Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65

My talk page

I am glad to see that you are watching my talk page. Who notified you of my discussion there with User:GordonGlottal?Nerguy (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nerguy: I’m not really watching your talk page, I got there after looking at GordonGlottal’s edit to an article on my watchlist. It was ok, I’m not sure why I looked at his edits to your talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thanks for the explanation. Nerguy (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Cheers for being a fair editor man, specific pages really need to be monitored! Thank you for the welcome! Andymoshi (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I just want to pile on here--I am biased, as I think our worldviews mostly align, but I think you do great service here. I try to follow in your footsteps, but I have only about half the patience and a small percentage of the skill. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of edits in my talk page

Doug, I have asked that you kindly refrain from inserting messages not related to WP material in my talk page. Your insistence in continuing to convince or proselytize me to your point of view after I have requested you to stop is disrespectful. If you wanted to have an extended discussion with me on topics which are not centric to WP articles, you could have requested that I create a section on your talk page for that purpose. How would you like to proceed? BRealAlways (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@BRealAlways: Huh? I said ok, meaning I was stopping, but my comment about use of user talk pages was legitimate and nothing to do with the discussion. You seem confused. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Ironic... Oh well. —PaleoNeonate – 21:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Process for requesting speedy deletion

Hi Doug, and thanks for touching base with me. I have been trying to discern the proper procedure for requesting speedy deletion of the Wiki on America's Frontline Doctors because it violates G10 (non-neutral content). I put that request in the "talk" section of the article. I then received your message about "edits". I am not requesting an edit, rather a deletion. Would you kindly explain the proper procedure for me? Your time is much appreciated. Dr.LMW (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Dr.LMW

Answered at their talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Standards for speedy deletion

Hi Doug: Thanks again for your reply. I agree with other users that you are very diligent in responding - that is appreciated. Like many users, I am new at this, so forgiven my ignorance! I understand that the criteria for speedy deletion includes that an article is not content neutral. (G10). I agree with your. reply that America's Frontline Doctors is newsworthy. But the article about the organization is completely slanted from a left-wing perspective and slanders the reputation of an organization that promotes overall wellness and natural immunity. It is not a political organization. It appears to me, as a newbie, that the criteria is met. If not, how do I gain permission to edit out those words that are not content neutral? Or would you suggest that I begin another Wiki on the true goals of the organization? Again, I appreciate your help and hope you are not frustrated with me! Dr.LMW (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Dr.LMW

You can’t use Wikipedia as a source or religious texts to make an argument[edit] See WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your correction and quick response, I really appreciate the work you are doing. 

This was the first time I edited in Wikipedia, and was not my intention to make a religious statement or create an argument. I was documenting myself about the destruction of Jerusalem, I saw the article that points 2 different dates that are mostly accepted, and looking at others sources I saw that there is another date that is considered by many historians and I thought it will add to the article just to make known that there is another date to consider. Not trying it to impose it, but just acknowledging it, so any other person that is researching the fact knows that another option has also been considered.

I am very thankful to the reliability of Wikipedia and all the efforts that it takes to keep it like that, Is there any corrections I could make to the article that would make it suitable, or is just the content itself that it’s not appropriate?

Thanks for taking the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.239.28.210 (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

Hi Mr. Weller, may I ask you why you removed edits made by me on political influence section. Since it is a factual based data and a current event so it should be published there. Vijayc861 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vijayc861: I've explained on your talk page. You didn't source it and you added your own commentary. Also this should have been a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't want to chitchat sir. It is a fact and researched on that matter. Yes I elaborated the matter but it was only 10% of that. Vijayc861 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

May I add it to the contravercies section sir. With source. Vijayc861 (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vijayc861: if the source says it's a controversy possibly. As I said, don't add anything not in the source. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Pre-Categories for Discussion thoughts...

Hi Doug - Coming by for some guidance. I've been working on categorization under Category:Far-right politics in the United States as it's a bit of a mess. In the current tree, Category:White supremacy in the United States is under Category:White nationalism in the United States as a subcat. Logical. But dealing with the articles, there seems to be a lot that are categorized to both. The main article for the nationalism category is White nationalism, which of course indicates the crossover relationship. So here's my question - from a pure categorization point of view, it doesn't make sense to have separate categories if people just meta tag them indiscriminately into both categories - then there is no category tree. But going up the tree Category:White nationalism and Category:White supremacy seem to have the same issue. Some people see a distinct difference, others say they're equivalent. But what's the point in having separate categories when everything is just going to be dumped into both anyway? I don't see a way forward to take it to CfD. Do you have any thoughts? Should I just let it go? ButlerBlog (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Sadly I have very little understanding of how categories work, it's a great mystery to me. And of course many people and organisations who identify as white nationalists are white supremacists (even if they deny it). I don't think you'll get very far taking it to CfD, I'd guess there would be no consensus because of the issue. Wish I could help more. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
You're probably right, the CfD wouldn't likely get anywhere as I'm sure there are others that see it the same way - a logic mess, but no clear way forward. It's probably a can of worms anyway, so probably best for me to not spend too much time on it at this point. I appreciate your input! ButlerBlog (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— ARoseWolf 15:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Personal Information Posted on a page.

I was patrolling some recent edits and stumbled upon seeing that a user posted a phone number and said me "číslo zaslat kód děkuji" which translates roughly to "me number send code thank you" I believe this violates a policy of some sort but i'm not sure because I'm relatively new. Can you help me out. -Toast (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No Problem, already e-mailed Oversight and they suppressed the information. -Toast (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

What's your objection to discussing Nazi symbol of Hakenkreuz?

Saw a comment in my talk page. Do you have any objection to discussion on Nazisymbology of Hakenkreuz? Airpowerobserver (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Did figure out your objection is to the statment that I made which is

"The English equivalent is Hooked Cross and don't try to divert it onto people of Asia to escape scrutiny. That's inhumane.". Just because u don't agree with it, you can't complain that i'm not civil. Once again you cannot expect Asian's to carry the burden of Europeans's on their back. Doing it and on being pointed out calling it uncivil is inhumane and arrogance.Airpowerobserver (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Airpowerobserver: it clearly shows a lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Really? Criticism should be welcomed rather than shoo them away with alibi of lack of good faith.Airpowerobserver (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Airpowerobserver: you are digging yourself in still deeper by this personal attack. You can criticise without insults or showing a lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
What's the personal attack here? Are you a White European? Is that the reason u objected in the first place taking my comments as a personal attack? Is there any restriction in pointing out European dirtiness in Wikipedia or Wikipedia taken over by the Whites or both is true? Airpowerobserver (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
No surpise, this editor has been blocked. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the introductory bit

I usually see citations even in the introductory bit, but the introduction to the page: [Slavery in ancient Rome]==, does not. Do introductions need citations? Because I honestly don't know or if my edit was just unclear. Sam Buzhduga (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I would note Mr Weller: 1. I have a devotion to Wikipedia's success in it's project to bring information to people (including donations). 2. I have dutifully gone through what may be a "normal process of involvement" including first edits that were rejected as not meeting standards. 3. I have accomplished a few (10 or so) edits since. It is important work imho. I state this dull history because as much as I see improvements could be written and would like to contribute, it seems impossible, because of the process. I won't ask why the process is so labyrinthine. Instead I'll ask for encouragement; Please consider calculating how much time is projected to be necessary for various Wikipedia edits, and publishing an essay to that effect. I have started edits and given up because I cannot devote what I worry will be hours to changing the meaning of an article. Alternately I suggest that rather than simply rejecting edits, there be staff that takes an edit that has merit, and rewrites it to solve deficiencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthhurts34 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is no staff. Bishonen | tålk 23:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC).

worried about new user

Hi, I also contacted Mjroots from the recently-active-admins list (ANI-drama-avoidance!), but see that their talk page says they're possibly not available, so I hope it's okay to contact you as a back-up? I don't know quite how to address this, but just saw a new user's user-page: User:RichardCra. I don't want to engage him on his viewpoints and suggest that this isn't an appropriate user-page or a good way to start an editing career here, and I'm not sure if it's fair to drag the account straight off to some admin noticeboard somewhere (I don't even know which), but I don't see a good outcome for an editor who starts by declaring that Black Lives Matter is a racist hate group. I wonder whether your more experienced/admin knowledge of WP can handle this better than me? Elemimele (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele:Mjroots has deleted the userpage and blocked the editor as WP:NOTHERE which I think was correct - no good was going to come from an editor making such statements as their purpose. Thanks for letting me know about this. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Need some advice

Hi Doug - asking some advice on appropriately handling a potential NOTHERE or CIR user. I've been sitting on this for several days as to whether this should go to AN/I or not, and having decided that it's necessary, I'm concerned about posting it as one part of the issue was the posting of personal information in a BLP. I had reported that specific edit alone to oversight already and it was suppressed right away. Is it OK to include that in the report since it goes along with the other edits and the user response, and the diff is simply blanked from suppression? TIA for your guidance. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: so long there’s no clue about what the personal info was and only us Oversighters can see it, I don’t see why not. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - that definitely helps. I just wanted to be sure. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Gender identity

Hi. You left a box on my own talk page to let me know of specific rules applying to contributions to pages like Gender Identity. I thought I'd just pass comment. I have no axe to grind around gender except like to ensure Wikipedia is as accurate as possible. I noticed a couple of obvious errors, including internal contradictions. My edits were immediately reverted and you posted a warning box telling me I'd posted or communicated with someone on a contentious issue and that special rules apply. I have no quibble whatever with Wikipedia rules, but I would mention that the errors are still present in the article and the rules seem to make it even harder to change them. The article has the appearance of a war which has been waged and won. My instinct is that this is not the intention of the rule but it does seem to be one of the outcomes. Anyway, I'll stay away from the issue as I imagine will anyone else who wants to avoid a nutty kind of warfare. I just say this for your own information and action. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page about this standard alert. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

I'm pointing out that I am not "an inexperienced or brand new editor" (referring to the Zabbix AfD.) I feel that I am making a valid point stating something meets the site's notability guidelines for software (WP:NSOFTWARE) because it has written reference manuals by independent authors and publishing companies. If there's a better way I could phrase this, I'd be happy to edit the statement to make it sound more "wikipedian" or at least be a better argument for the Keep side. Looking forward to your feedback. riffic (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack

Time for action diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

DNA history of Egypt Article

Hi Doug Weller,

Could you raise the article status on the DNA History of Egypt to a semi-protected status ?. This will ensure random users cannot omit genetic studies or input original research.WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Doug. Regarding your AN3 complaint about an IP editing this article. I have now  Confirmed that Pullbasket is the same editor as User:Devastatedpillar and blocked Pullbasket for evasion. However 196.135.110.209 (talk · contribs) is unlikely to be Pullbasket since the two users are editing from different continents. I agree with the semiprotection of this article that was recently imposed by another admin. The DNA history of Egypt page has been edited at various times by both Devastatedpillar and Pullbasket. I see that you also filed a NORN report at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Edit war at DNA history of Egypt over possible OR but I didn't follow up on that. Most likely the 3RR report should now be closed without further action due to the semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: blow me down, I could have sworn the IP was a sock, reinstating the same edit. Perhaps a meatpuppet. Or maybe, as I blocked Devastatedpillar, my involvement wasn't a coincidence. In any case thanks very much for your attention. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
But see this[1] where Pullbasket suddenly returns to defend their original research. Odd. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Please take a look at Bride of Christ. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wishing you well

Hi, hope you don't mind me posting like this but I saw your comment on FTN and just wanted to wish you well with your trying times ahead and my sincerest hope your cancer can be treated successfully. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Me too. Wishing you the best of luck that you beat cancer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hoping for the best for you. - Donald Albury 01:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
And me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all. This community is important to me and knowing how many good people have my back is marvelous and gives me strength. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Good thoughts and wishes winging their way from snowy Sweden. Hoping for good news. --bonadea contributions talk 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm also dropping a best wishes here! Springee (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As with the others above, am sending my good wishes, and oodles of support. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Doug, I was doing some follow-up at FTN and just read your comment there which led me here. My sincerest well-wishes with lots of positive thoughts directed your way. I've had a few long time friends endure a similar journey, and they have all bounced back. You will, too! Atsme 💬 📧 15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Healing, strength and comfort to you, Doug. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear this, Doug. As you'll know, if there's talk of surgery that's good. If there's anything you'd like me to look at at any point, let me know. All best wishes. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best, Doug. I haven't been around WP much recently, but I do remember all your help and encouragement. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Your commitment to the project, your fairness and your civility are really inspiring. Wishing you well. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nil Einne, Hemiauchenia, Donald Albury, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Bonadea, Roxy the dog, Atsme, CorbieVreccan, Johnbod, and Itsmejudith: thanks all. The various tests - colonoscopy, biopsy, and a surprising number of MRI scans of my liver are all complete, so I expect a treatment plan fairly shortly. It's great to be working with people like you. And I have every intention of being around here for a few years more (remember I'm no spring chicken!) Doug Weller talk 16:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I know about being a sprung chicken (I have it in my mind that I am just a few months younger than you). - Donald Albury 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Meh...just babies...the lot of ya! My Mom is 97, and I'm probably the oldest female editor on WP. Use the power of intention to your advantage, Doug, and make it your intention to live past 100. Science is just beginning to understand how that works. Atsme 💬 📧 18:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The absolute best of wishes Doug, and please do let us know if there's anything we can do—you've got this! 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 19:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Very sincere best wishes Doug, nableezy - 19:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Rev delete request

Hello. Link to diff is here. Thanks for your time whatever your decision. --DB1729 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Note that I'd blocked the editor earlier. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hi Doug Weller, I was pinged here and would like to offer my 2 cents on the matter. However, as I looked up a few things, I saw that this goes far beyond this case, there is a pattern involving the editor. Your name also came up as I rummaged through the cavernous entrails of the archives, so I am gambling on you remembering something about the editor, so as to not unnecessarily take up too much of your time doing research. Basically, I would like to present the broader picture of the editor's behaviour, but I am not sure whether to respond at the discussion page where I have been pinged or open a case for administrative review (where?). Your thoughts, please. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I'm pretty certain that you need to raise a WP:RFC there with a clear question posed objectively. I can't recall the editor but I see I've interacted with him several times. Sorry, I have no advice to give about his behaviour. But an RfC is required, especially as these are recent and of course political descriptions. In 10 years we'll know if he was hero, but this is a high-profile article and needs a lot more input to decide how to describe him. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Dhul Qarnayn

Hello, i had some suggestion regarding the Dhu al-Qarnayn.

since its merging with the currently nonexistent Cyrus the Great in the Quran page, i've saw the increasing intensity of unregistered users trying to edit & introducing some half-baked ideas without considering their edits are only disrupting the current article structure. so i suggest how if we semi-lock the edit for while for just registered user only? i think it will save us times & energy too from monitoring the page

regards from me.Ahendra (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Allsup edits.

No disruptive editing was done. Every single source was indeed a leftwing source and some were used twice. Buzzfeed, Washington Post etc are all leftwing sources, like how sites like Breitbart and the daily wire are indeed right-wing sources and should be used with caution when addressing left-wing figures like President Joe Biden or Senator Ocasio Cortez, as a primary source should not be one that presents a clear and obvious bias. Consider that that accusation is in the intro to Allsup, and think what if similar accusations were made against President Biden while sourced by a source with a heavy right wing bias being presented at the forefront of his wiki article. Also, you also removed the segment on Allsup denying he is a white supremacist while he not only has denied the accusations multiple times, but even in the source provided has denied the accusation. He never said he "prefers" the term American nationalist over "White Supremacist" but has outright denied being a white supremacist altogether. Please stop removing factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuySlate (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) If you think that Fox Business is left-wing, or that Breitbart is even remotely comparable to any of the other mentioned sources, then you're probably going to have a bad time editing Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I missed the Fox Business part, but again Buzzfeed is sourced twice. Forget Breitbart, I don't read Breitbart, so I am unaware of controversies regarding it, but you conveniently forget I also mentioned the Daily Wire, as I was simply listing sources with a right-wing bias to compare to such leftwing sites, instead choosing to harp on Brietbart to change the subject and ignore my overall point. Buzzfeed of course regularly spreads biased fake news as does Brietbart hence why I made the comparison. Regardless, you ignored my entire comparison regarding Biden, instead offering an ad hominem saying my opinion on him was "based on unreliable sources" when I had not even made an opinion regarding him or his presidency at any point. Regardless, the Biden reference was something called a "comparison". This is to make it easier to explain my point by comparing a possible similar action. If I used the Daily Wire to put info on Joe Biden's page to claim him as a "war monger", "liar" or a "racist", even if the article used accurate quotes and information, should that be in the opening paragraph on his page, and shouldn't the source be more objective? Pulitzer prizes are a prime example of the "appeal to authority" fallacy and don't help your argument whatsoever, especially when very recently, the post used hacked data to Doxx donors to the Canadian Trucker protest. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/02/15/american-donors-freedom-convoy-zipcodes/ You also failed to address why you removed the truthful statement of Allsup denying white supremacist allegations, and instead keep a false quote where he "prefers" American nationalist over the term over white supremacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuySlate (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The consensus about Buzzfeed News--which is the source of the cited articles, and is separate from regular Buzzfeed--is that it's "generally reliable". The "strong consensus" for The Daily Wire is that it is "generally unreliable". So, no, they're not the same; Buzzfeed News is usable as a source, and The Daily Wire isn't. You're choosing 1 source to (misguidedly) complain about, but ignoring the sources from Fox and WaPo that don't agree with you; that does not a convincing argument make. As for the denials, Mandy Rice-Davies applies, I'd think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"The consensus about Buzzfeed News--which is the source of the cited articles, and is separate from regular Buzzfeed--is that it's "generally reliable". The "strong consensus" for The Daily Wire is that it is "generally unreliable"." Says who? You? That's a laugh.... Buzzfeed of course regularly posts outright fake news stories, including major misinformation about Trump and Cohen, an editor-in-chief who claimed Donald Trump as a 'mendacious racist' was news, and spreads such journalism as "37 Things White People Need To Stop Ruining In 2018" and outright lying about the Nick Sandman case. Mediabiasfactcheck deemed Buzzfeed as having "far left bias", Wikipedia itself even cites several studies, one by Pew Research that considers BuzzFeed generally unreliable. Instead of outright lying, just admit you have confirmation bias and trust sites that lean to your side more. I chose Buzzfeed, and Washington Post which amounts to two, not one, though I even said "Etc" which implies more... The Verge, is owned by Vox which even Wikipedia considers leftwing. Now you continue to ignore the Washington Post as being leftwing, of course using the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, but besides the doxxing that I linked to you previously, here's a headline where they claim that Then Candidate Donald Trump was a worse figure than Adolf Hitler. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/13/dont-compare-donald-trump-to-adolf-hitler-it-belittles-hitler/ Now like Trump or not of which I don't, making the comparison between a dictator who committed genocide against millions and started inhumane conquests and preached objectively vile ideas, and a rich old smartmouth who said he didn't like immigration and Islam is far from objective journalism and borderlines propaganda. For the third time, you blatantly ignored the premise of my bringing up the comparison with Biden and right-wing sources, solely because you can't actually explain why it is wrong, and for the third time you failed to address why you removed the truthful statement of Allsup denying white supremacist allegations, and instead keep a false quote where he "prefers" American nationalist over the term over white supremacist. Keep harping on irrelevant details and spreading misinformation though.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuySlate (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I've only ever talked to you in the two comments in this thread, so I don't know how my previous message could possibly be the "third time" for anything between us. I'm not ignoring your Biden example, I'm pointing out that it is a fundamentally flawed comparison, because you're comparing citing BLP material sourced to generally reliable sources (as in Allsup) and doing the same with generally unreliable sources (your example). Just because you believe the Washington Post and The Daily Wire are on similar levels of reliability doesn't make it true. If you had actually looked at the links I provided, you would see that Buzzfeed News (which, again, is a separate group from Buzzfeed proper, with different levels of reliability) was decided to be generally reliable based on a consensus of many editors who participated in a discussion about the subject; it's not just me. Ditto for the unreliability of The Daily Wire, and the outright blacklisting of Breitbart. But the fact that you haven't, the fact that you are, in turn, ignoring the citation to Fox of all places, and the fact that you're not paying attention enough to even realize that we have only interacted these two times ever, tells me you're not actually planning on listening to anything I say, so I'm probably not going to bother reading any future comments from you on this thread. Hopefully Doug Weller or someone else can field any actually legitimate concerns you have. Good luck to you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, here is your direct quote in your reply on my page, "As for Biden, again, that's your opinion not backed by reliable sources." So yes, you DID accuse me of having such opinions of Biden, despite me never speaking any opinions on Biden whatsoever. You ignored that many esteemed sources including Pew Research, Mediabias, and Wikipedia itself among many others claim BuzzFeed as unreliable, instead of showing that in your view, your strong feelings equate to a "strong consensus". You continue with Appeal to Authority fallacies and ad hominems regarding the WP, and changing the subject even after I sent links showing WP's recent doxxing, and past examples of partisan mudslinging in articles (read the 2016 WP article I sent where they claim Trump is WORSE than Hitler). AS you have blatantly ignored every point I have made and instead engage in tangents on irrelevant details ad nausium, something tells me you're not actually planning on listening to anything I say, so I'm not going to bother reading any future comments from you on this thread or replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuySlate (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You can make your own decision about whether or not to engage in a conversation - this is a volunteer project after all. However, just so you know: WP:RSP summarises the outcome of multiple discussions about these sources, and confirms that the consensus view amongst editors on this project is that Buzz Feed News is reliable, and that the Daily Wire is unreliable. This project is goverened by the consensus of the editors who contribute towards it, so you can complain about appeals to authority all you like, but we will still go with the consensus view. You can either (a) accept that consensus, (b) make the case to overturn it at an appropriate location (WP:RSN), or (c) go away and do something else. I suppose you could also go for (d), continue adding sources that have been deemed unreliable, but that will result in your account being blocked from editing. Girth Summit (blether) 19:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I have never edited your talk page in any way. The fact that you haven't been reading my comments enough to even realize that I'm not Doug Weller tells me everything I need to know about the utility of furhter discussion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Nationalist archaeology

I cannot find your sandbox but Avikunthak, Ashish (2021). Bureaucratic Archaeology: State, Science, and Past in Postcolonial India. South Asia in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-51239-5. is a decent source. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: sorry, it's now at Nationalism and archaeology. Thanks, that looks good. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:07, 4 March 2022 (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.

JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Gadsden Flag page

Hey, there! Concerning "negative liberty" I think it's repeatedly implied by the sources due to the flag's typical protest as "freedom from" governmental coercion; (the edit's link explains "negative liberty") as is the typical view of liberty by more "right-wing ideologies" (especially the mentioned libertarians). Your concerns are certainly valid, but perhaps there is more of an issue of the article's body lacking depth in the topic of it's use. For example: Use as a far-right symbol only contains "The Gadsden Flag has also been used as a symbol by far-right groups and individuals." Perhaps the user's edit simply needs more explaination in the body; beceause I believe the edit's statement is generally true and as you said, I'm sure there are sources out there to reinforce. I guess our dilemma is whether to reprimand a very likely to be true statement, or have users edit the body to reinforce the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RECIDIVIS7 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

We can never imply, WP:NOR and WP:NOR. The best thing is to remove it from the lead and discuss it on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me since I'm unfamiliar with the "Talk" feature but I will remove the edit concerned. My idea is to flesh out the body a bit, and hopefully, that will be enough to reinstitute it within the lead. RECIDIVIS7 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@RECIDIVIS7: When you are on an article page you should see a “talk” tab at the top of the page. Talk:Gadsden flag Doug Weller talk 19:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The Satanic Temple POV tag

You had added a POV tag to The Satanic Temple in Sept 2019. Your talk as since been archived: Talk:The Satanic Temple/Archive 3#NPOV by ClueBot III last month. Should the tag be removed or the section moved back to the primary talk page? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: well, the issues still seem valid, so I guess the section needs to be back on the talk page. Any chance you could do it? Doug Weller talk 20:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Gadsden Flag page

Hey, there! Concerning "negative liberty" I think it's repeatedly implied by the sources due to the flag's typical protest as "freedom from" governmental coercion; (the edit's link explains "negative liberty") as is the typical view of liberty by more "right-wing ideologies" (especially the mentioned libertarians). Your concerns are certainly valid, but perhaps there is more of an issue of the article's body lacking depth in the topic of it's use. For example: Use as a far-right symbol only contains "The Gadsden Flag has also been used as a symbol by far-right groups and individuals." Perhaps the user's edit simply needs more explaination in the body; beceause I believe the edit's statement is generally true and as you said, I'm sure there are sources out there to reinforce. I guess our dilemma is whether to reprimand a very likely to be true statement, or have users edit the body to reinforce the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RECIDIVIS7 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

We can never imply, WP:NOR and WP:NOR. The best thing is to remove it from the lead and discuss it on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me since I'm unfamiliar with the "Talk" feature but I will remove the edit concerned. My idea is to flesh out the body a bit, and hopefully, that will be enough to reinstitute it within the lead. RECIDIVIS7 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@RECIDIVIS7: When you are on an article page you should see a “talk” tab at the top of the page. Talk:Gadsden flag Doug Weller talk 19:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The Satanic Temple POV tag

You had added a POV tag to The Satanic Temple in Sept 2019. Your talk as since been archived: Talk:The Satanic Temple/Archive 3#NPOV by ClueBot III last month. Should the tag be removed or the section moved back to the primary talk page? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: well, the issues still seem valid, so I guess the section needs to be back on the talk page. Any chance you could do it? Doug Weller talk 20:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Rongorongo

Hi Doug,

The article passed FA with that info included. No OR problems then. What we have here is an insistence of TRUTH, as with other fields rife with pseudoscholarship. One linguist here on WP likened the author at issue (Dietrich) to reading von Däniken. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It passed FA in 2009. I don't think it would now. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Before we include material in Wikipedia of this nature, we need to have acknowledgement of outside sources that the material is worthy of prominent inclusion. WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROFRINGE are the relevant principles. I do not see a clear argument that the websites that are linked were noticed by any reliable sources. If they were, include those rather than the websites themselves. jps (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ජපස: thanks. Have you seen WP:FTN#Decipherment of rongorongo, a 2009 FA article? Doug Weller talk 13:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Yep! Commented there as well. jps (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with POV-motivated edits in Israel/Palestine articles

Hi Doug! Hope everything's great. I am writing to you because in recent days, I have repeatedly encountered the issue of POV-motivated edits in articles related to archeological or historical sites in Israel/Palestine. Some editors deliberately remove sourced, academic material so the articles can suit a biased, alternative history, ignoring aspects of ancient Israelite or Jewish connections on purpose. Some good examples of this can be found at the Al-Khader and Sebastia, Nablus articles. I would be more than happy if you could take a look and advise. Thanks. Tombah (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Al-Khader#POV, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Samaritan's Purse

Hi Doug, this is Stephen (i.e, BlueMunky). I was experimenting with Wikipedia for the first time and made the edit to Samaritan’s Purse page due to lacking particular references to the claims being made. Thanks for updating the page with the missing reference. I believe we can all do better as a civilization if we provide full truthful transparency without underlying prejudices. We all have our opinions and criticisms of certain social and economic structures but those beliefs don’t equate to absolute truth. As an immigrant I appreciate this country and it’s values. I enjoy having meaningful dialog with those that see things differently. I’ve learned a lot through listening and exercising a little understanding. BlueMunky (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Aryan

Can you please check out the aryan page recent edits please. One user is erasing the evidence of Aryan migrations into India and the mentioning of the original Arya (steppes pastoralists) who entered India being genetically distinct. This fact is unsettling for Hindu extreme nationalists who want to claim primordial continuity. Thank you. Metta79 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Metta79: I took a look at the dispute; it seems to me both of you need to have a talk page discussion about this. It's true that genetic evidence uniformly supports the idea of steppe-pastoralist migration into South Asia, and that deserves to be covered; but your text did have issues, and you really should not be using a bioRxiv preprint as a source, and ideally not relying on a popular science book either. I can help moderate that discussion, if you open one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a bit busy at the moment to get into a long discussion/argument with an author who had been consistently deleting similar content from other related pages. When I get time, I may start a discussion. Metta79 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Castles

Hello Doug, I hope you are doing absolutely fine. As advised by you, I have restricted myself from caste articles and currently, I am contributing to other Wikipedia articles. In the meantime, I am so watching the talk page discussions and edits also of those caste articles. Right now Ekdalin has engaged in an edit war with other editors also. he is still pushing his POVs in the Bengali Kayastha article, please check the article history and talk page. see how many times he was reverted by multiple editors but still he is doing the same edits again and again with the same source. My question is if I can get a topic ban sanction for that then why it is not applicable for Ekdalian? where he only makes his edit in caste articles only. he always tries to push his POV for a certain caste. Please can you take a look at that? I thought I should make you aware of that. Bishonen told me the admin's talk page is an exception for those sanctions, but If I broke any rule regarding my sanction then please pardon me, Thanks.Nobita456 (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Did I tell you "the admin's talk page" was an exception? No, I told you the talkpage of the admin who topic banned you is an exception, because you're allowed to appeal your topic ban there. That would be Dennis Brown's talkpage (but that also is now IMO out of bounds for you; the time to appeal your ban there is past). Certainly just any admin's talkpage is no exception. It makes no difference that Doug Weller blocked you recently. You are encroaching, and it looks like you're trying to get round your tban by hook or by crook, to be able to complain about edits to articles that are out of bounds to you. The post above is a tban violation. With some difficulty I'm going to assume it was a good faith mistake on your part, but if anything like it happens again, I will block you again, or somebody else will. Dennis and Doug, no prejudice to you blocking Nobita for this, if you think so. Bishonen | tålk 12:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC).
Perhaps I should have pinged Nobita456 above. Doing so now. Bishonen | tålk 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC).
Ok thanks Bishonen, I am withdrawing it. Please pardon me and assume it as a good faith mistake from my side, Thanks. I will continue edit other articles. Nobita456 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
What Bish said. Nobita456, do yourself a favor, and not only should you 100% avoid discussing or editing the topic area, you should 100% not even be looking at it. It's too tempting. Stay away. Treat it like a poisonous snake. If you don't, it will bite you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. would take care of that, thanks to Bish also. Nobita456 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Some peaches for you!

Skarmory has given you a bowl of peaches! This delicious fruit promotes WikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message! I heard about your illness – I don't think I've ever talked with you, but here's some fruit to help you recover! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


Ken Ham article edit mobbing of new user.

Hello. First edit I ever made here was reverted by 2 or 3 others with no attempt to follow up with a talk with me. This included other admins. Not a great welcome. You were the only one that reached out to me. The nature of my edit was to rephrase two sentences in the article so that it clearly stated objections to Ham's positions as coming from his detractors, not the article itself. I described detractors as having a "Naturalistic" interpretation of the data. I thought the term was fair and accurate in that all data requires interpretation to be useful and a Naturalistic interpretation is at odds with Ham's and that is the crux of the controversy. No sources were removed or added and I clearly stated my reasoning in my editing note.

Reasons given by others for reverting my changes were: -We don't do that here. -Wikipedia is for well-sourced info, not deception.

According to the policies I've read, the articles are informational on topics, not for taking positions on topics. I even quoted such policy in my undo-revert response. This led to me being warned that if I continued to respond to other editors using the same tools other editors are using to respond to me I may be banned.

Am I doing something wrong in addition to this that they aren't? Is this about the substance of the edit or the method of argument about the edit? Are admins allowed to respond in the edit notes and non-admins not? If so, will the non-admin who engaged with me in the same manner also receive this warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heterodyne3 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heterodyne3 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Heterodyne: first, what you quoted refers to article talk pages, not articles. But the big problem you face is that Wikipedia is an unashamedly mainstream encyclopedia. If you read WP:Fringe, which you probably won't like, our articles on fringe ideas make it explicit that a fringe idea is a fringe idea. We do not give equal balance and thus we do take positions on things such as evolution. There is also a difference between Naturalism (philosophy) and science. Ken Ham disagrees with scientific theories about the world. I presume he also disagrees with naturalistic theories but they are not the same thing. Your edits conflated the two and basically called scientists detractors. If you want to edit here I advise you not to edit in areas where you have strong religious feelings. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there a definitive list of things Wikipedia takes positions on? It would have to be more specific than "science" since the topic is so broad.
That's good info on Wikipedia's policies, thanks. There are still some issues unaddressed, so let's remove a variables. Let's say it's an article about something generally uncontroversial: TURKEY MEATLOAF IN LITERATURE. Editor B edits the article, stating his reasons in the note. Editor A reverts Editor B's edit without engaging on Talk and leaves a dismissive note. Editor B disagrees with Editor A and reinstates the edit, clearly stating the reasoning within the edit notes. Editor B receives a warning for not using the Talk feature. Editor A does not receive a warning for not using the Talk feature.
Subject matter of the topic aside, would a reasonable person conclude B is receiving equal treatment to A? Heterodyne3 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why unconstructive?

Hello, I have made many attempts to get information on Wikipedia. At this point it seems like you all are actively trying to keep information off of Wikipedia. So, I have followed Wikipedia rules and made an edit with references and kept my mentor apprised of what I did and asked for help in achieving the goal. So far I have met heavy resistance when I should have not. So let me ask, why is me adding information to a page that pertains to the page topic in the correct place on the page with reference added to page considered unconstructive by you? Spacelord Knyte (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Failed criteria

In response to my edit you removed. You stated that the source material used fails as a source. How? The source used is a fictional work that is in its 40th anniversary print edition. The work is referenced and used in current culture. I.E. Aaron Abke and his pastor work. The edit I made was in reference to the topic in literature. The correct place to put a fictional work reference. With the work also put in the reference area. So how is this an invalid source. The article mentions that the planet is mentioned is literature works. I added a specific work to back that statement. So why did you remove it and call the fictional book that references the planet not a valid source? Spacelord Knyte (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Ra Material: Law of One is indeed fiction, but it claims not to be. It isn't literature. And we would need a reliable source saying that Phaeton had been mentioned in it. That's the way we work. But in any case "A month or so ago I followed up on messages received via channeling communication that led me to the ra materials on Wikipedia" suggests you are on some sort of mission. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:57, 14 March 2022 (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.

BilCat (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Attention

Hello Doug, I see I have your attention. May I make the most of it. You think I am being unconstructive to Wikipedia. This is not my goal. My goal is to examine a phenomenon I have found. Maybe you can help with this. The appearance is that thru shear inspiration to people editing Wikipedia that all mention of the Ra materials including info on the people who did it are removed and not included in Wikipedia's data base. Why is what I am exploring. My first interaction learned that the Wikipedia pages were removed. I made a few attempts to bring the info back and my mentor got inspired to not help with the process. I explored further. Watched the info get purged further. This while learning Wikipedia practices. The information contained in the Ra Materials is not what I trying to push. What I am trying to push is why Wikipedia editors seem to be inspired to remove the materials at every turn and are unwilling to even entertain a logical revisiting of the decision to remove the materials years later? Now my guess is, Doug, one of two things will happen: you get inspired to emotions and to combat me or you hear the appeal to open up discussion to include the Ra materials on Wikipedia. I am curious to see what you chose. And no need of the emotions that sparked your warning. I know they only bore out of emotional inspiration and not logic. We both know there are infinite ip addresses to edit from. Thank you and have a good day. Spacelord Knyte (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The question I started with: why are the Ra Materials and the people behind them excluded from Wikipedia? Now, why is even discussing including the info banned? Spacelord Knyte (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE (says told through channelling to edit) and threatening to sock. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please help

Hi Doug. Please could you guide me on a technical issue. I started a new section on the Talk Page at Population history of Egypt. It displayed fine at first, but now it simply does not display that new section. I have tried adding it again, and still it does not appear on the Talk Page, although the other (older) sections are fine. Can you see my latest posts? Am I going mad? Please help? Wdford (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Wdford, I've fixed that talk page. There was a hidden comment start (and not closed) just before your posts. Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Schazjmd - it seems to be working fine. Much obliged. Wdford (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Questions posed at TB's talk page

I feel like they're leading into a trap, some kind of rabbit hole b/w Twitter and WP — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Their last post looks as though they really don’t know. Time will tell. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

LesVegas

Could you check if Ratsalad99 is LesVegas? Hint: both are pushing the systemic bias allegation at Traditional Chinese medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Sorry, LesVegas is much too old. Did you see this? Doug Weller talk 13:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I saw their user page. And they have probably edited that talk page from an IP which geolocates to Hythe, England. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Last July. Perhaps, but that's not very relevant and could have been an error. I've edited logged out without realising it. Anyway, there's nothing I can do. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there's a possibility that my cancer may be curable

I always expected that my bowel cancer could be removed, but it also appears that my liver can be resected to remove the two tumours. Some chemo may be required. Some more discussion between specialists is required, but I should be seeing the surgeon who will deal with my bowel cancer soon and then an op, 3 or 4 weeks from now. I may have to curtail my 3+ mile walks. And the offer I had last week from a Parkinson's physiotherapist to take part in a 10 week PD Warrior program is going to have to be postponed.:-) Better news than I expected. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Good news, even if it sounds like a long and weakening process before reaching a new normal. I'm sure all your wellwishers here will want to encourage you on your way. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Doug, I saw your comment at Roxy's page, and I want to let you know that I'm one of your well-wishers. I didn't know until just now what you are going through, but please know that I wish you the very best. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I've followed your page for a while, and I sure am one of your well-wishers. I also want to wish you good luck, good health, and all the best. warshy (¥¥) 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I hope everything goes fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best in your upcoming treatments. Cullen328 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I wish you the very best treating and managing your cancer(s). Chemo is a beast so please be safe and take care! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Doug, all my positive energies are directed at you during this time. I know the hell that is chemo. I went through it during the height of COVID which made it even worse. What enabled me to get through it was being here every day and the knowledge that my daughter and family were waiting for me back home. You will make it through this in your own way. Don't get discouraged and don't let someone tell you that you aren't coping or dealing with it in the right way. You have this! Be safe but focus on getting through this and allowing the healing process to begin in you. I look forward to rejoicing with you as you recover successfully. ☺ ❤ --ARoseWolf 20:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all. I won't get discouraged, I've got so many people here and elsewhere supporting me it's a great help. What I haven't mentioned is that it's my Parkinson's that caught this early enough. At the end of December I fell off a step ladder in the kitchen and broke 2 ribs. A week later I had a LOT of pain and spent the night in A&E, where I had a CT scan to check for punctures. No punctures but they found two lesions on my liver which turned out to be cancer. If I hadn't had Parkinson's it might not have been discovered until too late. I'm hoping to avoid chemo, two operations will be quite enough. Doug Weller talk 21:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
This comment makes me more optimistic. I wish you the best. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I am very sorry to hear the news about your health and wish you all the best. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Bowel cancer operation on the 30th of this month, maybe some chemo, then a liver resection. Which hopefully will kill the beast. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Best wishes Doug. Thanks for all your great editing. Mathsci (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Great news, & best of luck! Fortitude & perseverance will be needed, but perhaps x years of dealing with difficult wp editors is good training for that. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Spot on there with the well-spring of fortitude and perseverance. Will be thinking of you on the day... I'm convinced that it helps. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't shown up here before now, but I wish you the best of luck. A. Parrot (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Good news Doug. Cancer can be beaten. My brother had chemo first to kill the tumours, then surgery to remove the dead tumours so they can't reignite. The new medications are amazing, and every week they invent something even better. A positive approach is critical - this is not going to be easy. However it can be done. Stay focused on the end result - the end justifies the means. Wdford (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I am so sorry to hear this. I can only wish you courage and a good outcome. Achar Sva (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath

Hello,

Can you provide the reason why my edits to the following page were reverted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu_Thowheed_Jamath

My changes included adding the following section. I have provided in my comments the source for this information. Here it is: www.deccanherald.com/amp/state/top-karnataka-stories/tamil-nadu-man-booked-for-issuing-death-threats-to-chief-justice-of-karnataka-hc-over-hijab-verdict-1092828.html. This is a reputable news paper in India.

Also, here is the video proof for the information I added. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYFxS1yDOdg

Changes made. I added the following section.

Controversy

An office-bearer of the Tamil Nadu Towheed Jamaat (TNTJ) was arrested on Saturday night for issuing death threat to judges with reference to the Karnataka High Court verdict on hijab. The arrest came after multiple complaints in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The accused, identified as Rahamathulla, an Executive Member of TNTJ, was arrested in Madurai after a video of his speech made on Thursday in Madhurai went viral on social media. The accused is heard speaking in a provocative manner instigating violence against judges.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontributorhd (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wikicontributorhd: First, it was a copyright violation - I'm not sure why I didn't say that in my edit summary. I meant to post on your talk page about that. Secondly, and not the main reason, it stated as fact the paper's interpretation, ie "proactive". There are more sources now that give more context. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I will research this a bit more by adding my own content after carefully listening to the video proof I provided, and also remove any interpretations. Wikicontributorhd (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Doug - I applied the changes based on your comments. Please let me know if this looks ok.
Thanks Wikicontributorhd (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi Doug Weller - noticed you were active at the moment, and I was looking for an admin to do a quick revdel for this edit: [2]. Thanks ahead of time! Singularity42 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 5

I'm sorry about the late delivery of this newsletter. Within the newsletter was material about an ongoing vote, which closes in under 21 hours.

Please share the information links with interested users: Project Overview • Universal Code of Conduct • Enforcement guidelines (proposed) • Voting • Voter information • Voting link

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 5, January 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the fifth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News (formerly known as Universal Code of Conduct News)! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly or bi-weekly to subscribers. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive these updates.

  • Call for Feedback about the Board elections - We invite you to give your feedback on the upcoming WMF Board of Trustees election. This call for feedback went live on 10th January 2022 and will be concluded on 16th February 2022. (continue reading)
  • Universal Code of Conduct Ratification - In 2021, the WMF asked communities about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct policy text. The revised draft of the enforcement guidelines should be ready for community vote in March. (continue reading)
  • Movement Strategy Implementation Grants - As we continue to review several interesting proposals, we encourage and welcome more proposals and ideas that target a specific initiative from the Movement Strategy recommendations. (continue reading)
  • The New Direction for the Newsletter - As the UCoC Newsletter transitions into MSG Newsletter, join the facilitation team in envisioning and deciding on the new directions for this newsletter. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about MSG on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Take care

Doug, hope all goes well with your surgery.Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Gourdine, Keita and Anselin 2020 Source

The proposed source has now been moved to RSN along with the supporting evidence. Although, it seems unnecessary as the title of the publication and issue number is listed in their 2020 version. There is a separate source from the ANKH journal which lists the article in the same series publication.WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

  • New library collections
  • Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edtiting

Can you please say what my disruptive editing is so i can revert it Nyarlat 1920 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Tariq Nasheed

Chevwash (talk · contribs) jumped right back in to blanking content from Tariq Nasheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) once the protection lifted [3]. Given the history of problems with that article, I'll defer to you rather than leave a final warning. --Hipal (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: I gave them a final warning. Let me know if this continues, although Wednesday I have my bowel cancer surgery so may be away for a week. I'll deputise User:Bishonen to deal with this if it continues while I'm away, so notify her. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope the surgery and recovery goes well. --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll be watching, Doug. For now, it looks like you scared them. Best of luck tomorrow. Bishonen | tålk 09:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC).
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
In support of your battle against the unrelenting forces of MEDRS, I award you this ever-moving barnstar. So rarely do we get to honor our wiki-heroes while they are still around to feel the wiki-love. Know that lots of us look up to you. We've got it covered until you again enrich our lives with your robust and sensible wiki-presence. Stay. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You're confusing subjects

I do not post on the middle east conflict. You're confusing things.Truth3v3r (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Truth3v3r: Doug will not be editing for a few days. Note that the definition of the Arab-Israel conflict is broad. The notice that has been placed on your talk page does not mean that you have done anything wrong. Such notices are placed on the talk pages of all users editing in areas for which the Arbitation Committee has authorized "discretionary sanctions". Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions for more information. - Donald Albury 16:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Donald. Doug Weller / Zero0000 connecting to that "conflict," as an excuse to censor and organized coordinated, frantic, immediate messages do not show ethics here on wiki. ThanksTruth3v3r (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll make one comment, Truth3v3r, you have exactly 52 edits as of this morning. I have over 5,000 and I am still learning so much about Wikipedia. Many have tens of thousands and would tell you that they still learn new things every day. The notice left is not an attempt to silence you, censor you, or some "organized coordinated" attempt to discredit you. This is not an attack on you. Doug did not attack you. No one here has attacked you. You aren't going to garner much sympathy by pushing that angle. That notice was simply to tell you that you have entered a restricted area and to do so with caution. That's it, period. Accusing Doug of some coordinated and organized attempt to censor you or that anyone else here is part of some larger conspiracy to silence you is a form of personal attack. I recommend you read WP:NPA and stop with the disparaging remarks. I hope you have an amazing day and keep learning /contributing. --ARoseWolf 13:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The OP has been indeffed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Best of luck!

Sorry to hear about your health issues, but I know everything will go well and look forward to seeing you here again soon. All the best, Miniapolis 00:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Just came here to say the same after I saw you mention your op - have at it and rest up! Nosebagbear (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Best wishes for a speedy recovery! - Donald Albury 14:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
What's happening, Doug? Hope you get well soon. We can't run this place without you. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@Drmies: turns out I’ve got bowel and liver cancer. Hopefully surgery will fix it, maybe with some chemo. Bowel surgery tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, You're in my thoughts. Hope it goes well. WormTT(talk) 13:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Let me chime in and add the best of wishes. I totally agree with Drmies. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Doug, I'll be thinking of you, old friend. I hope it all turns out well. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Ach, hope it goes well, and hoping to see you back here soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I highly doubt you will see this before your op today but if you do, please know my thoughts are with you and I sang a song for you, this morning, of hope and strength and health. I truly wish you all the best and trust in the Notes to carry the Colors of Life to you for a successful op and healing time. Rest well, Doug. --ARoseWolf 13:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Isn't that lovely? Thinking of you, Doug. Haploidavey (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Best of luck, Doug! I hope you get well soon. MaxineJP (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Very best wishes, Doug. Have a good rest and look forward to see you editing again soon. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Surgery went well yesterday

Keyhole so not as drastic as it might have been but I am very weak and tired, can barely stand up. Some pain but I can sleep. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So glad to hear :) rest well! WormTT(talk) 16:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I was so thrilled to see this I let out a yip and made my sister-in-law nearly jump out of her skin. Doug, I am so happy the surgery went well. You focus on resting and recovering. --ARoseWolf 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Good news! - Donald Albury 16:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Excellent news! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Huzzah and hooray! --Yamla (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Good news friend. Get some rest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Wonderful news. Thanks for letting us know! Now get some rest. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Rooting for you Doug. And also, those who, from now, must look after you!  :) SN54129 17:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, was thinking about you. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Great. Don't let Wikipedia keep you from getting the sleep you need. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Doug, I'm rooting for you too, and I'm very happy it went well. I hope you feel better soon, and take it easy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Very pleased to hear that things went well, Doug. Put your health first and my best wishes for a full recovery. Begoon 23:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
That's really good news. Hope you follow Dudley Miles's advice. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Very glad to see that the operation went well. Please take things easy. Mathsci (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Very good news, be careful and take care of yourself. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Wonderful news! Rest up, and we'll be waiting for you. All the best, Miniapolis 22:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Good to hear. Take it easy, get some rest, and get well soon! Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Wonderful news! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Great news - edits like this suggest a good prognosis! Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Thinking of you Doug. Really good news, now take it steady for a while. Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Great news! Hoping the best for you, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Very good news Doug! Get that rest, eat that sweet sweet food to let your body heal! And wikipedia will be here when you get back :o) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Going home today!

No idea what’s next. The histology results won’t be back for a week probably. If I’m lucky I’ll hear by the end of next week. I just hope that I haven’t been exposed to covid in my ward. I’m in a bay with 3 others. One is demented and can’t walk, another in a wheelchair and has been down to a coffee shop in the hospital, another who’s walked to a supermarket twice and has only had one vaccination. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And all three of them are Wikipedia editors? Returning from hospital is a time when one needs to be in "maximum treats" mode in my view ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I remember leaving the hospital and I know you are excited to get out of there. Of course I didn't have to deal with having other people in the same room with me. Get home, get rested and enjoy the sunshine, my friend. We are all hoping for positive results and a quick recovery for you. And I agree with "maximum treats" mode. --ARoseWolf 12:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Going home is good. Avoiding the nasty virus is also good. Best wishes for a clean histology report and a quick recovery. Donald Albury 15:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I can remember the elation I felt after going home from my op. I'm sure you will feel better at home. Thinking of you and best wishes for the future. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
File:3a07ee 96bbedfb06ef4b14aa1375d55dcd6899 mv2.jpg
Some flowers for you
Great news! hope you enjoy some flowers to take with you, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Glad to hear you're getting home, Doug. I'll be hoping for good news for you. MastCell Talk 22:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep on keepin' on, Doug. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Wonderful to hear! Wishing you strength and joy, Generalrelative (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Young Conservatives of Texas

Hello Mr Walker, you got rid of multiple contributions that I made to the Young Conservatives of Texas article. So I am here to try to resolve the matter with you, so there is more information available to readers. For "non-partisan" they are described as such by votesmart.org (https://justfacts.votesmart.org/interest-group/1255/young-conservatives-of-texas) and TexasScoreCard (https://texasscorecard.com/state/young-conservatives-of-texas-announces-priorities-for-legislature/) so by citing one of them would that then be appropriate for including "non-partisan"? Would including an ideology section instead of the label "stated principles" work better? An organization's ideology and principles are often the same thing, if not very similar. Ideology could even be included in the space below their logo to the top left of the article. The citation would come from the votesmart.org description of their organization. Finally, in regards to their endorsements, if I were to find a news article from a separate organization talking about their endorsements would I be able to make an endorsement section for them? Thank you. --NathanHD99 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@NathanHD99: I am waiting for my answer to my question about your possible role within the YCoT. It appears that you are a paid editor. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not a paid editor nor am I paid by YCT. NathanHD99 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Down memory lane at ANI

Doug, do you feel up to providing some input at this ANI thread? You may remember the editor, who was recently slightly renamed — it used to be Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena. But not if you need your rest. I have to admit it's not a restful issue. Bishonen | tålk 08:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Good to see you back, my friend. May you get much positive news. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Doug Weller talk 18:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ERA draft RfC question

Hi Doug,

I'm sure you have a lot on your plate, but if you're interested in taking a look, I’ve been working on drafting a MOS:ERA RfC question in my sandbox. Please feel free to edit and/or comment if you have the inclination. For any page watchers here, this with regard to a recent discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 6

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 6, April 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the sixth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board of trustees elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while the more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.

  • Leadership Development - A Working Group is Forming! - The application to join the Leadership Development Working Group closed on April 10th, 2022, and up to 12 community members will be selected to participate in the working group. (continue reading)
  • Universal Code of Conduct Ratification Results are out! - The global decision process on the enforcement of the UCoC via SecurePoll was held from 7 to 21 March. Over 2,300 eligible voters from at least 128 different home projects submitted their opinions and comments. (continue reading)
  • Movement Discussions on Hubs - The Global Conversation event on Regional and Thematic Hubs was held on Saturday, March 12, and was attended by 84 diverse Wikimedians from across the movement. (continue reading)
  • Movement Strategy Grants Remain Open! - Since the start of the year, six proposals with a total value of about $80,000 USD have been approved. Do you have a movement strategy project idea? Reach out to us! (continue reading)
  • The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is All Set! - The Committee of fifteen members which was elected in October 2021, has agreed on the essential values and methods for its work, and has started to create the outline of the Movement Charter draft. (continue reading)
  • Introducing Movement Strategy Weekly - Contribute and Subscribe! - The MSG team have just launched the updates portal, which is connected to the various Movement Strategy pages on Meta-wiki. Subscriber to get up-to-date news about the various ongoing projects. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

Thanks for reading. Xeno (WMF) 02:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we're being played

on Carletteyt, which I'll choose NOT to link here. I've extended my GF far beyond normal, and it may just be somebody young. Waiting to see how it continues. BusterD (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think so too. I don't know, or care if they're just a massive CIR case or a troll, they're disruptive and provide no value with their edits. CUPIDICAE💕 16:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
This person is not a troll.
Factors creating problems:
  1. Their autism (not their "fault", but still a big issue)
  2. Young age (with them it's an issue)
  3. Language issues (English is not mother tongue)
  4. CIR (previous factors create chronic CIR issues)
  5. Poor communication abilities
This creates a perfect storm that's impossible to beat. A kindly "Sorry, but this environment is an unsuitable place for you." might be the only solution.
Another option good for aspies is give them a repetitive task of value. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Valjean, your last sentence is incredibly inappropriate, and I would ask that you remove it entirely. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I reverted my own comment because it came off harsher than I intended but I'd suggest you rethink and reword your statement Valjean. I don't think you intended it in such a way but "option good for aspies is give them a repetitive task of value" is dehumanizing. I find the whole notion that we need a special lenience for this offensive and I have for a long time. If someone is self aware enough to know they're doing x because of y and that it is incorrect, they are self aware enough to not repeat the behavior/action and communicate either why they are doing it or stop doing it. We have plenty of editors who have autism that are more than capable of abiding by our basic policies. This isn't any different. CUPIDICAE💕 18:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
My son is an aspie. They often have special abilities which make them good at tasks requiring precision, tasks that are repetitive and that others would find boring. They are excellent for such tasks, and Wikipedia could benefit from such editors who are kept away from disruption elsewhere. We really need to AGF about this editor. He has already explained he has autism, so he is aware it's an issue.
I agree that disruption should not be tolerated. We just need to deal with people according to their abilities and handicaps. A tailored approach is needed. Kindness goes a long ways. Calling them trolls isn't constructive and assumes bad faith. I agree that "We have plenty of editors who have autism that are more than capable of abiding by our basic policies.", but I fear that, in this case, they may lack that capability largely because of language issues(?). The autism itself may be so severe that it is the real problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Aspie here. I am not offended by the last sentence. As a matter of fact, it's a very good solution. For my first 3 years here, all I did was edit categories in a way that would bore most people after a few hours. The articles for most animal species are not fully categorized. Perhaps I can assign them a task and have them do it all by hand? I do agree that we aspies don't need any more leniency than most other editors, but we all process advice in a way that is different from most neurotypicals. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The clash in this discussion is welcome (but it's not my talk). I believe the editor has issues which prevent easy and full expression in writing, no judgements about that. I proposed a possible language variance and they indicated the affirmative so AGF. I agree when given a repetitive task they have been largely helpful. More eyes are always a good thing. I didn't raise this thread to pound on anybody, more to query my own thoughts. They seem a good sort and I'd like to IAR competence for a bit, but was wondering how others felt. Appreciate the free exchange of opinion. BusterD (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    Lights off in a minute. I want to wait and see, there’s no rush right now. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I am more than willing to mentor them. I mentored one other aspie who would have been indeffed had I not done so. I saw no potential in him, and I thought my efforts were futile, but I was proven wrong. I think mentorship would be better than assigning a repetitive task. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have looked through their newest contributions, and I am not seeing anything that suggests they cannot learn. The guy I mentored kept refactoring talk page comments and removing blocks of unsourced content despite being told not to. This user does not seem too difficult for me to handle. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Great. I'll AGF here, although my first edit today was to give an editor an AP alert after I'd agreed to another Admins suggestion of an unblock. That was disappointing. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I see there are already problems with their editing. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
After seeing their edits today. I am not so sure now if mentorship is possible. I am pretty tired right now, so I will have to wait a few hours. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand. Autism is complex, and those people with autism who are high-functioning (Asperger syndrome, "Aspies"), while often very intelligent, do have varying and widely disparate degrees of disability. Because of their high intelligence, many adapt remarkably well and can fairly successfully "blend in", while others have "hidden" problems that create weird situations that cause consternation, and others who don't understand the root cause will shun or bully them. No matter what, while an "explanation" isn't always an "excuse", we should try to extend more patience and understanding to these people, who often have a lonely existence. They often have gifts that make them quite useful here, but if the negatives outweigh the positives, we have to curtail or cut off their access. They may want to "belong", and we need to find a place for them when possible. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm feeling better right now. My sleep quality last night was horrendous. I have decided to assign them some pages to recategorize. I hope this wasn't a bad solution Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)



Hello Doug Weller. I was recently in discussion with another editor who repeatedly reverted my edits. Later you had contacted me on that talk page and said that my material was reverted for adding copyrighted material. Thank you for the information you provided in that regard (wiki rules). I would however like to address that the other person had claimed that one of his reversions were because of how short my citation was (he didn't "consider that two sentence" source to be good enough). He had said nothing of any specific problem with citation. I am not sure if it was he who had reported me to you, but his reversions feel like an edit war to me. Also, my citations of the relevant content were brief. If his accusation was plagarism, he never said so to me. He had also told me that I had to "prove" my positions, but I thought verifiability was the main point to wiki articles. I will certainly try to be careful about copyrighted material, (though I am learning how to do so), but I am concerned that the other person didn't seem to care about citations given by other editors which were made along the same lines. He elsewhere claimed that I personally attacked him, but it was he who was rude and who refused to clarify why the reversions were made when I politely asked. Also, on the following page: https://thereaderwiki.com/en/User:Tgeorgescu he says the following of himself: --- "I have great respect for truth. At the same time I am a mastermind at weaponizing truth. I like wiki-persecuting bigots, pseudoscientists and quacks. Do you think I'm mean? The watchdog must bite." I do not know who this person is, but by their own admission, they are a "master" at manipulating the truth. I don't know what changes he would make, to whatever was written, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttruther11 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Facttruther11: first, please avoid searching for dirt on editors off-wiki, you can get in a world of trouble that way. Secondly, User:tgeorgescu doesn't say "manipulating". He's talking about using truth to defeat those spreading untruths, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, etc. He didn't accuse you of plagiarism, I found it and deleted it from the history of the article. I don't know what the two sentence source was but that should be argued on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I did not mean to seem hostile to your reversion, nor was I aware it was yours. I am glad to see that it wasn't him trying to accuse me. However, I brought up the rest to you because I am under the impression that you are an administrator and I thought you were involved in that discussion. Tgeorgescu is entitled to his opinions, though he did not elaborate, and I am uncertain if that person was concerned with truth or with defending their own beliefs (it still seemed like they was attempting an edit war). I will avoid off-wiki cites in the future, but since it was brought up, his exact quote is still that he is : "a mastermind at weaponizing truth". I addressed it because being a mastermind of weaponized "truth" sounds like manipulation and can also lead to false accusations - especially if it is subjective. Otherwise, I agree with fighting against untruth and bigotry. I would discuss the rest with him but since he never elaborated on his reasons for reversion, I will leave it alone. ---- I have to ask though, (because I thought I would have cited the article and that that would have been enough), but if I already did, then how is plagiarism avoided on Wikipedia? I was under the impression that quoting the article while naming it was all that was required. Does it have to be shown it is in an open source? I hadn't noticed. ---- Actually, I think I see what the problem ay have been. I am looking on the wiki page for plagiarism for clarity.Facttruther11 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Facttruther11: You can quote a short section, upward to 200 words or so. It needs to be in quotation marks and attributed. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Cancer update

Good news and some not unexpected not-so-good news. My Macmillan cancer nurse just phoned to say all of the bowel cancer had been removed (a big relief), along with 12 lymph nodes. 6 of them showed cancer so I'll need chemotherapy to deal with other lymph nodes and hopefully shrink the liver tumours. I'll find out what type on May 5th. She advised me not to read up on chemo until I find out what type it will be. That sounds like good advice as reading up on all of it might make me worry about things that aren't relevant! Anyway, about 3 months of chemo, out-patient based. Then liver surgery. I'm walking more now, even in the fields and woods with my dogs. Stomach still doesn't feel quite right yet, but that's no surprise. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That's Doug the Invincible! You must be doing pretty well if you're taking significant walks. Best wishes. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep walking, Doug. Take your time and enjoy the earth around you. My hope for you is that, as you walk, you will feel the music around you in those fields and woods. May it be a time of reflective healing and preparation for the things ahead for you. You are very strong and there are those that need you in their life, not the least of which is us here. You are important to so many as evidenced by the supporting messages left here for you. Take that and hold on to it along with the love and support of others in your life. May it be strength for you when you feel weak. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Walking is good. May the chemo do right by you. - Donald Albury 16:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Especially with dogs (though most dogs are good company regardless of weather). And the weather has been amazing (for all species). Really admire how you're dealing with this. Haploidavey (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I saw you say on another talk page that you've been able to walk over a mile. I think that's wonderful, and I hope you are in good spirits. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy first edit day!

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request on Wikipedia:Communist Party of Wikipedia

Hello. Could you delete revisions 1084447342 and 1084441329 per CFRD1, please? I saw the audio file on "The Internationale" and thought it was in the PD per WP:NFCCP – No free equivalent. Thank you in advance. lol1VNIO[not Lol1VNIO] (talk • contribs) 18:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. I’m watching tv and on my iPad but figured out which ones you wanted! Doug Weller talk 19:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to point me in the right direction regarding Standard DS

Hello Doug Weller. I am trying to find the WP page that shows exactly what the Standard Discretionary Sanctions restrictions are, for a covered topic area. I found the page describing how administrators go about enacting and enforcing them (WP:ACDS, but as far as I can tell it doesn't actually say what behavior runs afoul and would trigger a response. I'm hoping you can point me to such a page. This is in reference to recent edits at List of concentration and internment camps about U.S. concentration camps in the late 2010s, which I'm assuming falls under WP:AMPOL (which only states that Standard DS are in play, not what behavior is inappropriate). What I don't know is if reinstating challenged material covered by DS prior to discussion to reach consensus is a breach. I'm reaching out to you because, in the course of trying to find the info I am looking for, I noticed that you gave a DS warning to this editor for WP:AMPOL in November. I'm trying to make sure I don't myself breach DS, while responding/editing. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This sort of goes to the discretionary part, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors has clarifying information. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pinchme123: usually they just make it easier to sanction editors who step out of line in an area, either by Admins directly or through WP:AE where anyone can report an editor. In some areas you can't edit without 500 edits and 30 days and an account. The Arab-Israeli area has other stringent rules, but they should always be shown on the talk page. Sometimes they do say don't reinstate challenged material without discussion, but that also should be stated in the DS warning on the article talk page. But sanctions can only be enforced if there is a sanctions notice on the talk page (except for the Arab-Israeli conflict where there's a bit more discretion to revert IPs and those without the 500/30, or at least that's my opinion. So you're ok at that page. I wouldn't add DS to that page but I see the related pages probably should have the DS notice and don't. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok thanks, both. So I get that some areas have the above-stated restrictions; where would I find the restrictions for American-politics-2? Because everything I've found just points to "standard discretionary sanctions" and no actual restrictions listed anywhere, for either American-politics-2 or for standard DS. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see a colleague replied while I was posting! Also now the bit about awareness. @Beeblebrox:, thanks for responding, that was very useful, but here's something I admit to not being clear about. Trump administration migrant detentions is glaringly obviously in the AMPOL area but has not talk page notice. So could someone who was clearly AWARE be sanctioned for their behavior at that page despite there being no talk page notice? I should know the definitive answer to this but don't. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
As you say, it's glaringly obvious with or without the talk page notice. AMPOL in particular is a massive subject area, I believe talk page tagging is generally done as disruption is detected in a new article. I suppose if you're feeling generous you could give a warning first, but if it's a serial offender they would obviously be well aware it falls inside the scope. (that's my read anyway, don't anyone take it as an official statement from the committee) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Death of Elijah McClain and neutral POV

Hey Doug,

I saw your note on my edit, and would like to engage on that a little bit. I know it's important to keep a neutral POV on wikipedia, and I did deliberate on whether it was appropriate before I made the edit. I ultimately came down on the side of making the edit because I think changing the sentence to read "The EMTs claimed to have estimated Elijah's weight" is arguably more neutral and more accurate.

Consider: Whatever ground truth is, whether their estimate was earnest or back-filled, it is accurate to say they claimed, while saying "They did estimate it" is making a statement of fact about their state of mind which we fundamentally cannot confirm.

I would argue that making the positive statement that the paramedics made that estimate is the same as reporting witness testimony as fact. Writing about a contested crime it wouldn't be neutral to say "Witness X saw defendant Y break into the house": that would not be neutral. It would be more neutral to say "Witness X reports/claims to have seen defendant Y breaking into a house" as it reflects the true uncertainty that exists in the world and does not make a positive statement of fact.

That said, I do see how "claims" could sound overly skeptical and suggests untruth to some readers. Perhaps there's a middle ground? How would you feel about changing it to "The paramedics administered an injection of 500 mg (one full 5ml syringe) of ketamine, later reporting to have estimated his weight at 220lbs (100kg), a weight for which 500mg is close to an appropriate dose.

I suppose we shouldn't dance around the matter that I do, in my personal private view, hold some skepticism about their making that estimate. Despite my personal view, my goal here isn't to write something biased towards my view {I respect wikipedia too much for that}, but rather something that states the facts clearly without being either accusatory or overly credulous of their position. You have much more experience on wikipedia than me, and I'd love to work with you to find a framing and wording that achieves this goal while remaining neutral.

P.s. I saw on your talk page that you recently had good news with respect to your health. Huge congrats here, and I hope your recovery is going well :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalPants (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@DigitalPants: Thanks for your good wishes. As for the issue, I'll admit I prefer to conduct such discussions on the article talk page so others can see (and participate if they wish). Anyway, see WP:Words to avoid. But your new wording seems ok. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh! Okay, let me move that over there. Sorry, I saw on your page an invitation to talk here, and took that for your preference. Poor etiquette on my part. DigitalPants (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Newly arrived user?

Gowzena1978khhwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Doug. The edits of this very recently registered user seem odd. What do you think? Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Already indeffed by User:Kusma. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mathsci well that didn't take long! Doug Weller talk 09:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Too long for the new account of a clearly experienced user returning as a troll. My excuse is that I was on my phone when I first noticed the account, so it took half an hour until I had both made up my mind and found my laptop. Not sure what the point of the userpage was, but deleting it seemed like a good idea. —Kusma (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

David Rohl

I know you're an admin, so you may not want to comment, but I wonder what you think of the new deletion request for David Rohl's article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rohl. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have opened a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#David_Rohl. Please comment if you'd like. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Tuckerresearch sorry I didn't reply before. I just wasn't sure. I'll take a look. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

EN1792

Hi

FYI, for whatever you may make of it:

  • I am unfamiliar with the particular exchange about the reversion, but it is quite true that Mathglot and I were encouraging this editor to add a Babel template to their page and help Wikipedia translations.
    • I had previously counseled the editor that the wall-of-text complaints were somewhat valid and could but mitigated using a reflist (although on reflection I maybe should have suggested diffs instead).
  • Incidentally, Mathglot is not involved in the original dispute that got EN1792 blocked and is mentioned here simply because they were mentioned by EN1792 and are entitled to know that I responded. We have worked together on translations and Mathglot was proposing one to me when, apparently unwisely in retrospect, I attempted to improve the references at Azov Battalion, where I encountered EN1792.
  • There is more that I could say about the topic ban and the failure-to-realize concern, which is indeed valid. However, while I could possibly provide some context, I do not myself want to produce a wall of text. I will simply say that my posts about the page at WP:RS received a lot of support from others, from Newslinger in particular, but were completely ignored at the page, and my tags were removed.
  • Also, we were interested in recruiting EN1792 because that editor speaks Russian and Farsi, and WP:PNT has a backlog and afaik no active editor for those languages.

I know you for a fair man from previous interactions, and if you have any suggestions I would welcome them. I do think EN1792 could help the project a great deal if they learned a better way to approach doing so. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is much ado about nothing, and nobody needs to waste any more time on it. (@Elinruby: if you raise an issue (especially with an admin) please link the discussion(s) you are referring to; I had to sleuth around. Neither you nor EN1792 has any edits at WT:RS, so it can't be that.) If you are talking about EN1792's UTP, then there is a very minor series of events that imho don't rise to the level of notifying an admin about, but since you did, here's the history, to save Doug some time:
  1. In discussion at User talk:EN1792, it arose that they are polyglot (diff), and I encouraged them (diff) to add a {{Babel}} template to their user page
  2. EN1792 added the template (diff) with a few languages, including an en-3 level
  3. knowing their English is near-native level, I encouraged them (diff) to list themself at least at en-4 level
  4. shortly thereafter, I boldly changed (diff) their Babel template to en-4; inviting a revert if they so chose
  5. later that day Bbb23 reverted my edit (diff), changing it back to en-3; his edit summary was a mild disagreement of my earlier edit, and nothing against EN1792 in any way
  6. an hour later, EN1792 reverted, restoring the en-4, along with a stinging, accusatory rebuke of Bbb23 in the edit summary (diff).
That is the whole story about the Babel template. None of this had the slightest effect on EN1792's subsequent indefinite block, and afaic, we should all go back to our regularly scheduled programming. That said, I agree with your last sentence ("could help the project") but that is not something we can do anything about in this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot thank you for the diffs and the suggestion. I just now posted a heads up to your talk page that your name was mentioned in the appeal. I posted to Doug here because he is the admin who declined to review the appeal, and who could blame him? I have to say I think he was right to do so.
Since apparently I wasn’t clear enough about this, I am not asking him to reverse himself on that, merely whether he has any suggestions. I do get that the problem is the vitriol, not the Babel boxes per se. I do however understand that editor’s frustration with the initial content dispute, even if I can’t defend the way they have chosen to express it.
The WP:RSN posts are there, btw, but aren’t real recent. I will be happy to provide diffs if somebody to wants to see them, but since at the moment this is just an informal request for a suggestion, and an expression of regret at what looks like a necessary measure, I don’t want to seem suggest that Doug needs to review them. My best suggestion probably wouldn’t work — allowing EN access to some sort of walled garden at PNT. Given current events and their languages, however, even medieval Russia or Iran may not be obscure or uncontroversial enough to be a place for them to learn better wiki etiquette. (See Kievan Rus). What a shame. Maybe I should send them an email suggesting that they take up yoga or something for a while before they try again? I don’t want to oppose any further on anyone’s time and will say no more unless somebody asks me something. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
You had earlier mentioned WP:RS, but now that you've mentioned WP:RSN, I see that you must be talking about this subsection of an archived discussion touching on Azov Batallion. EN1792 has six lifetime edits at RSN, and only one recent edit of substance (diff), which was indeed at that discussion, and it was on-topic, and entirely civil. As far as "what's to be done" about EN1792, the block was a good one and for better or worse, any appeal has to come from them. (There's no precedent afaicr for the kind of walled garden you are proposing, although I suppose an "inverted TBAN" which blocked them from every topic or project page in the encyclopedia *except* for one might be theoretically possible, but I don't see why they merit it, and it would place an additional burden on admins or other watchers which they don't deserve.) EN1972's best strategy now, imho, is to just sit tight and appeal later. If they do some editing at French, Persian, or Russian wiki for the next six months without getting into trouble, that would likely help in their block appeal. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby@Mathglot I think the suggestion to sit tight and appeal later is a good one, especially if they edit at other language Wikis where others such as you two can see their edits. Right now it doesn't appear they are in a good enough frame of mind to respond satisfactorily to the issues I raised about their appeal. Of course I could be wrong, they might change tack and respond as requested. Elinruby, do you think there's a chance they might respond to an email from you? Doug Weller talk 07:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I previously sent them an email and they answered on-wiki that they did not reply to the email because there might be career implications if they were outed. Which wasn’t an issue at the time. It does mean they have email enabled though, and possibly would read an email from me. I am willing to pass the suggestion along, and possibly to disclose my own email in the body, but this would out *me* and I have been annoying Russians lately. I guess I could make a throwaway account. TL;DR I think they would likely read an email if my name was in the subject and I guess I am willing to do the work to make it possible for them to respond. I don’t recommend the fr.wikipedia unless their French is very good indeed, as mine *is* and I still got taken to task, but that’s my ADD kicking in. TL;DR to the TL;DR = maybe; I will try. Thank you for reading. Elinruby (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Indian IPv6 range editing issue

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stricter block for Indian IPv6 ranges due to sockpuppetry. Thank you. Please take a look at the thread, as you were a blocking admin for at least one of these ranges in the past. — B. L. I. R. 00:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@BeywheelzLetItRip Sorry, I’m not that sure about that sort of range.@BeywheelzLetItRip Doug Weller talk 18:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking for testers

I noticed your question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Anyone else experiencing "reply" adding nowiki to pings? or inability to preview. As someone not fully satisfied with DiscussionTools (neither am I), could I ask you to test Bawl? I can always use more feedback. I promise it'll never randomly switch to visual mode. If you'd rather not I understand, but feedback helps me a ton. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz I’m starting to get error messages, not sure why. So maybe I should. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
What kind of error messages? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz I didn’t notice, but will pay more attention tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes?

Why did you revert my changes about Dr Strange? AnoshkoAlexey (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@AnoshkoAlexey: Doug gave the edit summary "Trivial needs to be significant and sourced".
A passing mention of something isn't significant enough to warrant inclusion. The personal standard I try to go by is "if you could write a paragraph about the mention, summarize it in one sentence." That still might not be significant enough but you can't get a paragraph out of the mention, it's definitely not significant enough.
While giving us the author of that particular issue does narrow down where in the 60 year old series this issue is, it still doesn't tell us which issue, which doesn't really help anyone verify it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

CovertAction Magazine should be listed in Alternative Media (U.S. political left)

Hi Doug,

This is my first time editing a wikipedia page. No offense intended.

But please check out our website and archives history. You will find we are definitely an excellent alternative media outlet with a long and venerable history.

CovertActionMagazine.com

Feel free to share your feedback.

Best,

Chris chris.agee@icloud.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjohnagee (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Left some notes on the user's talkpage. G'night Doug. Abecedare (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Update on chemotherapy

Saw the oncologist yesterday. 3 months of chemo starting in about 2 weeks. 2 weeks on, one week off. Pills and outpatients for infusion every session as I'm taking a combination of two drugs, together called XELOX or CAPOX, which are apecitabine and oxaliplatin. Loads of possible side effects which I won't mention but with some I have to contact the hospital asap . Also I will have another CT scan - sadly that might reveal that I can't have liver surgery. I'll have to have a PICC line, a long, thin, hollow, flexible tube called a catheter. It is put into one of the large veins of the arm, above the bend of the elbow. Then it is threaded into the vein until the tip is in a large vein just above the heart. Sounds like fun. I'll have that permanently during the 3 months, which will be I guess 4, maybe 5 sessions. I presume another CT scan after that, and if I'm lucky surgery. Otherwise palliative care. I'm allowed to exercise as much as I can, which is good if I can! Doug Weller talk 12:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I know I've said it before but you are one amazing human being, Doug. I think about you often and sing songs of strength and health over you. Stay strong and keep exercising and moving as much as you can. I'm hoping for positive results and that you will eventually get that liver surgery you need. Then the road to healing can begin. Much love to you and yours. --ARoseWolf 12:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeesh, that sounds rough, Doug. I'm really sorry to hear it – but glad there's treatment available. Hope you're being looked after well and there'll be a good outcome. – Joe (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. It's good that the hospital are being so helpful. I hope your dog-walking is continuing. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
You're proving tougher than your tough condition and that's half the battle. A fraternal embrace, Doug.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
As I'm trying to build up my strength I'm doing less dog-walking and more just walking around where I live. I can walk faster and further that way. Still doing some though! Yesterday I did a road walk and a short dog walk. Today two road walks totalling about 3.5 miles. The heat is starting to be a problem! Doug Weller talk 13:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this. If I had known perhaps I wouldn't have asked you to test my script, it's a banality compared to what you're dealing with. I haven't been close to anyone battling cancer IRL, most I know about the emotional side of that I would know from watching Breaking Bad, which isn't necessarily a reliable reference being a work of fiction, but even that is enough to tell me I couldn't possibly put myself in your shoes. Do you have a cooling vest for your walks? Do whatever feels good/like the right thing to do, and hopefully Lady Luck will be on your side. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Doug, you're doing more walking than a lot of cancer-free folks do, and you should be proud of that. Please know that you continue to have my best wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
My very best wishes for you, always, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What is rs?

--2.25.128.218 (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Acroterionthanks. That will be about this. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent a mail to you.

Regarding the updation of a wiki page. SuVritra (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious
Nine years!

PROD

I'm going to ask the dumb question, but where does it state that it is verboten for someone with a COI to PROD a page? Special:Diff/1087440834 just makes busywork, because now instead of a perfectly acceptable PROD going through, we're going to now have to slog through an AFD when invariably they file it. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac yeah, sorry. I regretted that as soon as I saved it. I should have made a dummy edit. Probably just my irritation over the background. But it hadn’t occurred to me that letting it get deleted via PROD might be a good thing. I think it would have been removed anyway.@Primefac Doug Weller talk 17:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the reply. I keep meaning to see if there's any meat to the metaphorical bones of that article, and might take it to AFD myself if I feel motivated. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

I follow your updates about treatments, with best wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Title change?

Would an attempt to restore the Great Replacement conspiracy theory title be a futile endeavor? (Move discussion) The current title is unsatisfactory, and I agree with your vote:

  • Support per NPOV and the fact that the article itself is about the conspiracy theory, the title should be explicit. As it stands it is likely to confuse people. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The theory is gaining traction, especially because of Tucker Carlson. It's his daily drumbeat. (Strangely enough, he is only mentioned twice.) Therefore, the exact nature of the subject should be explicit in the title. It's a conspiracy theory, and a dangerous one. Pinging User:Nblund -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean I think so, see these. RfC? Doug Weller talk 14:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there are enough RS to justify a title change, but a consensus of fringe editors (defined as those who get their views from unreliable sources, even if they don't say it) often overrides policy on these fringy topics. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. Mainstream editors would need to stand up to that kind of time-wasting obstructionism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I would support this title change, and an RfC if necessary to make it happen. The current title is clearly unacceptable. Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Another thought. Do we have a policy/guideline page devoted to "How to deal with false topics"? What policies are involved? It's related to WP:Fringe and NPOV. This is relevant for the times where the inclusion of properly-sourced words like "false", "falsely", etc. are included. Then we get a flood of IPs and fringe editors who complain that we are violating NPOV. If we don't have such a page, I think it would benefit the project to get it hammered out into a consensus policy that could be cited when dealing with such objections. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that all of this is covered by both WP:FRINGE and WP:YESPOV. If it is a fact that the conspiracy theory is false then we should state unambiguously that it is false. In my experience a flood of IPs and fringe editors can often be an annoyance but they do not succeed in the end. And if the issue is as important as this one is, it's worth the hassle. Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We already call it a far-right conspiracy theory, so the issue is COMMONNAME I think.@Generalrelative Doug Weller talk 16:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, but as the sources you provide above show (esp. [4], [5], [6] and [7]), "conspiracy theory" is now increasingly being used by RS as part of its COMMONNAME, so I'm not sure that the objection would hold water anymore. Generalrelative (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Generalrelative I agree. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
A few more sources which explicitly refer to is as "Great replacement conspiracy theory". News: [8][9][10][11][12]. Academic: [13][14][15]. Advocacy: [16][17][18]. Generalrelative (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Generalrelativeimpressive. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
For any watchers: I've started a discussion at the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

About the reverted edit

Hello. You reverted the edit I made to the Moses article. However, I still think it should say according Robert D. Miller II, not according to John van Seters. The citation in its current form uses two quotes from the book, which are real quotes from the book. However, only one of them refers to van Seters, yet the sentence is obviously really based only on the another quote, which does not refer to van Seters. It is Miller's own text that is not stating van Seters' conclusions, instead it does use the following citation: Jan Davis and Isabel Wollaston, “Memorials,” in The Sociology of Sacred Texts, ed. J. Davis and I. Wollaston (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 25.. Also, the book's editor uses the same quote and credits it to Miller in the introduction section (pp. 5-6). Finncle (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Finncle Having trouble sleeping so saw this. Are you saying the first quote is not van Seters? Because I see it attributed to him in other sources. But I won’t be able to deal with this until tomorrow UK time. Doug Weller talk 22:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
No, the first quote (The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.) is his, but the other one has basically nothing to do with him. Finncle (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
And this is important because the sentence in the Wikipedia article is clearly based on the other quote (I don't know why the van Seters quote is even used in the citation) and therefore its content should be attributed to Robert D. Miller II. Finncle (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Finncle I'm going to move this to Talk:Moses#Recent edits concerning 2 quotations. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

appealing discretionary sanctions imposed by an anonymous admin

Hi. I posted this to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=prev&diff=1088480880 because an appeal seemed to fit the category, but it got undone without action taken. So here it is. Need help or at least advice.

In recent days, I have attempted to insert the most likely birth year for Rebecca De Mornay, based on the topic in Talk. User Hipal has repeatedly reverted all attempts to avoid a blank year, even when I compromised by indicating "1959 or 1962" which are the two birth years noted in the Talk discussion. I justified the "or" in Edit Summary by pointing out that numerous historical figures have multiple years listed due to uncertainty (see death year for Jesus for example). This was not good enough for the gatekeeper, who also made the outlandish threat to report me for "defamation" on my User Talk page.

One ought to wonder why there is such vehemence about not indicating the birth year of a well-known actress. Is this really a form of defamation equivalent to rumors of criminal activity that are often spread about other celebrities?

Further, the content of De Mornay's page includes the age marker "By the time she was 16" as the first phrase under Career, so there is a limited range of birth year possibilities which IMO ought to be indicated. I suspect that Hipal is a paid editor (agent in Hollywood or elsewhere) or a zealous fan who still wants to hide the celebrity's age more than a decade after the 2011 Talk page discussion.Martindo (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I know Doug is occupied with other things at the moment so I hope he doesn't mind me responding here instead.
@Martindo: Hipal is not an administrator and is no more anonymous than you are. What they are is a highly experienced editor who has edited thousands of pages, so I highly doubt that they're in anyone's pockets, and you should not cast aspersions otherwise. If you read the notice they left on your talk page, it's simply making you aware that special rules ('discretionary sanctions') already apply to biographical articles and that all editors must follow them. No sanctions have been placed on you personally, so there is nothing to appeal. Similarly the part about "defamation", while I agree not appropriate here, is just part of a standard template message, not an accusation.
I'd strongly suggest you take up the issue of De Mornay's year of birth at Talk:Rebecca De Mornay and try to reach a consensus rather than trying to escalate as a user conduct issue. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Joe Roe thanks. Given WP:BLPPRIVACY I think this needs to be at BLPN and I'll take it there. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I confess that I don't understand how discretionary sanctions are imposed. I assumed it had to be done by an admin. Martindo (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Martindo actual sanctions can only be imposed by an Admin, yes. You got an alert, which anyone can give. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. See my participation on the Noticeboard you were kind enough to set up. Martindo (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Totalitarianism Page

Hello sir do you feel like something needs to be done there? In the last month we have almost 10 suspected sockpuppets beginning with DaEditorz and followed by unregistered ips that have continued to remove this top sourced information which includes Oxford and Princeton. Its obvious the addition of Lenin is simply against their own opinion and bias but they are even removing the sentence about mussolini. I requested page protection and to my surprise it was denied.Foorgood (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Foorgood sorted but you absolutely must tone it down, you are too confrontational and it doesn't help you in discussions. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you and i apologize sir you are correct i will do that i just hope more of the suspected sock puppets dont return.Foorgood (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
i forgot to mention this was the other suspected sock but is there a way for you to check? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.35.72.233Foorgood (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

For you as well

Doug, I just wanted to let you that what I said here applies to you too. You are an incredible human being and I have been so fortunate to get to listen to your Song through this community and project. I hope you are well and if you are struggling I wanted you to know that someone is thinking about you in this moment and pouring the entirety of themselves into those thoughts hoping to provide continued strength, encouragement and love to you. --ARoseWolf 14:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Typo in your ping

I replied to your ping, but I think you meant to ping Wickey. I also just received a threat about my commenting, so will have to be careful. Being treated like a fringe editor with such a threat is really chilling. I feel a bit nauseous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You replied, but didn't fix the ping. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'm not sure I have mentioned your battle with cancer. My condolences. It's tough. One gets to retirement age and one looks forward to a more relaxed life, and then this shit happens. I have just been through a prostate cancer scare, laser surgery, and series of 45 radiation treatments. So far so good. As one gets older, these dangers pop up in our path. My wife just got a breast cancer scare. She got a mammogram, and the result was good. Then she got called back, and that usually means they overlooked something scary. We got very worried while waiting for a time. So they did another one and she passed. Whew! It makes me think about preparations for clearing out of this life. I need to start cleaning up my records (most were burned in the fire) and otherwise making it simpler for my wife if she outlives me. I suspect you have similar thoughts, and I'd love to hear what you've learned about such things. Feel free to email me. I have never tried dying before, so it'll be a new experience for me. As an atheist, I think it will be a relief, ergo "the end" of all worries and troubles. The problem with it is for those left behind, and I want to make that easier. I'm not afraid of dying, but about the how of it. No suffering please. "Just leave that bottle of fentanyl on my bedside table." As a medical person, I have been around death a lot, handled hundreds of bodies, seen many people die (CPR can't save everyone), discussed the legal aspects of DNR, and have always joked about getting a large tattoo on my chest that says "CC & DNR". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I share a lot of your feelings, particularly about dying. And about my wife outliving me, but that might happen no matter what. Glad to hear she's ok. I've also got Parkinson's, but the symptoms aren't very serious. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DS alerts

Hey Doug and thanks for all the good stuff you do. It looks like you gave out a gensex DS alert to CheckersBoard despite their last alert in that area being in December 2021. Here's a nudge to double check the talk page history or alert log before posting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers agh, I thought Twinkle told me they hadn't had one. I usually check. Thanks. I gave it because they clearly are unhappy with today's attitudes. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they have some ... challenging approaches to that topic area. Can you use Twinkle for DS alerts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers yes and for community sanctions, but if you want to do several I think doing it by hand is better. Twinkle has a lot of nice bits. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

note re editing activities

Hello there! I thought I might just pop round and introduce myself, and say hello. I have known your name for a while; mainly from your work at Ten Lost Tribes. it appears that you and I are the top two editors there in terms of quantity of edits. anyway,. I've seen your work here and there for a while, so I thought I would come around and introduce myself. it is nice to see all your activities here. feel free to be in touch any time. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900 That's very kind. Ang thanks for your work there. Note I just started chemo, 3 months so towards the end I may vanish for a while. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
ok, friend. I hope you have all blessings, and a full and a speedy recovery. sending you my most positive vibes, and heartfelt deepest good wishes. glad to be in touch. see you. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Can't imagine

Doug, I am truly happy to see you having the energy and will to keep up your presence on Wiki during chemo, taking it as a sign that there's light at the end of the tunnel. I wish you the very best, and please know that people who only know you from your work here did manage to some degree to get an idea of you as a person beyond the editor's persona, and that we're deeply hoping to have you around, in good health, for many years to come. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Written like a true Wikipedia editor. Even though I could not express the sentiments better, I can still at least endorse them, maybe making them stronger by doing it. I wish you strength and courage. warshy (¥¥) 15:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ark Encounter

Hello,

I thought wiki articles were to be free from bias? My edit was reverted because I stated that /some people consider/ young Earth creationism to be pseudoscience. That is a much more humble approach as opposed to suggesting it is pseudoscience without defense or question.

Whether or not you feel it was constructive or not - my statement eliminated the clear bias of it being pseudoscience. Why is that statement even allowed in an article about the Ark Encounter? I'd be fine if the term "pseudoscience" was removed as it adds nothing to someone actually learning about the Ark Encounter. Do you feel that this wiki should have something unrelated to the article added to it without a clarification statement? CJTechProf (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Your edit was inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the bluntness of my previous comment. I saw where you are going through chemo and it looks like you are just trying to do your job. I dont want to add any more stress to you in your situation. However, I do ask you to at least consider whether the term "pseudoscience" should be used in the article at all. If so, why do you feel it should remain without some sort of qualification statement? Wouldnt that be a better display of neutrality in the article? CJTechProf (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yamla We need some sort of newusers guide to WP:NPOV. @CJTechProf did you read WP:FRINGE? Doug Weller talk 12:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Test - I published a reply and don't see it on here now. CJTechProf (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@CJTechProf You must not have saved it. It's all there in my talk page history:
curprev 13:37, May 28, 2022‎ CJTechProf talk contribs block‎ 7,315 bytes +146‎ No edit summaryrollback: 1 editundothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
curprev 13:19, May 28, 2022‎ Doug Weller talk contribs block‎ 7,169 bytes +257‎ →‎Ark Encounter: Reply undo Tags: Reply Source
curprev 13:16, May 28, 2022‎ CJTechProf talk contribs block‎ 6,912 bytes +555‎ No edit summaryundothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
curprev 13:05, May 28, 2022‎ Yamla talk contribs block‎ 6,357 bytes +124‎ →‎Ark Encounter undothank
curprev 13:04, May 28, 2022‎ CJTechProf talk contribs block‎ 6,233 bytes +831‎ →‎Ark Encounter: new section undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Doug Weller talk 13:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm - did you get the YouTube link and AiG link? I see all the other posts. Thanks for your time, Doug. CJTechProf (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@CJTechProf no, but I don't see the point of them. Whatever they say, it's still pseudoscience and we are a mainstream encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

After reading fringe, I better understand it is more about minority vs majority view that needs to be made clear. Could something other than the term "pseudoscience" satisfy that though? "Science" means "knowledge." And there are good points of knowledge that suggest our universe and Earth are way younger than is commonly believed. A minority view doesn't necessarily suggest "incorrect" while "pseudoscience" does. Or do you feel that establishing the contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints merits usage of the term since the mainstream viewpoint believes it to be pseudoscience?

Here is a taste of a non-Christian source in regards to a global flood in our recent history: youtu.be/EhRaZZCxBLk - posting a YouTube video because this is an under researched hypothesis that these two men deal with.

And, while I understand the beginning of this article will likely be disagreed with, try to overlook the bias and skip to the 10 best reasons to believe the Earth is young: answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/

I suppose at this point I am petitioning for the removal of the term pseudoscience (if allowed within the rules as stated by Fringe), and replaced with something like ("note: this is a minority viewpoint and is considered to be incorrect by the majority.") That takes the connotation away that this view is /definitely/ wrong, and still seems like it could fulfill the spirit and intent of the Fringe rule.

Thanks for your time, Doug. I pray for a speedy recovery for you! CJTechProf (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There - it had an issue with full URLs it seems. CJTechProf (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a complete non-starter. You are free to believe what you believe, but this is a fringe viewpoint and is pseudoscience. You will not get consensus for pushing that fringe viewpoint here on Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Pre Asoka Brahmi claims

Hi if you could please keep an eye on the 'Tamil Inscriptions' page and 'Sinhala language' page. Both these regions have made fringe claims of 6th century BC Brahmi which are absolutely impossible dates. I know the main Brahmi page has been kept free of these fringe dates, but the 'Tamil Inscriptions' page is in a complete mess at the moment with unscientific claims of Brahmi predating the 3rd century BC. I think an experienced Wiki editor needs to police these pages. Thank you..Metta79 (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Metta79 I've asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology. I don't have the time and am having chemotherapy. And made sure they are on my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Evidence have been provided for said article

I have provided evidence for that article. You on the other side did not. I request you to provide evidence if not I want my editing right back. This sound racist since other articles can be edited I did the same and have been blocked. I want my editing rights back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSenegal (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, racist? Nope, not until you show you can work with others. You've got the opportunity to convince other editors on the talk page, and you've had other warnings. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

AfriForum page

Hi, It seems your bot automatically reverted my edit. Please inform what is not neutral. I am trying to create a better lead paragraph. Please reply, kind regards Rossouw (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dumbassman I don’t have a bot. Read WP:NPOV and make your case on the talk page. I’m guessing that our policy and your concept of neutrality differ. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, apologies I just saw MusikBot II and made an assumption. I don't care enough about the article to argue for neutrality, but this article is horrible at the moment and not worth of Wikipedia. Cheers Rossouw (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sock

You have warned the sock at [19]. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrujsh. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

  • New library partner - SPIE
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Closing a requested move

Would you please close this requested move?

I notified the main project[20] on 17 May and I relisted it[21] on 24 May. So I think it's time to close it. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The totalitarianism sock puppet returned

The one that was removing my edits on the totalitarianism page has actually made a new account to go and revert specifically my other edits on other pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:C6:CC00:22:BDBB:6E88:E0D5:3430Foorgood (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Foorgood blocked. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you sir its very strange because we settled the matter on the totalitarian page but weeks later he starts going into my edits from the past.Foorgood (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Prahlada image

Hi - need help. There is a File:Prahlada.jpg on wikipedia; however need to link to commons:File:Prahlada.jpg in infobox. How do I do it?--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz But they are different images and to use the Wikipedia one you need to satisfy Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to use the commons image on wikipedia infobox of Prahlada; however unable to use it in the infobox. Using "image=Prahlada.jpg" links to local image, how do we link to the commons article. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz Ask at Wikipedia:Help desk as I don't kn ow. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thx :) Redtigerxyz Talk 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A

But this is beni Israel! The source doesn't say that Beta Israel are similar to western India it is about the Beni Israel 2A00:A040:181:ADEF:CEC:B885:C181:E2EC (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

What can I say? It mentions both, I don't see anything to do about that. The earlier version misrepresented the source. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Some help

look Doug, I'm scared man. i come here to do some editing and what not and i'm getting reverted and you and dave come on my talk page. i'm scared of you doug. I need some help man and some assurances cos if you do this again then i don't know what to do. i just come here to edit. please assure me you'll not do this again man. we can always go our separate ways after all the internet is a big place. comprende? i guess they do it a little different over there. cheers bud. Willbb234 18:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Willbb234 Agh. I wrote a reply thinking you were new, but you are pretty experienced. And you seem to be a pretty good editor. But threatening someone in an edit summary, bad idea. Especially if you are editing in contentious areas, which you are. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for IP Block Exeption

Hello. I have been blocked for a day or two by a bot awhile ago... with some explanation about IP address issue or something like that. An admin reviewed my unblock request and suggested that I request for IP Block Exeption . I have sent this same request to Cabayi as well as sending an email.

My IP address is 41.223.74.157 when I'm not logged in. And I can honestly state that I did not do anything wrong... it just came as a surprise that I couldn't edit for a period of time. While I am aware the block was just just temporary and it has since been lifted, it's very certain that I will encounter the same problem in future. Hope you will consider my request. Thanks Volten001 ☎ 06:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volten001 sorry to be slow, bad day for me. But this is something I've never done. See Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It's alright.. glad you responded. I've already sent an email to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org and hopefully someone will review my request. Thanks though... Volten001 ☎ 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

complaint

This troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Izzy_Borden Left a stalkerish nasty gram on my public IP address. This is a coffee shop. My coffee shop! Used by hundreds of customers daily. What little Wikipedia experience I have, it would appear ‘this person’ who trolled our public IP is being disruptive here and elsewhere. Bring it to your attention. K. Thx. Bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.0.76 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleting all of my edits on a specific article

Hi. Can I ask an admin to perform such action? Is it allowed/acceptable? --Mann Mann (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mann Mann If you mean Wikipedia:Revision deletion so other editors can't see them, not unless they meet the criteria. Why don't you want to delete them? Doug Weller talk 10:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to delete them because I don't want to see that specific article in my top edited pages anymore. e.g. 10 edits on article XYZ => 0 edit on article XYZ. --Mann Mann (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Can't do it. You can, and that will add to the number of edits for that page, which you don't want. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Cheers. --Mann Mann (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yoruba Topics

Hi, my name is Otelemuyen, the author and general overseer of all Yoruba-tagged topics as it relates to the Yoruba Members Page here on Wikipedia. Feel free to check out all our pages, our authors, contributors and monitors.

Without sounding out of pocket, it’s probably best you go and check the history of the said article.

Firstly, as an authority in this field, it was me who authored the said article.

It was a fellow publisher who alerted me to the changes made to the article.

Apart from the fact that the changes that corrected were minor, wrong, absurd and completely and utterly out of place, neither of those edits went through due process.

Due process being a discussion on this the talk page, tagging me and or other contributors to the article ( all these contributors are listed on the “Yoruba Group members page).

Secondly, could you kindly provide the justification for the inclusion of those edits.

Let’s talk about those absurd inclusions into an article that is being monitored and updated by active Yoruba Group Members, one of whom is texting you right now.

Furthermore, anyone attempting to edit any of the articles under our jurisdiction ought to be aware that they need to put their thoughts in the talk page first and then we can discuss. The absence of such process can only be considered vandalism.

Otelemuyen (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Otelemuyen (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is regarding the edits I made on one of my pages. I.e Yoruba Religion. Otelemuyen (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Otelemuyen: On Wikipedia, there is no such thing as an overseer of a topic. Please see WP:OWN, and make sure that you do as it says there. You can monitor edits to pages that interest you by using your watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Im not here to argue with you or anyone else regarding anything over inconsequential banter, again, the discussion here is regarding the edits made on one of the pages i’m responsible for its publication in the first instance.

Assuming you want to discuss the content than the talk page of the said topic is meant to be put to good use. Otelemuyen (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Otelemuyen (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Contributors need to be able to explain their views regarding article content on the article talk page. It should be obvious that no one is an "author and general overseer" at Wikipedia but you could ask at WP:Teahouse if wanting to discuss that issue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Editor went to ANI, boomerang, now blocked for 1 month following additional abuse of talk page. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Ọrunmila

Your recent edits to some sources have left the page with a cite tag that is broken. It is hard to follow what you have done as you made a series of edits rather than one edit. Can you please check it out and see if you can fix the tag? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh already fixed, but thanks for letting me know as I might not have caught it. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you for your prompt attention. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

European Colonization of the Americas My last revision is not a revert, only a new compromise solution to avoid an edit war. Is DeCausa getting this notice or just me? Are you an administrator? I am trying to come up with a better way of phrasing the facts here. My last edit was definitely not a simple revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You’ve been reverting on that article for months. Yes, you didn’t revert that time, but the warning is just that, a warning. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

European Colonization of the Americas Why did you revert my revision. Why was it not a good one? How come you and DeCausa can bully me around? This should be mediated or arbitrated. I assume that you are an administrator. You are not being fair here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No bullying, but plenty of false accusations from you. Neither of us had a clue about who you were, your nationality, disability, etc, so we weren't discriminating against you. We don't tell people to look at articles, you didn't even link it, it's in see also in any case, and the lead refers to settler colonies twice. You made massive deletions a while back and should probably have been blocked then. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

IP 2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5

Hi Doug. You partially blocked 2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5, but they now seem to have shifted their attention to the Tea House. I'm not sure, but their last post there is maybe indirectly referencing their interaction with you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thanks. Why they made the edits where I partially blocked I don't know given their ability to be much more verbose. I don't think they'll be a problem so I've unblocked. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

European Colonization of the Americas Mediation My goal is to become an administrator. I cannot do that with a block on my record. I need the block removed. I apologize for much of what I said, but you really did not realize all that was going on when militated to get me blocked. I am a 37-year old aspiring academic who faces discrimination and retaliation regularly in real life in academia and other walks of life for being disabled, Italian, and Catholic. I also have Non-Verbal Learning Disorder, which makes communicates online like this really hard. I had not been disruptive in the way you saw. I really was trying to compromise by changing one word. That got me in trouble. I cannot seem to edit any controversial articles without getting in trouble and that is frustrating. I cannot get the mental illness article changed. As a mentally disabled person who is not mentally ill, in an error where civil penalties against the mentally ill are going up, it is damaging to have, as that article does, an equation between mental disorder and mental illness made. If I cannot edit European Colonization of the Americas, how am I ever going to be able to edit that article. I have a proposed settlement for wording on settler colonialism. I wrote in on my talk page. Let us mediate this. We both made mistakes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Clayton Morris suggestions

Hi Doug,

I was wondering if you'd had a chance to review my edit request on the Clayton Morris talk page. I am interested in expanding the article and ensuring it adheres to NPOV and BLP.

I recognize your active editing and admin role, and your participation in the discussion on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard.

I'd value your input and look forward to your help in making these changes.

Warmly,

Lindsey — Preceding unsigned comment added by LabradoriteRocks (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Invite to comment

Hi Doug, Thank you for your feedback on my contributions earlier. I appreciate you taking the time to do so and on self-reflection and after reading multiple Wikipedia policies I must admit I have room for improvement. I am striving to be more collaborative.

As I embark on this journey, I would like you to please leave your comments at Talk:WikiIslam. I have suggested a few edits to the lede.

NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Patriot Front

I'm beginning o think that we need to deal with Patriot Front apologists and their weird attempts at plausible deniability/false flag assertions according to NONAZIs. Nobody is making those claims in good faith, and they serve the same narrative of un-personing their targeted groups that NONAZIs confronts. Acroterion (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion Sounds good to me. I'm off to chemo shortly and may not be active much, although if the wifi works I may be online some during the 2 hours+ I'm at the hospital. Once home I'm probably having dinner and tv. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
After chemo, dinner and TV seem like the best choice, rather than little Nazis. Best wishes, Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Aisha

Please explain your revert. What "sourced text" was removed? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam The paragraph about uncertainty over her age. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Which of the lines that were removed by me needed to stay? Which of the supporting sources did pass RS?
Long story short, a preponderance of Islamic sources agree that she was married at a very young age (<8) and the marriage was consummated upon her reaching sexual maturity, which was at about nine to ten. As is very obvious, these were not outlier norms in a large part of the world at that time and to impose our anachronistic moral judgements is ridiculous.
It was only in the early twentieth century that Christian polemicists started to made an issue of this (see Brown (2014)); even prior to that, Muhammad's (alleged) lust in dreams etc. have been subject of polemics but never the particulars of age. Obviously, Hindu communalists (Arya Samaj etc.) in S. Asia were not far behind either. At the same time, Egypt etc. were trying to strengthen laws against child-marriage only to come across neo-conservative Muslims who weaponized Muhammad's life to argue that they shall be allowed to marry five year old girls. Thus, multiple Muslim scholars, often backed by states, become involved in "discovering" ways to "sanitize" aspects of Muhammad's life that were unpalatable to our modern-day senses - it served two goals simultaneously. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam I didn’t see your edit at all and thought I was reverting the other editor, I’ve reverted back to your version. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah - I understand now. No worries! TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Language status tagging again

Hi, Doug. Drawing your attention to Special:Contributions/1.126.105.219, the latest contributions by the hasty poster of language status graphics (and now categories) by the 1.126.105.* user who you'd already blocked under 1.126.105.119. Largoplazo (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo Blocked but can you take it to ANI as I’m going to bed. Thanks Doug Weller talk 20:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Meonwara, Jutes etc

Hi Doug. Long time time since we last had words. Hope that you are OK?

We seem to have a problem mainly in the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms project with an editor who has given us a bit of headache with their editing. They have probably done more than 1000 edits over about 49 articles. They have achieved this by misusing OR/SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY and WP:OLDSOURCES, or sources such as wiktionary! Some of us have tried to mentor them but it seems to fall on deaf ears. The main areas intially were on Meonwara and Wihtwara but seems to be anything to do with things Jutish, including modern towns and villages. The editor started as an IP 2603:6010:de3d:3ff6:8c5e:f8c6:adac:6194 but now uses Ovid99. It is not really straightforward vandalism. There is an ongoing discussion on theAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms project page. Any suggestions? Regards. Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wilfridselsey sort of ok, but tired right now, read some of the posts above about my cancer. I think ANI is going to be the only answer and said that there. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Thanks for the suggestion. I am really sorry to hear about your cancer. All the very best. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Patriot Front article

Doug,
The sole reference to patriotfront.com on the article about them fails miserably to balance all the other citations that paint the group in ugliness.
I started reading the wiki article and got the impression that Patriot Front would be nazi-tattooed skinheads with baseball bats, frozen urine bottles, body armor, bike locks, chains, and such like Antifa, with a history of arson, assaults, vandalism, and violence but all I found were mamby pamby actions like counter protesting, disseminating flyers, and putting up stickers. Compare the tone of this article with the Antifa one and the bias is obvious. The Antifa article even includes content that defends the movement. Not so the much less violent Patriot Front article. I think the heavy use of left-of-center sources in the Patriot Front article skews it.
I'd hate to see Wikipedia reduced to nothing more than another political propaganda machine! This is not the path for the platform to earn credibility in the world of academia.
Thanks!
Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richwilkinson (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not Doug but as I'm sure he'll tell you, discussions about content disputes need to happen with a broader audience, so discuss it on the talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Richwilkinson That’s right I’m not discussing it here. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

okay gesture

greetings: i have replied on the article talk page. aside from the misuse of the accessdate parameter, i stand by my edit and request that it be restored using the correct parameter for the archive link, or the prose corrected to reflect the change in the ADL statement. .usarnamechoice (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

But there’s a revised version now and that’s what we should use. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

June 23, 2022. Important Notice.

Thank you for adding a section on my Wikipedia (talk page). I see that you have been adding false claims. This behavior is strongly discouraged on user pages. Please remove these claims. Thanks in advance.

Specific false claim - "You have shown interest in abortion."

--The Impartial Truth (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

“ There's a litany of groups that oppose abortion but never are they labeled hate groups solely for opposition to abortion. The Impartial Truth (talk) 7:13 pm, Today (UTC+1)” Doug Weller talk 19:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm telling you I have no interest in abortion and a reply to a reply in a talk section about the SPLC labeling a type of group a hate group is patently not an interest in abortion. This does not even by a stretch hold up to any reasonable standard. In all I have ever written on Wikipedia the word abortion was never used once before today. This is targeted harassment by an authority figure. I am requesting a non-involved and not partial admin to review the actions of Doug Weller. I will do so formally as well. The Impartial Truth (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely unacceptable behavior for an administrator. The Impartial Truth (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@The Impartial Truth, this is a boilerplate message that can and generally should be delivered to anybody whose edits suggest that they might be subjected to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion rules. It doesn't really mean you're have a genuine "interest" in this subject. It means that you edited something that is at least vaguely related to this subject, and we wanted to warn you that other people have behaved badly around this subject in the past, so you can protect yourself.
Also: Doug didn't actually write that, so you need to quit blaming him for it. The same wording is used for all the subjects. If you don't like the wording, then you should go to Template:Ds/alert, figure out some wording that you think would be better, propose your better wording at Template talk:Ds. When everyone pitches in, we all benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
^Those are very good points. And I'll add that, if you really aren't making any edits about abortion, then you have zero chance of facing any problems about it. Please just understand it as a boilerplate message that does not imply any wrongdoing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Oath keepers general dump

Could you please review the links you posted, source code and all? Maybe you posted the wrong one? This is what I see from my end: "How the far-right group ‘Oath Enforcers’ plans to harass political enemies" (2021). SamuelRiv (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv “As for sovereign citizens, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/06/far-right-group-oath-enforcers this.
As an aside, interesting statement https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/04/american-civil-war-january-6-capitol/ here about Oath Keepers having "effectively infiltrated police forces and the Republican Party." Doug Weller talk 19:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Right. The article is about "Oath Enforcers", starring a completely different founder guy with completely different opinions in a different state, and formulated online. The word "keeper" never appears in the article. The "oath" they refer to is a different oath than that of OK. My hope was that you would review the link instead of just copy-and-pasting from Talk. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Why? I was pointing out that the foreignpolicy.com article talks about the OK infiltrating. I was wrong about the Guardian article, that seems obvious and I didn't think I needed to point it out. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I also address the FP article in the main thread. I neglected to mention that it's not an FP editorial piece but rather an excerpt from a 2022 book. I was curious what his basis was for claiming that OK had infiltrated, so I looked it up. In the book itself he only mentions OK once as a background item in a fictional anecdote, once in a list of far-right movements, and a couple times in a section where he explores a Prepper conference. The part about infiltration only talks about "hard right" groups (he uses that term instead of far-right for whatever reason) in general, and specifically in sourcing to interviews about white supremacists. In fact, when he discusses the potential problem of infiltration, he specifically says that the military is more reliable for institutional security because of their oaths. The same oaths that OK proclaims as their raison d'etre. So the FP article can't be used to support a claim of OK infiltration because it only mentions it in passing, and the book that it's based can't be used because it frankly doesn't support the idea that OK are infiltrating at all. I'm sure there's plenty of OK-types who are in the GOP and police, but that's an extreme claim that needs to be backed up with actual sourceable material. Are you beginning to see the problem that we're having with responsible sourcing in general?
Incidentally, regarding fake news, that selective use of facts can be used to tell lies is no reason to reject the demand that all facts in (especially political) articles be verifiable. Lies can be used just as effectively to tell lies. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@SamuelRiv No, I am not beginning to see the problem. That happened more than a decade ago. You know the old saying about grandmothers and eggs. I simply posted an interesting url to see if it was at all useful. Turns out it isn't and I've never argued that it is. But it is/was always possible that editors might see it and find more useful stuff than a one sentence statement. Have you looked? Doug Weller talk 09:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, what happened more than a decade ago?
I dunno, in general when I browse WP and see a weak-ish-looking statement I check the citation, and sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's not. But in this case it was about as bad as it gets, and in the lead no less. I decided also to check some random citations in the article as well, and most of those were bad in some fashion too. So this brick wall that I hit immediately on removing unsourced content, is, actually tbf, to be expected as part of the overall dysfunction that has allowed this to happen. But I'm still frustrated. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It happens. Worse is when people have added stuff to a source that isn't in the source, sometimes completely changing it. Or the source has been moved away from the text it backs, that happens too often. All I meant is that I've been dealing with sources for well over a decade and have a pretty good idea what is reliable, what is UNDUE, etc. As I said, I didn't expect that to be enough to show that OK members infiltrated, although I'm sure they do. Or often don't have to as they are there anyway. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing archive information from citations

Please stop removing archive information from citations, as you did here and here. See WP:DEADREF for further explanation. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Locke Cole So even when the link is live, not dead, it should still have an archive? I disagree. Did I miss where it says that you should keep archives for live links? Doug Weller talk 15:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole This wasn't the case here, but I'd also argue that if an organisation has removed an article we shouldn't use it in any case, archive or no. There may be exceptions of course, there usually are. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
That's a separate discussion, and there may already be a guideline or policy on it that I just haven't found yet. Regardless, I suspect the distinction here is important: was it removed or was it simply stale/old (site is down, or organization is defunct and the website was no longer maintained). The archive is proof that the site did say something at that point in time. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
And just to flesh that out more, I suspect there likely isn't any guideline on archived sources being used in live articles. I expect it's context dependent to some extent, if we're using it in a history section of an article to note that a topic was covered a certain way during a certain point in time, I would expect an archived source to be acceptable. If it's documenting something a website eventually retracted or corrected would be another such acceptable case for an archive URL to be allowable. Basically, it's very likely a case-by-case basis depending on what the archive citation is being used to source. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
First paragraph of WP:DEADREF (edited for clarity) To help prevent dead links, persistent identifiers are available for some sources. ... [C]onsider archiving the referenced document when writing the article; on-demand web archiving services such as the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/save) or archive.today (https://archive.today) are fairly easy to use (see pre-emptive archiving). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole missed that. My example about not using archives is an article where the ADL revised an article on the OK gesture 3 times. There'd have to be a good reason not to use only the current version, eg another reliable source commenting on it. Saying that in x yr they said this, then change it to this other thing, and now they say x would look like a commentary.
Anyway, sorry I missed that bit. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"Consider archiving" means "Consider leaving Wikipedia and going to some other website to tell them to make a copy of the source you cited." It does not mean that these URLs are required.
User:InternetArchiveBot adds archive URLs automatically. It also has a tendency to declare working websites to be dead. I believe its (paid) developers take the view that, in case of doubt, they should err on the side of adding as many links to their website as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing thanks, again. Interesting and a bit concerning. Is the bot actually broken or are the errors unavoidable. @Locke Cole I may not often remove archive links but I shall certainly try to check when I can when the link is marked dead. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Both? They had some bugs (so "broken"), but I think some errors are unavoidable. Websites can detect some bots, and refuse to let them load the pages. Internet Archive in particular, and archiving sites in general, are blocked on some websites. And then there's just the usual problem of a website being unreachable for a moment, or unreachable from your country. If the bot is making a one-time check, and something goes wrong with its internet connection, it will mark the link as being permanently dead even when it's not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
These bots are pretty handy, iirc the devs are all long-time wiki editors, I don't think they have a [job] incentive to "add more links to their website" or that this would give them any in-house cred :) – SJ + 00:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Some people add archives with |url-status=live, see Special:Contributions/Rlink2 (Rlink2). A theory is that many URLs will become dead in the next few years so having a working archive link in advance is a good idea rather than relying on future gnomes to do the tedious work of finding a working archive link and adding it later. The problem with finding such an archive link is that if the site has, for example, been taken over by someone else, archives with the original information may be hard to locate. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq I only add archives when the link is dead, that does seem safer. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue it's actually better to archive before the link is dead so you can confirm the archive and the original are in agreement. As Johnuniq notes, sites can change ownership and if the site wasn't archived by a service, finding a replacement may be problematic. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'd love "retrieved on X" to ideally link to an archive as of X. Some sites also change significantly without going offline. Perhaps this could be done on demand w/o including an explicit link in the citation? I think IA implemented Memento, though Wikipedia never did, so one could automatically URL-hack "the Wayback URL for this resource, if it exists, from the time closest to this timestamp". – SJ + 00:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Citoid has the capacity to make every link "born archived", but that's a policy question not a technical one. Meanwhile, IABOT is archiving whatever the Wayback Machine tells it is dead and nothing more or less. (Disclosure: I currently am a paid advisor to Internet Archive). Ocaasi t | c 01:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hopeless

Re this, I’m not sure there’s any point. He’s seems too disengaged with reality. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa amazingly so. But I guess we can let him rant on this talk page, he's only proving why the block is necessary. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly don’t feel the need to “defend” myself. The issue is all too obvious, for everyone to see. DeCausa (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I just swung by this talk page to check you out @Doug Weller after our interaction over at the "Islam in Sweden" talk page. Ended up going to the link at the top and reading through nearly all of that user's talk page... what a doozy. Especially the parts where they say you and @DeCausa "set them up". I don't intend to be mean but... deluded and self-absorbed rants make for entertaining reads. Though not entertaining to deal with, I'm sure. MeadeIndeed (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    @MeadeIndeed Yes, they can be entertaining, I can't deny that. Not fun to deal with though as you say. I almost feel sorry for the poor guy. I suggested blanking and blocking him and others from his talk page, and that was done. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi, according to the bet.el. genetic study from 2010, the Ethiopan Jews are close related to the Semitic speaking Ethiopians rather than the chusite speaking. So why it in not mentioned here? David8374 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@David8374 what article? Doug Weller talk 12:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Question 2

Hi, did you read the link that I sent you? David8374 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@David8374 I haven't seen a link, what do you meant sent it to me? Doug Weller talk 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

D. James Kennedy Ministries edits

Hello,

I recognize I overstepped editorial bounds in characterizing the SPLC as a Left-of-center organization, though that label is easily verified by looking at their issues stance. However, the wholesale reversion you made overwrote much that is needed to make this entry current: 1) the reference to current leadership: Robert J. Pacienza is now President & CEO 2) the lawsuit has been denied a hearing by the Supreme Court. the last judgment is not from the U.S. Circuit court of Appeals 3) the current version is dated in references to SPLC founder (actually co-founder) Morris Dees and SPLC "President" Richard Cohen. Both left in 2019. I had made edits to that effect which were overwritten. 4) the treatment of the SPLC's allegations needs detail. 

           a) I cited the modest and dated basis for the hate group charge, which is pertinent and belongs.
           b) the SPLC's status as a controversial organization is of note, I would think, given their recent troubled history. It is addressed at the SPLC's own entry. Why not here? 
           c) The "hate group charge" is incendiary but also highly contestable. It does not merit a second sentence mention in the entry. Rather, it belongs in the section addressing the lawsuit where it can be presented with qualifying information.

I will make a few of the above remedial edits and look forward to your responds.

thanks, Wikieditorjpa (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wikieditorjpa leadership, ok. Put the rest on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Hello DW. I wanted to let you know about this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting User who made false accusations against another User Hopefully it will be closed or even removed by the time you see this. Best regards and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been removed as block evasion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Quick CU

I am certain that CU-ing Tusk245 will lead to something interesting. Their first edit cites HISTRS and I am being pinged in almost every edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See the history of Athgarh State, which appears to have spurred this pointy disruption. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam I can't use CU to fish, I'd need more. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
To expand upon the history of Athgarh State, the primary contributor (AuthenticSources2546) was blocked for CIR issues, copyvio etc. It seems to have little practical effect since an IP editor with uncannily similar language has continued to edit the page.
Yesterday, a third editor restored my edits by reverting the IP editor; note the edit-summary in particular. Less than a hour later, a newbie account popped up whose first edit was to another princely state citing the same edit-summary but in mangled English. The account went on to make about a hundred similar edits covering numerous princely states writing versions of the same edit-summary and pinging me in every single edit. I had received 55 pings before I muted them. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Blocked. Now I have to do some admin (lowercase) work, damn it. Tomorrow will do. But I'm not reverting, you can do that if needed. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 4 July 2022 (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.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A rough draft, per salamander images!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_62&oldid=1109732109"