joy. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, been there, done that, no fun!
Please be sweet to yourself and we look forward to having you back as you heal up. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DS

Hi Doug. I found some repetition on the Climate change page recently, but I guess I will have to wait until I can edit it out? Knucmo2 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Knucmo2: I'm not sure why. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI

That anonymous user (IP-hopper) on Mal'ta–Buret' culture is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. Please see User_talk:Krakkos#Block_evasion_and_IP-hopping_by_LTA_case and this. Now he uses that IP-range for block evasion. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

And if you take a look at that long-term abuse page, you can see that among his interests is Presenting ancient Turkic peoples as "Turanid", blond blue eyed, and "Europoid-Mongoloid". Both "blue eyes" and "Mongoloid" were in the edit you reverted. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man and Rsk6400: thanks, great information. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Email.

You've got mail. Heiro 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hamites intro biased

The definition of Hamites from the Wikipedia article Hamites clearly violates Wikipedia's NPOV. It uses loaded words such as 'Eurocentric' and 'white supremacists' which are irrelevant for the definition at hand and do not even represent truthfully the usage of the word in literature. I urge you to take action and protect neutrality and truthfulness of the article by reverting to my changes (which you have cancelled) or asking for a rewording, clarification and additional citations from the original editor. I have made only the necessary changes to restore neutrality while keeping the correct definition and also its broader context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.193.214 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Climate change

Hello,

Thanks for your interest, and the generic templated message on my user page. Is there any specific point you may want to raise or discuss? Place Clichy (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've explained on your talk page that it is not what we consider a generic template. It's for anyone who edits in the area. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Amhara pages vandal

Dear Doug, can you please do something about User:Jai_selassié? He is repeatedly vandalizing Amhara Region and Amhara people. I have warned him twice, but after a little rest he is back at it in full swing. Landroving Linguist (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: that account won't be making a nuisance anymore, but let me know if similar edits are made. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. This guy will be easy to catch, as his agenda seems to be himself... I just read here that you and your root canal are going through hard times, so all the more thanks for your good work. Landroving Linguist (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Straight out of the traps

Hi Doug, I'd just noticed noticed thanks this charmer was straight out of the traps again but most gratified to see you in lightning form. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi. The same editor you recently mentioned left me a message with what appears to be the usual rant (in English) on French WP; see this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I see, sorry I can't help. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Take your biased "Administration" elsewhere

Not surprised to see you jumping in and removing attempts to flag potential bias and WP:UNDUE. I will only ask once more, please take your biased "administration" regarding the OANN article elsewhere, if you think I'm not following the rules and policies to create a better Wikipedia - you can ask an independent administrator to interject, you are not impartial to the issue. There are clear guidelines on when to remove templates, and you are not following them. Aeonx (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Short description letter case

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the short description style guide to me. I will use sentence case from now on, and I will revert the neccesary edits I've done. I started adding short descriptions in lower case because the mobile app says "usually begin with a lowercase letter", like in this screenshot: [18]. It might be a good idea to make the style guidelines consistent between the mobile app tool tips and the rest of the Wikipedia project, but I don't know who to notify for this purpose. Thanks again! :) Hxltdq (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hxltdq: and thank you! You might try Help talk:Mobile access. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Something Important

Hi!! It would fill me with great joy if you would read the Talk page of MRRaja001 under the topic "Rudra". I told you guys from the starting that he was the one who was vandalising articles. In that discussion, he accepted that he is a Vaishnava and was making biased edits. Respected Sir, I follow Sanatana Dharma and I very well know about the diversity of my religion. And this was the reason I asked Mr. Materialscientist to not interfere in between. That MRRaja001 misused his ability to edit semi-protected pages into his favour and providing information from a single biased source and completely ignoring other authentic sources. That was the sole reason I opposed him but I do not know why you people supported him. Anjali00020010 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Conundrum

What are you thoughts on the addition of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" as source for a fringe theory? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive new editor

I have never done a WP:ANI notification before, so this is taking the 'skip the drama' option. New editor User:Bhinegar has been making a series of wild edits, mainly silly redirects of talk pages but also some vandalism. I have given three uw-disruptive warnings in short order, probably too close together for any effect but I believe the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Please advise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: sorry but I think it's time for ANI - maybe someone there will have a better solution than a block. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Well I've been round here long enough, its time to bite the ANI bullet. Thanks. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: The user created this ANI section. You could add any concerns there. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You flagged me as someone who expresses interest in "any gender-related dispute or controversy," for adding to the pages of LGBTQ rights leaders their appearances in a queer history podcast. Now every edit I post gets deleted. (Redacted) is offensive to not just myself, but to keeping Wikipedia and history accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaphena2010 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emmerich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a page

Hi Doug Weller , the same person who vandalised Tandava, Vayu and Rudra started vandalizing on page Narayana. This is one of his IP address. If possible can you add page protection to it. - MRRaja001 (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If that is User:Anjali00020010, which seems likely, they should get an indefinite block on their registered account – they already had their temporary block extended for block evasion with a new account. @MRRaja001: I think it would be a good idea if you did not refer to their disruption as vandalism. They have a very strong point of view which they want the articles to reflect, but they don't seem to have the intention to harm Wikipedia. (After all, they were blocked for calling your edits vandalism, among other things. I'm not saying that you have behaved in a way that should lead to any sanctions against you, but it would be better if you did not call the other editor a vandal unless they do resort to blatant vandalism.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Please understand why i called his edits as a Vandalism. This person is deliberately editing and diverting the sole purpose of the project, Like in the case of the page Tandava, he has continuously removed the opinions and sayings of prominent scholars and authors and reverted back the content which doesn't have any citations or references. If we go through his contributions once, It is looking like he is editing the Wikipedia on a specific purpose. He is changing the content on articles according to his opinions and beliefs without providing proper citations and references, and also neutral point of view is missing here. This itself says that he had violated WP:PILLARS. Extract from WP:VD, " 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.". Hope i'm clear about this. - MRRaja001 (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hi Doug, I was wondering if you could take a look at these edits and determine if they need to be revdel'ed for slander against a living person, if it's not too much trouble. Thank you! Nanophosis (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nanophosis: definitely, in fact I've suppressed them as potentially libelous so that only Oversighters can see them. Sorry I couldn't deal with this earler. Anything like this, it's probably faster to email Wikipedia:Oversight. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi Doug
I added some content to some pages like Treaty of Amritsar and Kashmir conflict and Gilgit_Agency but Kautilya3 keeps on removing it even though it has all the references. What can I do. Johnleeds1 (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and aspersions at The Exodus and elsewhere

Hi Doug, IZAK is edit warring at the Exodus and also making veiled accusations of antisemitism at other editors, see [19], [20], [21], and the aspersions [22]. See also this discussion. Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, canvassing, see the links I've assembled [23], and [24].--Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: sorry, playing catchup. I'm involved in the article, ANI? Doug Weller talk 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you think that's warranted yet? I was sort of expecting him to keep on edit warring but he's stopped for the moment. I'm never sure at what point ANI is appropriate.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: if the editors he canvassed aren't either all the editors recently active on the article or include editors not recently active (including the talk page), definitely. I've warned him about the not-so-veiled accusations of anti-semitism. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, none of them has ever edited at The Exodus as far as I know.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I opened an ANI discussion here.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No chance to respond, why?

Hi Doug Weller, I appreciate your concern, but at no time did you give me enough time to respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, Aspersions and Canvassing by IZAK, in case you haven't seen it, I filled in my defense as follows: "@Ermenrich: (1) I have not been "edit warring" I made edits in good faith. At no time did I violate the WP:3RR, (2) and at no time did I call anyone an "antisemite". (3) User:Ermenrich displays an attitude of WP:OWN at The Exodus article,and my point was to introduce some Jewish studies content into the lead of the article, which he seems allergic to. (4) At no time have I violated WP:NPOV and WP:RS. (5) User:Ermenrich has an evident hostility to Rabbinic Judaism and marginalizes the Orthodox Judaism perspective." And, "@Zero0000: I was asking for help in editing an article which is permitted. It was not a AfD or CfD. It is not a violation of WP:CANVAS to ask other editors for their scholarly help. ". Thanks for lloking this over and please lift the block as I do not intend to edit The Exodus article in the near future. Regards, IZAK (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

fyi

PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Vysotsky

Thanks for reminding me that I'd been meaning to cite Vysotsky in anarchist criminology. The "Anarchy Police" article is very interesting and the argument that militant anti-fascism is a form of policing would, I think, make certain heads spin. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get hold of American Antifa with libraries closed for the foreseeable future, but it'll certainly be invaluable for the antifa article when someone gets their hands on it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh Page Edit(s)

Doug,

You said the following:

curprev 18:18, 11 June 2020‎ Doug Weller talk contribs‎ 11,560 bytes -37‎ →‎top: this is not an article about his name, and he is not Persian undo

With reference to the edit below: curprev 17:03, 11 June 2020‎ 50.211.151.193 talk‎ 11,597 bytes +7‎ Persian Nastaliq script used for Persian name. undo

You are incorrect to edit the page in such a manner provided that:

  • The article edit had no impact on the Wikipedia page aside from script modification from Persian to Persian Nastaliq.
  • The Kaveh Farrokh page is indeed not about a name, but must accurately portray the language of his namesake. Particularly, if he (Kaveh) is ok with the edits.
  • You have also said that he is not Persian, however, as previously noted, the edit was concerning the language of the name "Kaveh Farrokh", which is indeed Persian.

Therefore, your edits must be reversed. You have previously noted that you know Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and if this is true, you may indeed ask him for additional verification. You may also visit his own homepage concerning his background and family ancestry at the following link: http://kavehfarrokh.com/about/background-ancestry/

Also, looking through your past comments, in 2013 you indicated that Dr. Kaveh Farrokh cannot be regarded as an academic or historian. Please note the following:

  • Given that he has earned a doctorate, he certainly can be regarded as an academic, even if he is not a full-time career academic. This is partly due to the fact that his work is regularly published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
  • Dr. Farrokh does also maintain a role at the following: http://www.methodologica.fr/dept-sciences-historiques-membres-an.htm This is an educational institution and does also clearly indicate that Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is a Professor and Researcher.
  • You may additionally reference Dr. Kaveh Farrokh's website http://kavehfarrokh.com/about/teaching-history/ regarding his previous teaching positions as a Lecturer and a Reader at the University of British Columbia (2004 - 2018).

Considering the above, would this suffice to fulfill the premise that he is or has been a career academic and/or historian? It seems that you have indeed been incorrect, particularly considering that a well-known Canadian university acknowledges that Dr. Farrokh has taught at their university for over a decade.

On a beneficial side note, your own Everipedia page (https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/doug-weller) indicates your Master of Science degree as "MsC". This must be adjusted to MSc, M.Sc., or MSc. as commonly indicated by graduates that have received such qualifications from British institutions.

Please be more attentive to accuracy and details provided your editorial role.

I am awaiting your response regarding the Kaveh Farrokh page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagusMoon (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement to translate his name - can you find such a guideline? I'm not editing at Everipedia, it's an insignificant website. This odd French university puzzles me, and the journal it mentions doesn't seem to have received any coverage. I see that you are failing to accept that my edits are made in good faith, which is disappointing. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

MagusMoon (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Doug,

Thank you for your reply.

Please note that this reply and discussion has been delivered with the utmost respect and no attempts have been made to revert the edits you took down.

The argument is not so much about a requirement to translate his name as it does serve for clarification purposes. Moreover, there is no requirement indicating that a name (or word, phrase, etc.) must not be represented in another language. As examples, the following Wikipedia pages have Persian on them:

Shall all the Persian characters therefore be deleted from the listed pages as well? What about other languages that have appeared on other Wikipedia entries?

Might it be also noted that you moreover did not address whether the namesake is Persian or not.

With respect to the response given to the university link provided: Whether a university appears to be "odd" or not, "puzzles" or otherwise does not address the question that was being asked. Please adhere to the parameters of the question framework.

Regarding the point of "that my edits are made in good faith", please rest assured that while edits may have been made in good faith on your end, they may be wrong or reasoning behind such edits may be weaker than other arguments that may subsequently presented. Therefore, there is no failure of understanding and any action or edit can certainly be called into question. Simply because an edit may be made in good faith, that is not to say that all such edits would constitute absolute accuracy. In this manner, please do not attribute a lack of good faith or understanding simply because an edit is called into question and likewise take into consideration that edits on the Kaveh Farrokh page was a clarification to a preexisting language format. Such edits were also made in good faith.

Awaiting your reply.
--MagusMoon (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

New editor

Hey Doug, this new single-purpose account is pushing his pov, misrepresenting all the sources he's using and doesn't look like a new editor (he knows how to add sources from his 2nd edit and how to indent). He also used non civil language in his edit summary (undid berberist edits) and discussion (....to push your berberist agenda?). And he doesn't like reliable source (the Encylopaedia of islam, 2nd ed.) claiming that the "source is outdated (1960) and does not represent the current scholarly consensus among historians." and that it "is the work of one scholar it does not represent the scholarly consensus..". I don't think the user is here to build an encylopedia and the discussion with him looks like the start of a endless one. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian pro-confederacy

The Guardian was not always anti-slavery it has even said itself that it supported slavery, please read the sources if you revert again you may be banned from editing Robincard (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh help I'm going to be banned if I revert again! Doug Weller talk 14:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

One can not slander in the written word, moreover defamation laws cannot be applied to those no longer living, the founder of the Guardian died over one-hundred years ago. In an age where we are looking at what institutions supported what it is important this remains please stop erasing a very well cited postulation. Robincard (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That was the wrong wording. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It was neutral and well-cited. Rather than vandalising and deleting a whole body of work why not try to be more constructive Robincard (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I've spent time looking at historical sources and a more rounded picture of the Guardian's view. Your edit was not at all neutral. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Hey man is it alright if I create a page about a youtube named "SypherPk", and if so do you thhink you could help me out on it? Brysonjett (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice you seem to have sent me about "interest in pseudoscience or fringe science"

Your name is attached to a notice I just received which says in part,

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science.

I have no interest in pseudo science or fringe science. I have never "shown interest" in such subjects. I studied mathematics and physics as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley (a highly rated science and engineering school) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I later worked as an electrical engineer for many years. My background in these subjects is extremely strong. I am not an auto didact. Please remove the notice and explain your reason for sending it to me. Dratman (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Answered on talk page, editor edited an article covered by the sanctions. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your article:2020 Delhi riots

This is the most biased article on Wikipedia. You are blocking anyone who is pointing out the fact the article is extremely biased in favor of one particular community. Your article is almost anti-Hindu. Your page is selectively choosing some references but excluding other references based on personal bias. There are numerous requests to include some references including some police reports about the violence. But none is getting included in the article. Most of the people are getting blocked instead. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is for the people. Its not a personal blog post. Valid references should be included without any personal bias. Quanta127 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say

It's pretty amazing how intent can be so easily misconstrued in the written word when reader bias or ulterior motives are at play. It then becomes very difficult to convince others of the actual intent behind what was written. Of course, I'm referencing The Guardian issue which dates back to the 1860s, a time when the English language was semantically different. Having said that, I also believe such misinterpretations occur today, particularly on WP, and why I wish more editors would AGF. Imagine all the drama that could be avoided. Atsme Talk 📧 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Hey, I made a page on SypherPk do you think you could go look at and help me out on it? Brysonjett (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Antifa

I found this really informative and interesting. For one, the far-left simply is not like the far-right which has a literature and clear consensus on what it is and represents. I think seeing the far-left as revolutionary left is one way too see it, although I am not fully convinced for why being a revolutionary per se make one or something more left-wing. There are indeed left-wing traditions that are revolutionaries and more left-wing than others, but it is not revolutionarism that make one more left-wing per se, see for example Blanquism and Leninism. While they may be considered as more left-wing because they want more fast and radical changes in society, it could also be argued that they are to the right of more evolutionist left-wing currents and traditions because vanguardism is elitist and right-wing, basically pursuing left-wing ideals through right-wing means. I do agree that it makes no sense to call communists or/and other socialists that are part of the democratic process and work within it as far-left.

I would consider anarchism, which include both revolutionary and evolutionist tendencies, as the more left because it represents left-wing politics (as we define it on Wikipedia according to sources) taken to their logic conclusions, just like fascism represents right-wing politics (as we define it on Wikipedia according to sources) taken to their logical conclusions. So I would prefer this to a revolutionary/radical–reactionary/traditionalism political spectrum where fascism may be considered to overlap on all four elements while still representing the right. Yet, I would not consider labeling anarchism far-left per se; I believe subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism is a perfectly fine wording, for the far-left simply is not the equivalent of the far-right and is much more ambiguous and unclear.

There are currents such as council communism or left communism which are considered as representing the left of communism and Marxism, but I still believe far-left is not a clear label. I am not even sure communism was ever really considered far-left, excluding anti-communists and right-wingers, for it simply took liberalism's place on the left (representing a left-wing critique of both philosophical liberalism and actual existing liberalism) and can only be considered far-left if liberalism is still considered on the left. Anarchism, communism and socialism are certainly on the left in a normal political spectrum. A spectrum where post-war consensus social democrats are considered far-left or radicals, with neoliberals in the centre/centre-left, is one so far skewed to the right that is why it becomes common to label parts of the centre as far-left.

I wrote this before reading Beyond My Ken's response here and I am writing you here because I do not want to go off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know that would be an interesting discussion to have and I am glad you decided to open it up.--Davide King (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Antifa per se, but the basic typology of political economy goes as follows: Left (communism, anarchism), Moderate Left (social-democracy), Moderate Right (reform liberalism), Right (classical liberalism). While the far left (adventurism) tends to be at the far-end of the Left in the typology, the far right (opportunism), as an ideology, tends to be at its centre. It's important to distinguish between political affinity and antipathy of any given ideology to the underlying political-economic policy it seeks to advance. El_C 11:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Speaking globally (excluding US), I agree with you El C, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. Atsme Talk 📧 11:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Atsme, I appreciate that. The full distributive continuum may be anemic (left-wise) in the US especially, but more deeply, I view it as a law of nature, with respect to what is possible, materially: Left (public ownership), Moderate Left (public ownership, some private ownership), Moderate Right (private ownership, some public ownership), Right (private ownership). So, public and private ownership and their varying hybridization are encompassed in the typology in that way. El_C 06:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Username issue

Hi. I think the username Jehovah witnesses stoptellinglies (talk · contribs) probably falls within the scope of WP:BLPABUSE?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: I've blocked them. I don't like the Twinkle template and their first edit seemed innocuous, so I've left a note, even that's a bit clumsy though. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that the wording of the template doesn't quite fit. The user's only edit wasn't really vandalism (though it was factually incorrect).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
! Brysonjett (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: June 2020

Hello Admin Doug, I saw your reverting on the Falun Gong article and your warning. I do not think they were correct, but did not want to reply yesterday, as I feel details in terms of how Bloodofox's and HorseEyeJack's edits were against multiple policies: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Due, etc, were presented in:

But today I saw HorseEyeJack is attacking me again on the article talk page, I feel I need to further make things clear. In response to your words:

That removed a lot of well-sourced material, replaced unsourced material with a cn tag (which is strictly against policy), etc - far too drastic especially given the talk page discussions which involved more than one person.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong. You've had too many warnings in the past over different issues. Thus the final warning. Note that I will not block you myself as I've reverted you and am thus involved. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say a few words below:

1. My issues raised in my edit summary was not addressed in your words.

The page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions. WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views here. The significant change made to the relative stable article in the May by one user had no discussion consensus. Since then the article has been no stable. I am restoring back to the status prior to the change in May.

2. I had no intention "replaced unsourced material with a cn tag" at all. I have no idea what a cn tag is. I believe, if that is your true concern, it can be easily fixed.
3. I did not blank page content. The template removal was not intentional. My point was that the edit Bloodofox made in the mid May was prior to his any discussion. He should have convinced others first before making the huge change. My restoring to the status prior to his edit was meant to be fair. If a huge change to the article requires a discussion, it should start from prior to the change.
4. Recently Bloodofox added the 1st section after the lead section. This is without discussion either. I tried to move it the Falun Gong Outside China section because the previous 1st section was about the origin of Falun Gong, and the topic of these new groups that were formed by overseas Falun Gong adherents reasonably belongs to the Falun Gong Outside China section, but Bloodofox reverted.
5. In this new first section, some paragraphs were directly copied from Los Angeles Magazine's City Think Blog, for example the paragraph "In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle.." was directly copied from the source. Was it not allowed in Wikipedia? In addition, such contents are directly contradictory to other sources, like NBC, etc., as I pinpointed on RSN response earlier.
6. I added sourced materials a few days ago, but HorseEyeJack frequectly reverted.
7. Yes, I received warnings in the past. My impression is that most warnings were not factual and were from activists who promoted their views with original research on related pages, i tried to prevent them and were threatened by warning. At least two of them were banned on the topic later. I mentioned this in the ANER comment.

It is a bit long above. Thanks for spending time on this. Precious Stone 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious Stone, Doug might not block you, but I will. You cannot invoke DS as an editor involved in the page, only an uninvolved admin can do that. And I am doing so with you. Start discussing and stop reverting. El_C 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Marvin 2009 and El C: what I find interesting is that when I raised on RfC at the talk page covering the main issue, whether FG is a new religious movement and the issue that this editor (using the name Precious Stone) reverted on, they haven't responded in the RfC - in fact no one who objected to calling it a NRM has. I also note that Precious Stone has followed me to another completely unrelated article, accidentally reverting an edit of mine.[25] That's a bit odd. Of course it's not unreasonable to watch another editors edits if you think there may be problems with them, but still... Doug Weller talk 08:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Admin Doug, below are my reply to the two issues you talked about.
  • My edit was not to address the new religious movement topic, as a few days ago I explained here why I restored the article to prior to [26]. Yes, I have no disagreement with the new religious movement name or other contents as long as they are added by following RS and DUE. My main issues with user Bloodofox edits were detailed in No.3 to No.5 in my message here last time. Could you please look into them?
  • I had no intention to make a change of your post on Talk:Iruña-Veleia. Somehow i accidentally touched the reverting link. i changed it back right away once i realized the erroneous edit. i apologize for the inconvenience. Precious Stone 03:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

False information regarding Epoch Times, please kindly review. Many thanks!

Dear Administrator,

I just deleted some false information on the page. Please kindly take these two articles below as a reference.


CBC wrong in story on Epoch Times https://www.cowichanvalleycitizen.com/opinion/cbc-wrong-in-story-on-epoch-times/


CBC Admits Mistakes in Reporting of Epoch Times Coverage of Beijing’s Virus Coverup https://www.theepochtimes.com/cbc-admits-mistakes-in-reporting-of-epoch-times-coverage-of-beijings-virus-coverup_3341573.html


I appreciate your time very much!

Thanks,

Sunny World — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyworld2020 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sunnyworld2020, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Epoch Times. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
I need help on editing. Brysonjett (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Composemi

Hi, User:Composemi made an edit on his talk page saying "Sure why not" regarding your post on if he'd like to be unblocked. Given you placed that post and blocked him, I am here to ask you if you noticed this. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@OcelotCreeper: no, busy day. I've told them I'll to it tomorrow, I need to sort out any formalities. Thanks for letting me know.Doug Weller talk 15:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Biased Text

Hello, just receieved your message on my talk page. Thank you for taking time to contact me. As for the issues regarding the Jinn page, I have explained the reasons for my edits in the talk page prior to editing them. As I explained, the text on the page must not be biased and must be relevant to the subject of the page. I've found several texts in the page which violate this and several contradictions due to people adding their opinion. This is something which both us would agree is not right and we must keep the pages unbiased and professional.

--Tmason101 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Public Domain

"the state of belonging or being available to the public as a whole". --Tmason101 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You have a serious misunderstanding as to what "Public Domain" means. And apparently from your edits "NPOV" as well, you should go read up both. Heiro 17:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Illusion of consensus on Talk:Turning Point USA

Three editors are, I believe, working together to create the illusion of consensus on Talk:Turning Point USA#Article needs a little bit of formatting clean up, attempting to remove relevant substantive material from the article on the spurious grounds that information about Turning Point USA's political action committee, Turning Point Action, is not relevant to TPUSA.

I've filed an SPI regarding them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MaximusEditor, but that could take a while to be processed, and there's always the possibility that it's simply coordination, not sockpuppetry.

Could you please take a look at what's going on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've started an RfC to draw more editors into the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I'm involved in the article, so I can't CU. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I realize that. I was more interested in your possibly getting involved in the discussion and RfC as an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Damn, it just occurred to me, if I wasn't contacting you as an admin, then this would be canvassing. My goodness, it's easy to fall into that trap. Please forget that I mentioned it, and please stay away from that discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Vedic period

Could you take a look at Vedic period? I suppose that this behavior is obviously disruptive. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: not a subject I know enough about. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... I notice I respond a little bit quick-tempered lately; must be the corona-times.... Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice on my talk page

You have put a notice on my talk page about politic biasm. Why? Because I have made resisited edits on ANTIFA and Abortion? That is two. Do it at three at least, and btw, by the look at your edit history; you are the one who needs this notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggines (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Siggines: I did no such thing. I gave you a standard Discretionary sanctions alert, and I've alerted myself at the top of this talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Embassy of Heaven edits

I had a lengthy discussion about a year ago with the wife of Pastor Paul Revere. Het names is Rachel. I made an edit to clarify the position of the church to help readers understand. I hadn't look at my edit in almost a year but recently I saw it was removed the day after I posted it. So I reposted it, citing Rachel as the source and it was removed. Why would you remove information that helps readers understand the subject? Surrealsax (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Surrealsax: Because we have policies on WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RELIABLE. Imagine if we did not, and let any anonymous person on the the internet who claimed he knew someones wife who told him such and such and just let them write whatever they want? We do not publish WP:TRUTH, but only what can be verified by citations to reliable sources. Heiro 20:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Your messages about vaccine hesitancy article

I now understand the concept of these notices. Thank you for making that clearer. But see below about your tone and the tone of the notice I was sent.

  1. I am not anti-vaccine. I am strongly pro-vaccine. Anti-vaccination propaganda is an ugly and dangerous phenomenon.
  2. I do not "have an interest in pseudo science or fringe science." The fact that I edited an article about a subject like that does not indicate an interest. I read part of the article and corrected what I thought was an overstatement that might be vulnerable to an attack against imprecision.
  3. My edit was trying to improve the pro-vaccine presentation in the article.
  4. The article contains a long list of real-world consequences of anti-vaccine propaganda. That is a good thing. Now if someone added another such (valid) example, would that person likewise receive the same notice I did?
  5. I did not see the box on the right side of the "vaccine hesitancy" article. In any case, that box does not mention that editing the article was a questionable activity, subject to receiving a notice.
  6. The notice, and your messages to me, have a negative and punitive tone that I believe is inappropriate. I feel attacked.
  7. I have been editing Wikipedia for 15 years. Here is my current edit count:Live edits 4,652 · (99.7%), Deleted edits 14 · (0.3%), Total edits 4,666
  8. I am proud of the above.
  9. The notice, instead of saying that the editor in question has shown an interest, should say that s/he edited an article which falls under the pseudo-science or fringe science classification. The current version of the notice tries to analyze the interests or personality of the editor. No such personal analysis is called for. Dratman (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dratman: The message left on your talkpage was a boilerplate message (see here for a whole list of them Template:Ds/alert), Dougweller did not personally insert the tone/language that seems you are upset with. Both anti-vaxx and their opposites would get the exact same message, it's not meant to imply you are one or the other, have a special interest or not, or that editing said article is "questionable behavior". It's just to alert new editors of the page that the subject, because of it's nature as a problem area on the 'pedia, has special circumstances that other articles do not. Heiro 03:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, the notice should be reworded. The way the notice is worded now suggests that I have done something questionable just by showing "an interest." Is it possible for me to edit the notice? Dratman (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dratman: you're misreading it. It's just an alert, and I have alerted myself for all the areas covered. No Administrator or experienced editor would think you've done something questionable just by reading the alert. It can't be reworded, but you can delete it. It's logged and lasts for one year. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not mean I want to edit the particular copy of the alert on my talk page. I was asking (if you know) whether it is possible to edit the Wikipedia text that gets used whenever the alert is applied? You know, the source text. I want to change the wording so that other people who receive it will not get the wrong impression of what it means, as I did. Dratman (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the place to propose changes would be Template talk:Ds. I doubt that the template can be unilaterally changed without discussion and consensus, without such a change being immediately reverted. BD2412 T 00:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will make the suggestion. Dratman (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)

{{ec}}? DMacks (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: I'm not sure how that happened. Sorry, I've replaced the protection template. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for being extra eyes on that disruption-magnet of an article! DMacks (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Doug. Appreciate it EvilDestroyer2 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

West Eurasians

Hi Doug, I took a look at West Eurasians (created yesterday, 22 June), left some remarks at Talk:West Eurasians, and think that it is a hoax, and a bad one, too. Thanks in advance for any idea or thought on what to do about it. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I only read through the lede and only skimmed through the rest of the article so far, but that is pretty much in line with most stuff I've read on the population archaeogenetics of Europe and western Asia in the last 10 years. There are probably better phrasing for things like "into Europe a population not related to West Eurasians was already decaying demographically", the editor used "decaying" several times after that. It could use more inline cites and more secondary sources, the photos moved to the right and not centered under bodies of test, that distracting AF. But I do not think it's a hoax. Heiro 16:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I can see decent sources with a quick GBooks and GScholar search. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Daily mall reference

Thank you. I was not aware Daily mall is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahgum (talk • contribs) 02:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Islamic Page Vandalism

Although you might not like Islam this does not mean adding false information on the pages and removing reverts to correct it. Right now what your doing is wrong and I'm going to have to bring it to attention. I've made several attempts to remove incorrect statements and you're not allowing me to do so. I showed valid reasons and provided evidence to back up my claim. You're using wikipedia to express personal biases. I'm going to have to flag your account.

--Tmason101 (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tmason101: as usual I have no idea what you mean - flag my account". But please do try to bring "to attention" your false claim I don't like Islam. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tmason101: please do not cast aspersions. Thank you. El_C 12:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
El C, Doug Weller they've since threatened to "escalate" this and implied legal action (as well as "telling my boss" with "screenshots") because I told them we don't (helpers) get involved in content disputes. lol Praxidicae (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: ? I don't see that anywhere. He just reverted your post here however. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
You won't, he came into IRC several times this week demanding we do something about "group vandalism" and today it devolved into him saying the above. Also sorry about my revert, new laptop and getting used to the new mousepad! Praxidicae (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
My WP:DE spidey senses are tingling. El_C 12:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: more CIR - his user page used to say "Hi my name I am Tmason101. I am also on wikia and deviant art. I am a pixel artist. I make loads of Mario sprites, they are all over the web. I am mostly at the Spectrobes wiki. I have over 2000 edits and I edit quite frequently. Allot of the 2D artwork there has been uploaded by me." And he tried to flag the article by adding it to WP:Pages needing attention which at its top says clearly "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump." Doug Weller talk 12:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, WP:CIR with a splash of WP:NPA. El_C 12:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually wondering if this account is possibly compromised...Praxidicae (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Mmm. CIR, POV, EW, PA with a healthy dash of BATTLEGROUND thrown in. I don't think compromised though - quite a few of the 2015 and 2017 edits touch on the subject of Islam, which is in-line with their current editing. GirthSummit (blether) 13:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I am reminded of this essay! GirthSummit (blether) 13:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Lol! Doug Weller talk 13:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien

I have done as you suggested. I posted this on the page you linked to:

It needs to be discussed that Cathy O'Brien's books are eligible for citation. I have done an extensive write up of her page with extensive citations. Her books are published under Whistle-blower laws and the Constitution of the United States of America. Her first document - Trance Formation of America - is uncontested before the US Congressional Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence oversight and is in law libraries around the world. Users keep blocking the write-up I did of her, which includes no bias of my own or any opinion. Instead I have stated pure fact from her life as documented. The fact anyone would want to silence this uncontested testimony would only align with extreme bias against fact, testimony, and what criminals have only done for decades. Her testimony is a matter of public record and should be on Wikipedia as I have written it - facts only. What was there was completely biased and non-factual. This involves intelligence agencies and criminal activity of the highest order, so Wikipedia, as a community and project for the people of the world should not show bias in favour of the criminals at such agencies. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyCaprice (talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

HI

Hi, Doug Weller, lets make it up, I'm sorry, typos happen, mainly because its hot and I've got slippery hands, I am an idiot, explains the edits on talk pages that you talked to me about. So, I sincerely am sorry, and am ready to make it up to you. Midshipman Percy (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Also, theres a guy who reverted my edit for no apparent reason and, after sending him a message on his talk page, refuses to answer and proceeds to delete my comment, can you go check please? Thanks

Populous/populus

I just saw your edit at Germany, where you wondered if "populous" was "vandalis," (sic) or carelessness. I don't feel a need to revert your edit, but I don't think there was a problem in the first place. The word you changes was "populus," not "populous." And Wiktionary says it means a people, or a community of people--which is exactly what is meant there. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, "vandalis," (the comma on the keyboard being right by the m that belongs in "vandalism") along with "swas clumsy" both go a long way to explaing the 1 you referred to in square. It IS a one, not an ell; you'll note the difference between the two is that one lifts one's left pinky half an inch higher on the keyboard. It's a classic example of "Muphry's Law"--yes, Muphry's, not Murphy's. If one is writing about an error in grammar or usage, what one writes will itself include some error in grammar or usage. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that, AzseicsoK, but so far as populus goes, besides being a tree[27] and many other sources or used to describe the "populus Romanus", it's an extremely unusual word [28]w hich we shouldn't use and that I very much doubt the editor ever heard of. Wiktionary is, well, odd at times, and we'd never use it as a source. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
If s/he used it, I think s/he probably had heard of it. It seems unlikely that someone would invent a word, just for mischief--and that word would turn out just by accident to be arguably correct (if extremely unusual). Uporządnicki (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
AzseicsoK maybe, or they were thinking of populous which is just as likely. In any case, they've wasted an hour of my diminishing life. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ooh Saad. Just another serial vandal, probably a kid. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
My point is precisely that I don't think it was a vandal--and I think that's an important point to make (or I wouldn't be carrying on about a mere choice of words). One of the things you edited was one of the easiest typos in the world to make (you and I have both made typos in this very exchange), and the other was arguably not incorrect. I see that you're a person of some authority here, and I think it's important to be very careful in bandying the word "vandal." Uporządnicki (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
AzseicsoK maybe that edit wasn't. But what you can't see as it's been revision/deleted is the threats of violence, and of course there's the other vandalism both by that account and the sockmaster. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh! OK, well, I was just about to go in and look at some history. You've saved me the trouble; double thank you since I'd be doing so just now as a distraction from what I'm SUPPOSED to be doing.Uporządnicki (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced material?

I want you to read carefully what you've written on your "June 2020" message to me. This message to you is not writing unsourced material. So, you've absolutely no grounds for blocking when someone leaves you a return message. Besides, blocks never last for long on this phasing out site. When you message someone (and are unnecessarily snide), I want you to remember they've the right to message you back.

I've noticed here on Wikipedia it states that Wikipedia is not meant to be used for a primary or secondary encyclopedia for students. And with the large drop (3/4) in editors, Wikipedia is wobbling on its last legs anyway. Seems some spent 12 (or more) years which are going down the bowl rapidly as people have lost interest in being Wikipedia editors/contributors. Tsk, tsk! Again, this is not an edit...it's a message.

BTW, how are things in Florida? Many statues removed, toppled, defaced in 13 colonies' freedom from pedophile palace (Buckingham)? Your state isn't one of those states. But, still...YOU LIVE THERE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just weird. And I don't live there. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is wobbling on its last legs anyway. Gee, where have I heard that before? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please give me some help?

Greetings, I request some support in matters of religious biases concerning the articles Iblis and Harut and Marut. The same Users, who makes constant objections on the Islamic mythology article, makes similar edits based on the same arguement, on the mentioned articles. Unfortunately, since these articles are less observed my non-muslim editors, there is no real support for the arguements based on scholary efforts (secondary sources), further they are also messing up the article for the sake of current Islamic theology, disregarding earlier sources. It goes so far, he makes conspiracy theories about me, telling other users I would side with the devil and have a system to provide false information. Now on the Harut and Marut article another User even accused me of disruptive edits now. I don't know if he is sockpupping or if he just persudes other Users to make them think I am the one spreading false information. Can you keep an eye on the mentioned article and the discussion pages, please?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is forum-shopping and is inappropriate. A discussion is underway at WP:ANI. --Yamla (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

West Eurasians solved

West Eurasians was more problematic than the sources suggested. It wanted to revive the concept of a distinct Caucasian race. Problem solved, article reduced to redirect. Just to tell you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

DS notice for User:Edwyna

Greetings! In this edit, did you mean to leave the warning for article titles and capitlization? Or was there another area you meant to mention DS relating to? —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: doh, thanks for catching that. As I recall, you can, using Twinkle, get the first choice right but if the second choice is wrong, it will still go through. I meant American politics of course, Article titles is just below it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

2nd last resource/hope

Hi Doug Weller, I usually don't come to you if I have a problem, but this time I do. The trouble comes after I have asked for dispute resolution at the ANI, the talk page of the blocking Sysop and the DRN. All refused to make any comment on the content of the dispute, or didn't comment at all. There is a dispute at Tell Abyad where someone wants to include a quote by the Washington Post of 2015, which is quite wrong as to my account. Tell Abyad was not renamed into Gire Spi as the quote says, (Also several sources provided at the talk page confirm otherwise), then it wasn't also unusual to write Tell Abyad in Latin Script, (also provided evidence in various sources.), then it was also not detached unilaterally from the Raqqa Governorate as claimed by the Washington Post, as the Raqqa Governorate was in a large part ruled by ISIS until way into 2017. Yes, Tell Abyad was able to be returned to ISIS in 2015, but is this really due to Wikipedia? For the arguments on the points, just check the talk page and the follow up on the discussion. The reverting editor usually reverts without giving an explanation at the talk page, but weirdly, at least until now, he was given right. If you are not interested in such a dispute or don't answer until 3rd of July, I'll resort to ArbCom.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: going to DRN is good. I'm afraid I really can't follow the issue. ArbCom is inappropriate as it's not an editor conduct issue that the community hasn't managed to resolve. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Rev/del request

Rather blatant. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps just the edit summary needs to go, looking at the contents. FDW777 (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: but that looks like a summary of the edit. Not a slogan or statement. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I realised that hence my second message. To anyone not looking at the full message it's a highly questionable edit summary though. But I'll leave it there. FDW777 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Revdel

[29]. I also believe this comment is egregious enough for a block. – 2.O.Boxing 20:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: as were their edits. :/64 range blocked. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Stalking

After their snide remark on another article followed by an attempt to make it personal(ie. what I should go do with myself), clearly this individual has now decided to make this personal by stalking my edits.

Clearly Wikipedia has become a place for a chosen few to use what they want to write what they want. When they can not prove a source is reliable, then snide remarks and personalized comments are used. I see no reason to continue editing when harassment is a tool to be used to verify the reliability of a source! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for clarification on your warning

You have just issued a warning against me, alleging disruptive editing and vandalizing. I'd like to know why. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I note that you have since clarified the issue and thank you for the clarification. Please kindly let me know if there's anything else that I'm doing wrongly. I'm a new contributor and might have inadvertently stepped over some rules at this time. I take the rules very seriously, and I appreciate any and all good faith tips and guidance going forward.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter

Hi, I wanted to respond to the message you left on my talk page about my edit on Black Lives Matter - "Your post put a swing on what happened that doesn't reflect what the Mayor has said since. It's your responsibility to make sure that you are using up to date information."

I don't feel that I was "putting a swing on what happened"; I was simply restoring content that had been removed. I felt that the editor's justification for removing the content − "This isn't really a general critique of the movement as a whole, just a comment about one event, and the sourcing isn't great" − wasn't great, since a single event can certainly be considered relevant to the movement, and it was in fact well-sourced. They made no mention of the content not reflecting up-to-date information - do you have a link showing the mayor's more recent statements? But also, when undoing a questionable revert, is it my responsibility to fully vet all facets of the removed content? That seems like an unreasonable burden - shouldn't the focus be whether the specific claims made by the editor making the revert are valid? Shouldn't the onus be on the editor making the revert to provide a valid argument? Stonkaments (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

Thank you for your response, and your gracious welcome, however I believe you subsequently and certainly violate one point of principle (a) maintaining a neutral point of view on page Tommy Robinson (activist). I would like a response for removal of factual information pertaining to the appearance on BBC show Daily Politics on April 2017, as that constitutes the majority of my edit. My concern was expressed in detail when submission of edit was made, revolves around the use of politically charged term white nationalist, which the Southern Poverty Law Center defines as a white supremacist and white separatist ideology. The term synonymous with white supremacy, as indicated by the numerous articles published by the SPLC, New York Times, FactCheck, Salon, and many other outlets, is political dictum. If the neutrality policy were genuine political dictum would be withdrawn. Clearly viewable on the BBC show Daily Politics on April 2017, hosted by Andrew Neil, was the remark by the CEO of Quilliam Institute, Haras Rafiq, that Robinson is not a white supremacist, and this official remark on behalf of Quilliam Institute was made more than once by Haras Rafiq.[1] I will be requesting that you at the very least include this portion along with citation.

ScholarlyEdits (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

[1]

References

  1. ^ a b "Chief Executive Haras Rafiq on Daily Politics with Tommy Robinson". Daily Politics. 5 April 2017. BBC. Retrieved 4 July 2020. {{cite episode}}: Check |series-link= value (help)

Wikipedia Awards

Hello mr. Doug Weller, I was just wondering, what basic criteria should I fulfill to receive the different wikipedia awards? I mean, is it like I have to make around 100-1000 useful edits or some minimum time is needed or something similar? Please tell. regards, Parlebourbon3 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Parlebourbon3: I think you mean the self-awarded Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons). Doug Weller talk 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Parlebourbon3 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you check this guy out?

This is the very first edit of User:Asadev10 - someone coming out of the blue with a lot of Wikiknowledge, and with somewhat disruptive editing habits. I personally have no knowledge to decide whether the contents of his edits are helpful or not, but his behaviour tells me that a blocked user is back to continue his old edit wars. Landroving Linguist (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: I've already filed this[30]. –Austronesier (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Landroving Linguist (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

ADF Page Edits

Where the SPLC has labeled an organization a "hate group" why would you remove some context behind that label, especially when it comes from a federal court opinion? If the ADF page itself is going to include that label from SPLC, which is more debatable in the first instance, it should be accompanied by appropriate context. Let's not whitewash this please.


This is important legal and factual context. Also, why would you doubt it belongs on the SPLC page either?

Until it's addressed, please do not remove and accuse me of being in an edit war. Many thanks.

We don't use court reports. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, do you mean you don't use judicial opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.168.187 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as that is the issue, I will instead cite to an article which quotes from the opinion. Again though, my edits made no conclusions, only provided quotes directly from the opinion. But seeing as you are referencing a rule of "no court reports" (which I cannot find), I'll get a different source and we should be good to go. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.168.187 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

question

If I removed something highly important to you, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you notice...

This edit: [31] to your userboxes page? --IamNotU (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted, hopefully in a way that makes it clear this is not to be repeated. If Doug wants to follow up with the editor, he can't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

REVDEL request 21:45, 9 July 2020

@Doug Weller: I found you listed among Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Please consider WP:REVDEL of the edit summary shown in this diff. The IP user 2601:647:100:1C6E:E870:5C7D:7A08:EC84 maligns an attorney, named in a Salon story linked in the edit summary, as "a questionable litigator" about whom there have been "many complaints," alleges that the attorney has been disbarred, and accuses him of "nefarious activities." Thank you for your willingness to consider my request. NedFausa (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: done. I'm offline for about 13 hours a day. Not online continuously the rest obviously but more available. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Predatory?

Hi, you know more about identifying predatory journals than I do. I've checked for Indian Journal of Dalit and Tribal Studies and Action and its publisher on Beall's list and cannot spot it. I've also found this but it isn't very helpful because the Call for Submissions and Policy for Submissions sections are both lacking substantive info. The claim at that site is that the journal is moving its online presence but I've not yet found where to. The general descriptive blurb there does, however, set my antennae twitching as it seems like a lot of pseudo-academic claptrap, it mentions that it welcomes activists and it begins with (Please note that the Journal is not recognized by the UGC in its UGC List of Journals). My opinion of the University Grants Commission (India) is that it is very poor in its supervisory roles generally, which also makes this a bit of a worry. Any thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: this[32] certainly suggests they are ok. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, you searched for the TICI. Good enough, I suppose. The aims listed sound a bit like a pressure group (unlike, say, the old subaltern studies school) but hey ho. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Legend of the Rainbow Warriors status

Hi Doug, You "warned" me about an edit war at this LRW page. I left some comments on the LRW talk page, and wanted to follow up with you. The LRW page has been set up on the premise that the LRW legend was associated with two evangelical authors and so the legend is itself fictional, citing one author of less than rigorous scholarship, M Niman. Apparently you expressed such a view on the LRW talk page. Another citation in the talk page cites another author with a thesis supporting Niman´s. However, neither establishes a key allegation that the legend itself is fictional. John Black´s 2014 article cites several tribes´ accounts with its diverse presence in reasonably similar messages in Native Am prophetic folklore. An additional search of mine just now turned up this page maintained by an American Indian Council with several references itself addressing the LRW, https://manataka.org/page235.html Sustaining the "fakelore" position as equated with the legend content appears untenable, and confuses different issues. Denying such a basic issue means there are personal issues involved causing a blurring of essential distinctions and maintaining a skewed logical fallacy as established and undifferentiated. It uses skimpy and flimsy sources to sustain it, despite the three basic sources I have casually found, including a reference to author V. Brown crediting the Hopi.

Since reasonable points against that biased LRW page have been made over years and you have shown both sympathy for its extremism and turned a blind eye to basic empiricism of the need to present balanced views, appropriately contextualized, and make a full range of necessary and sufficient distinctions, I gather you have an entrenched position yourself. Without an acknowledgment of what is by now after a years an ideological error and the go-ahead to fix the imbalance, I´ll take this higher.

Wikipedia has a good reputation, and this page´s poorly rendered content has already been publicized in some circles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpeacemst (talk • contribs)

Please sign all talk page comments with four tildes, like this ~~~~ , it will automatically sign and datestamp. It's mandatory. Also, anything sourced to Ancient Origins fails WP:RS. That doesn't show a bias against balanced views or hurt our reptuations. Quite the opposite. Take it "higher" all you want, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would be the appropriate "higher" venues. I doubt you will enjoy the experience. Heiro 15:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Greenpeacemst:, Manataka is not a Reliable source. It is as full of unsourced randomness as the other page you tried to add to the article. Despite the name and claims on the site, it is not a Native American site. It is full of plagiarized content and misinformation. The legitimate content there has been used without permission, even after the authors have written and asked that their work be removed; other things are laughably wrong. I realize you feel strongly about this, as do many who have a conflict of interest. But your attachment to this fakelore is keeping you from doing unbiased research, and is instead leading you to simply do a POV push. I realize you may have long believed that this fakelore is true, but it is not. You will need to get used to the idea that non-Natives have been spreading misinformation about this for a very long time, but that it is still misinformation. None of the sources you have suggested are even remotely appropriate for Wikipedia. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Racist Action: June 2020 rewrite

Hi - I posted on Talk for Anti-Racist Action about undoing the June 2020 rewrite, which is based on a report on a far-Right blog, includes many improperly cited claims, and names several individuals as being part of Torch Antifa chapters without evidence. Would be great to have your thoughts on this proposed change. Thanks. GNO23 (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

#ADOS

You locked this page with a single-sourced article that is bais and not relevant to the description of the group in an attempt to smear a grassroots Organization. This article you referenced and others like it are politically motivated from individuals and groups of individuals who have personal aspirations of influence and enrichment. Adosinsurgent (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adosinsurgent: wow, make false accusations much? Ignore our request that editors [[WP:AGF|assume good faith}}? It was User:Favonian who in fact didn't "lock" the article, merely protected it so that brand new editors with less than 10 edits and 4 days, or editors without accounts, can't edit it. I have no idea what your last sentence means and don't want to know. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug_Weller My apologies for assuming you locked the page and the last sentence was not referring to you personally....But the information is one-sided and bais it only should have information about who the group is and not politically motivated verbiage what can we do to get rid of this irrelevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adosinsurgent (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adosinsurgent: thanks. I think reading WP:NPOV might help you. Now I'm not saying that the article actually meets our requirements and I've suggested to one of the founders that they take any issues to the appropriate noticeboard, but our articles are meant to be based on what sources meeting WP:RS say about the subject. Those sources may have bias but the article needs to use them in an NPOV way. Articles on organisations or people are not there to represent the organisation or person, so we try to find sources that describe them. We don't for instance include mission statements, or rather shouldn't, there are articles that do because no one has removed them. ADOS itself is clearly political, which is fine, so I don't think you can complain about other political comments. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

IP edit warring over at Racialism

Just wanted to alert you. It seems to be quite persistent and aimed at significantly altering the lead to highlight fringe ideas about race. At some point I'll run into 3RR and wouldn't want this content to stand. Thanks for all you do. Generalrelative (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of a section, “Expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia”, at the Iruña-Veleia entry

I have put a comment at the Iruña-Veleia entry, on the recent removal of the section, “Expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia”, making some requests in order to comply with the norms of Wikipedia and to better serve its readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmthomson (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC) 83.32.86.93 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Dwarka to the List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

Dwarka is an ancient city in the North-western India. There have been speculations that it is older than 5000 years or so and that it was the kingdom of the legendary Indian ruler Krishna. But none of these claims have been substantiated.

However, excavations carried out at Dwarka and Bet-Dwarka (Port of Dwarka - which is an island barely 1km off shore) have yielded some significant discoveries.

Structure (rubble Wall) from 1500 BC (published in Marine Archaeology) - http://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/handle/2264/3085/J_Mar?sequence=2 Proof of active Indo-ROman trade in 400-500 AD (published in International journal of Nautical Archaeology) - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2005.00080.x

Thank you for time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spratap123 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ligohi scam

Hi, Doug, I hope I'm not being unduly paranoid, but I've come across three edits to fables in the last few days that have a similar pattern. In each case editors without previous activity, identifying names as a forename followed by a string of numbers, have added external links to audiobooks by the same firm. I've listened to these and they have very bad audibility while the reading is uninflected and doesn't sound like a native speaker. I'm wondering whether they have thought up this way to push their defective products on WP. Could you or your colleagues please investigate and take action if my suspicions are correct? Meanwhile, I've deleted the three edits, but that can be reversed. The fables in question are The Bear and the Travelers, The Ass in the Lion's Skin and The Fir and the Bramble. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: not paranoid at all, good catch. Checkuser blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Doug Weller for the prompt action. I've now deleted edits at The Farmer and his Sons by Qu3108; Rumpelstiltskin by Park 391; and Beauty and the Beast by Ron348 - all the same pattern. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Username

Hi Doug. I saw this post at RSN, but didn't want to derail the conversation there with my tangential comment. The username of the account looks to me like an unambiguous reference to the KKK. I could be wrong, and it could be innocent, but given that the brand new account is also POV-pushing... Grandpallama (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) @Grandpallama: I've templated him, we'll see how he responds. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

thu jul 165 11:39:25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Glen Gormley

You warned Glen Gormley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in January about marking substantive edits as minor. He is back to doing it again and prepared to war over it, see the J.W. Dunne article history. His response to my warning (below yours on his talk page) was to post a brush off on my talk page. Although I gained some consensus against his edit, I am letting you know about the incident as he has evidently not learned his lesson and you may wish to act on your earlier warning. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol pointing out this Steelpillow fellow’s inexpertise with the English language really got up his nose! That’s an English language metaphor for “irritated” or “annoyed” :-) Glen Gormley (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug, given the circumstances this kind of calculated insult is not acceptable to me. Are you going to do anything positive about this guy or am I going to have to take it to ANI? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ouch. I have a tendency to look at my email while walking my Doug around 6am, ire my talk page changes, but don't start editing for about4 hours, and usually start with my huge watchlist. With the result that I sometimes forget my talk page. That's a bad excuse I know. Anyway, warning given. Ironically, his message did get up my nose. It is just nasty. Certainly in no way amusing. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
6am? That's early! I don't generally walk my Doug until at least 7:15.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Damn autocorrect on my iPad, I didn't notice that. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I know! That's what made it extra fun . -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:59, 17 July 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.Orange Mike | Talk 04:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey Doug, this editor (AlaskaLava) misrepresented a source and he's adding some medieval (fabrications) myths of origin to the article (Yusuf ibn Tashfin). I reverted his bold edits for three times but he doesn't get what WP:BRD means. He started the discussion without giving any sources and he reverted again to the version that he wanted. He didn't gave any evidence for his changes, just a misrepresentation of a secondary source and an outdated 1912 source. And he claimed that Ibn Tashfin wrote a book (what?). Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheseusHeLl:It's a bit confusing to me, but it looks better now that another editor has changed it so it isn't all in Wikipedia's voice. What do you think? Doug Weller talk 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I received a notice that my recent edits to remove author judgements from Culture of Critique were undone. Can you explain what rule I've violated? Thanks. - User:CorrectingBias —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@CorrectingBias: You really can't tell what the problem is in acting like an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist work "may provide insight into Jewish group behavior and culture"...? You really don't see the problem with relegating the fact that the work is antisemitic to being mere allegations by an nondescript minority...? Really? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Ron Unz page

Hi, Doug,

Posting here in hopes of avoiding others chiming in to start a flame war. It is obvious to me that the Ron Unz article was authored by people who care more about smearing Unz as an anti-semite than attempting a candid biography. I do not know whether you did not read the article before responding to my criticism or did not understand my criticism. I was not volunteering to do your research for you; I found spending time working on Wikipedia articles to be largely a waste of time because of the speed with which editors who have no knowledge of the subject matter quickly whittle and refactor my work away.

My criticism of the article is that there is far more to Ron Unz than his alleged anti-semitism. Take this second sentence in the article: "He runs The Unz Review, a website that promotes anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material." Is that all that his web site publishes? According to that sentence it is, but the statement is patently false to one who has read a multitude of authors on that site. That bias continues throughout the article; it is an article about Ron Unz's anti-semitism, not an article about the man or his works. As such, the article reflects very poorly on Wikipedia's credibility. Marbux (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No, this does belong on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Haplogroup R1b

Hello! You removed two names from a list that I created in Haplogroup R1b and I would like some clarification. The sentence that precedes the list of names is: "The following are historic people or dynasties that may belong to the R1b haplogroup, as suggested by the testing [of] descendants or other relatives."

  1. In the Niall reference, you stated: "Niall does not have verifiable remains that can be tested". But the section does not purport to list people who we can tell are R1b due to Ancient DNA testing, just testing done to descendants/relatives. If you feel it would be better for readers to be made aware that this list is not about Ancient DNA, I think it would be better to add that to the article itself.
  2. The Chernobyl paper I cited is listed in Google Scholar [33]. It is listed as being published in the "Avotaynu Online". Following its website, the Project [34] has the purported endorsement of a few universities and hosts the paper in its own website [35]. Here you argued "not a reliable source, not peer reviewed and authors are not geneticists", but is that the necessary evidence for the opening sentence? Paull has a PhD in Public Health, Briskman has a PhD in Pharmacy, and they outsourced the genetic analyses by using a commercial Y-DNA testing service (Family Tree DNA). I do think that's enough for a "suggests".

Anyway, thanks for revising my material!, CriMen1 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@CriMen1: with Niall, his article also says "If Niall was a real life figure, he may have belonged to this male lineage, but this is not certain." See also some of the material further down, and this source which also discusses Genghis Khan.https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/dubious-commercial-claims] I think eve for "may belong" we need stronger sources. You can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will ask the noticeboard because this has significant implications for the List of haplogroups of historic people and it would be good to decide on a criterion. CriMen1 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Check mail box

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.

Aaqibacs1 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for restoring the deleted text on The Federalist to fix my mistake.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Toledot of the Book of Genesis

Hello. I saw you reverted my edit, and you are right indeed: I forgot to add a source. In order to avoid an "edit battle", I write you here.
Do you think that this source is fine? Otherwise, my original source is an old Bible with commentaries, older than the ISBN coding, and I doubt it would do.
Otherwise, what if I simply rephrase in a more neutral way (e.g. "This is the list of the toledot in the Genesis"), then add a series of links to the specific verses in a Bible website? I saw that many other wikipages about Bible books have some sort of "list of contents" (e.g. Book of Proverbs, Gospel of Matthew). --Abacos (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I found a source that I think is more reliable: an article by S. Schwartz, published in "Journal of Hebrew Scriptures" --Abacos (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheddar Man

Hello, I have created a new section on the talk page and would be happy to iron out any creases with the Cheddar Man article. Vaurnheart (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

I need your advice. A couple years ago, I started following Margaret Sanger's page. I have a very dim view of her, but I know that this is my POV so I have been reluctant to push it or really get involved in the discussions. Over the past year or so, other editors have tried to get the article to speak more truthfully about her Eugenics background and there are a couple editors - The Banner and MFNikster - who have blocked every insertion that they considered cast Sanger in a negative light - whether Eugenics or not as essentially the rantings of Right Wing / Christian lunatics. I've always sat back and shrugged as the poor editor was tore apart - knowing he was never going to get anywhere with those two. I've even sent a couple of them messages telling them to just give up - it was hopeless. Now with the current cancel culture, even people within Planned Parenthood are waking up about Sanger's past (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/5/planned-parenthood-accused-racism-employees-suppor/). Even with this, these two editors are continuing to alibi for her - even saying in a recent post that they are casting her views using a time context of "everyone thought this way back then". I don't know about you, but when we are pulling down statues of past leaders who even spoke neutrally about slavery, this type of whitewashing is pretty laughable.

So my question is this something that neutral editors need to come in a clean up the page? Is this even a thing? I mean it might sound like I am have a mission against Sanger, but I've just had it with these two authors protective tactics on the page and even when slapped in the face with positive evidence of Sanger's views they are willfully ignoring it. Am I crazy? Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Ckruschke: first, please don't use the Washington Times as a source, ever. Not needed anyway, see [36] and [37]. With those sources I don't see how this can be kept out of the article. If they continue, either an RfC or NPOVN would be the answer. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Understood! Thanks for the advice! Ckruschke (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

The external website I linked to has tons of bibliographic info and images that are not on Wikipedia. How do we help users access such info if we cannot point them to a website that is more in depth than Wikipedia? Do we place more info on Wikipedia? I have often found better and more comprehensive info on websites other than Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia want to replace such websites? Thanks in advance for your answers and thoughts. Pawabu talk 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pawabu: you can ask at WP:ELN to see if others agree with you. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Interest in your editing work

Hi Doug Weller,

Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.

Thanks for considering!

LailaAtTrustLab (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Akkadian mythology and European demonology

Remember Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bine (mythology)? The article was deleted as hoax since it couldn't possibly have been an Akkadian demon. I noticed that in 2003, User:The Warlock created a similar article, claiming that Bine was an Akkadian demon. They have created a total of 169 articles, most of them about European demons mentioned in some old demonology book that do appear to actually exist. It's possible that Bine might have been real, or maybe many of the user's other articles are also hoaxes that haven't been deleted yet. Any recommendations on what should I do next? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@TryKid: sorry, forgot this, I'll look into this tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Forgot, what book? Doug Weller talk 19:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
See also User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 46#Bine (mythology) hoax article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for missing the ping. The main source seems to be The Lesser Key of Solomon and sometimes Dictionnaire Infernal and Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. I haven't checked every other article but they seem to be mainly sourced to various grimoires. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 09:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_58&oldid=1142974099"