![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
The automated message doesn't say and I made several recently. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfieldman ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: I found what you changed. What I wrote was accurate and there are good sources out there, but I don't know them off the top of my head and I don't have time to find them. If you wouldn't mind leaving it in with a "needs citation" tag, that would be great. If not, I understand. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfieldman ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S.:
What is a "sock puppet" and a "sock edit" or "sock ediitor"? Of course I know what a sock puppet is, as I used to make them for my kids when they were little. I still have one around her someplace. But this must be jargon exclusive to Wikipedia. I thank you in advance. Sciacchitano ( talk) 05:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Heir Doctor Weller:
Thanks for your several comments on my editing.
I do my best but I find Wikipedia a rather difficult outfit, partly because I find some of the requirements less than comprehensible, and partly because in some ways they are arbitrary, and while perhaps seemingly logical to the person who made them up, they are not logical to me, or easy to remember for that reason. Nevertheless, I apologize for any omissions or errors, and assure you they have been inadvertent.
FYI, I have a particular peeve regarding photographs. I have several times had objections to my posting of my own photographs, in one case because I had already placed the offending photo online elsewhere (a personal page on a photo website). This being discovered, I was asked to give myself permission to publish my own photo in order for it to be acceptable to Wikipedia. This reminds me of the story told by Will Rogers about being asked by a bureaucrat for his birth certificate. He replied that where he came from, if a fellow was standing in front of you, you kind of assumed he had been born. Needless to say, I didn't bother. If I can't post my own photos on Wiki, then so be it. It had no substantive effect on the article in question.
I often find it too bothersome to make fixes, unless for an article which I have authored or changed substantially, and just let them drop if a robot or editor makes some objection or demand. For instance, with the article on Dudley Tucker, where I supposedly plagiarized something (I have no idea what, as I only read your note to me this evening and I hardly remember anything about the edits I made), my initial inclination was to let it go. I do remember that I made some corrections on the Tucker article, which I felt made it more readable, and I had to look up some sources on Tucker to make sure my changes didn't make the article less accurate. I noticed today that someone (you perhaps) had re-written what I wrote, to the effect that it still contains the same information I had added (to the best of my recollection) while being at least as readable, and apparently without plagiarizing, which I doubt that I did. So mission accomplished from my point of view.
But no point in beating a dead horse. I use Wiki a lot, but almost never look at my Talk pages unless I am doing some editing or writing and notice a complaing or comment there. Not very professional, I know, but then I am not a professional.
I hereby cross my heart and promise to do better in the future, however, and as far as possible not to trouble you another time. My activities on Wiki are only aimed at improvement and informing your readers. See any of my contributions or talk comments for examples. Cheers to you, and I appreciate you and those of your colleagues who work so hard to make Wikipedia a decent, accurate, and informative product. Sciacchitano ( talk) 04:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
User:40.133.5.206 has been warned three times of the consequences of their persistent vandalism at Haiku. Would a warning suspension as promised be in order? Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 17:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. This account ( Hoze.hamar ( talk · contribs) on En WP) belongs to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. He's stale on En WP, but disrupts the description of an specific image on Wikimedia Commons [1]. See his edits. I have explained the details on the talk page of that page. How can I report him? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 19:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Lewis is a preexisting source of this Wiki page - do I need to write it out fully?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsarlls ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
mw.wikibase.getAllStatements
Lua function in addition to the existing getBestStatements
, that returns all statements regardless of their rank (
phabricator:T176124)about this: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sinsearach#Sodom_and_Gomorrah_.E2.80.8E_original_research
and yet, right there in the next paragraph is a sentence that relies on nothing EXCEPT a passage of scripture from the same site I linked. :( Sinsearach ( talk) 22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
WHAT IS THIS: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sinsearach#October_2017 I didnt do any such thing! You got the wrong guy :(((((( I have never even seen that page! Who were you trying to message? Sinsearach ( talk) 22:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Any reason for the silence?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsarlls ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dalai Lama. Legobot ( talk) 04:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether to call this incident a terrorist or terror attack has been previously discussed on this article's talkpage (see this discussion and this discussion) Is it necessary according to WP's rules/guidelines to cite a source stating that Kehoe's acts were a terrorist attack, perhaps that Kehoe was a terrorist, or does the Category rely on editorial consensus? Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 13:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I want to confirm your impression that User:Niele~enwiki was indeed voting for a different template (which is the Syria war map). Also, I want to note that I have clarified things with User:xaosflux, who has now added the comment: “If there is no use for data on this (template) … then deleting as orphaned is fine by me.” Would you be able to put in a “delete” vote along with your comment? I am afraid that the discussion might be confusing to the admin trying to close it. Thanks. Tradedia talk 03:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you can help me out. JavierNF96 has been lately changing the map in the Spanish Empire article. I've made my own map for it and edited it on to the article yesterday. But he keeps on changing it back to a (in my own opinion) more inaccurate map with really vague color codes. I'm trying to make the map JUST be a map of only the Spanish empire without the claimed territories, Habsburg dominions, and Dynastic unions.
Which one do you think is better in your opinion? Thanks. Empirecoins ( talk) 12:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out problem with current ideocracies section. Now corrected.
Europe and US now placed in 'Potential future ideocracies' section, is this OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawiki ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Squads of them being created here- and sometimes older ones being removed. What do you think? Johnbod ( talk) 01:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Doug, Its not clear to me why you left a notice on my page.-- Jane955 ( talk) 13:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.
You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
mw.wikibase.getLabelByLang
Lua function will be added (
phabricator:T173262)mw.wikibase.sitelink
Lua function will accept a second parameter with the global identifier of a wiki (e.g. "enwiki") to link to (
phabricator:T142903)In case you weren't already aware of this, thought you'd find this article informative. Or at least amusing. Rockypedia ( talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
By chance I have reviewed your admin interactions with some WP editors, blocked and active alike, and I keep being amazed by your equanimity and civility when dealing with them, that is with us. Zezen ( talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) |
I was curious about why my edit was greyed in the history after I said James Watson was harassed by Marxist activists and I found this:
Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Due to its potential, use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or Arbcom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool.
The emphasis is in the original. I guess this doesn't apply here. Perhaps you can explain whether this applies and why or not. Just out of curiosity. Rupert the Frog ( talk) 13:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Biswajeet34 is now defending his case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#EdJohnston warn me to block me. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. I've reverted what appeared to be peculiar edits at the user talk namespace template messages. Since I remember of an LTA (from Poland I think) often messing with these, I wondered if these new templates were not trolling (in case this can avoid the trouble of filing three MfDs). The templates are: {{ Uw-veil}}, {{ Uw-veilfinal}} and {{ Uw-veilim}}. PROD appears to not be for templates, I didn't find an obviously fitting CSD criteria... And I'm not sure if this is in any way related to the LTA I was talking about (user is TomBarker23). It's strange when a new user boldly edits such areas and puts a bite warning on their talk page. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This is just FYI -- I'm not saying anything needs done, but I noticed that an editor at Canaan (son of Ham) is discussed in the most recent entries at the bottom of Talk:Esau. Just so you know what you might be dealing with here. Alephb ( talk) 00:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Top right corner, there is a big box titled "Celtic Mythology".---- 217.248.11.88 ( talk) 15:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Numerous users are persistently adding "under God" to pre-1954 versions of the Pledge of Allegiance (United States). Will you please lock the article to prevent that? Maybe registered users could still edit, as it's mostly--but not entirely--IPs that are creating the problem. Or maybe block the vandals? (There's a note, "This text matches the reference. Vandalism will be reverted back to the original text.") Thanks for your attention, YoPienso ( talk) 23:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Done by EdJohnston. Thanks--
YoPienso (
talk)
15:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A few accounts and jumping IPs have emerged around certain Punjabi/Punjab-related topics, all of which are directly restoring the edits of User:Peeta Singh (PS), who was topic banned from this area of editing and further indefinitely banned for socking with User:Singh Azad.
It seems that even after a block the user is still around expecting us to keep going in circles. Is there anything that can be done to remedy this situation? Regards, -- Salma Mahmoud ( talk) 11:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug - if possible, can you intercede again on the Brutus of Troy article? That anonymous user will not stop edit warring and removing perfectly accurate, sourced material from a respected scholar. Cagwinn ( talk) 03:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
Did I really use the word amnesty?
Could you offer any advice as to how Tatelyle and/or Ellis can continue to participate in the discussion at The Exodus without being subject to immediate blockage?and you replied
Ellis can continue to participate on the talk page but clearly has a conflict of interest about his works.Bishonen said
I regard the old 2006 account, Ralphellis, as abandoned and defunct; no account should be blocked as a sock of that, eleven years later. I'd encourage the user to continue using the account Ralfellis.
Why do you believe his claims in the face of the evidence?
How does his excuse for using multiple usernames in 2010 hold water?
I've never used my Admin tools on any of his socks.
As for his claim that his edits are all within policy, many, possibly most of Tatelyle's edits were unsourced, ie original research, which as you know is banned by policy.
Perhaps he should have been read his Miranda rights before questioning: Although the WMF is a non-profit organization, its resources are private property (although the content is licensed for reuse in many ways). When a user is blocked, no loss of physical liberty occurs or anything that dramatic. It only technically protects the private property from abuse (which is also legal by all means). Editing Wikipedia is not a right but a privilege which can be rightfully removed. — Paleo Neonate – 04:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
He was just lucky not to get blocked for the Tatelyle sock puppetry, about which he was and still is being deceitful (the claim that he has a brother Ralf). You think it's fine to create socks, the community emphatically does not. Go ahead, take Alephb to ANI and see where you get. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I remembered the article that I tried to remove Brigitte Gabriel from - when I first started editing ARBPIA I saw she was quoted in the Zionism article in the Christian Zionism section. I didn't know anything about WP:SYNTH back then, and I don't really feel like fighting over its removal now. There is a lot of productive work I have wanted to get done, that I have not been able to do, because of issues like this. Bat Yeor is another case - she is not an academic, she doesn't hold an academic position, she does not even have a college degree but we use her as a source for statements about the Ottoman legal system. The difficulty and level of specialization of the topic alone should be enough to treat this source as suspect. She's been acknowledged as an "expert" by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and she is in the same group as these other polemical authors. The fact that other editors I had respect for are acting on their own prejudices without even looking into whether my complaint has merit and are unable to give a reasonable and predictable response to my complaint (which is a serious and not frivolous complaint about bias in Wikipedia), is enough reason for me to retire. We are hypersensitive about some things and tell editors of other backgrounds that it is "not helpful" to talk about these issues, or even threaten them with retaliation. Cultural diversity and sensitivity training would help develop procedures and conduct guidelines that would make all persons feel as though their complaints are being taken seriously. That is the acceptable norm of conduct for any institution of significance in 2017. Seraphim System ( talk) 16:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, and as per the terms of the ban, I have not, and will not violate it. Ban: "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" As you can see, the ban was only to the article and talk page, not to ANY pages beyond those or ANY topic discussions.
Do you wish to change the terms and conditions of this ban? Please advise, but currently I'm being harassed by Darkness Shines and that is my immediate concern. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I was posting the following and got an edit conflict. "You actually have to respect the ban, but I'll ask DS to stay away from your talk page." I'd have been happier if you hadn't added the last bit you added about DS.. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug Your suggestion: 'change the article Atheism to state that it's a religion...'. Well that's a great idea, but I assume that you'll just revert it. Why don't you instead address the fact that most contemporary and past scientific leaders consistently refer to the miraculous as a necessary factor in their discoveries? I know your point of view is that there are no miracles, but hey, point of view isn't allowed in Wikipedia, is it? There is plenty of evidence in the literature attesting to marvellous, miraculous events / things. The giraffe's 'Rede Mirabilus' is a case in point: it means miraculous net (of blood vessels). In short, if you think it is the proper, logical, reasonable path, I shall indeed change the topic atheism to a subset of religion.(assuming my humble editing permissions allow it) But you'll have to address the fact that, contrary to the Wikipedia regulations against bias, most PhD scientists who are creationists have their work denigrated and misrepresented here, while scientists who are atheists apparently 'aren't being literal' when they talk about miracles in their published work. See the inconsistency? I appreciate your time :)
203.118.151.166 ( talk) 20:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
hi again. Sorry if I get the wiki syntax wrong. About Bertrand. 'He once said he was an agnostic', which means, in common usage 'at some point he said he was, while at other points, he said he wasn't'. Conversely, 'he said he was an agnostic once' means he perhaps always was one. The NZ movie titled 'Once were Warriors' shows this: it means 'they used to be warriors, but now are just a bunch of thugs'. I'm pretty sure the reference I gave recorded him saying this: perhaps my wiki abilities were lacking there. He says, in the Impact of Science on Society, p59, that without Christian love there can be no intellectual honesty. Furthermore, in his autobiography, he confesses to the belief that mathematics would always be based on faith, that it could not be indubitable. This would be more than agnosticism, to the unbiased reader. Bertrand had a crisis of faith in his modernism and ended up, like CS Lewis, an unwilling believer, as his autobiography says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.151.166 ( talk) 20:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #282
wb_entity_per_page
table got removed now (
phabricator:T140890)wb_terms
table does have a term_full_entity_id
column now (
phabricator:T167114)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions. How do we determine which are opinions and which are more than opinions? Evidence and reliable sources. I recommend reading evidence of common descent which is a very nice article to start with. — Paleo Neonate – 07:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like that... nice... person's IP is from a school. What sucks is that the IP range of the school is large (128.41.0.0/16), and most of the edits appear to be from other people. Hopefully this won't continue, but if it does... we'll have to consider blocking subranges to try and stop the disruption. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. It looks like Biswajeet34 ( talk · contribs) (aka another sock of User:Purty) is back as Neurotm ( talk · contribs). He appeared right after Biswajeet34 was blocked. I notified Bishonen a couple days ago, she said it's likely, but to give him a little more rope to hang himself with. Tonight he is displaying the same behavior on Munda people, reverting and not responding to my invitations to discussion. Also violating WP:COPYWITHIN for which I warned him on his talk page. I am convinced this is him.-- William Thweatt Talk Contribs 09:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:Race (human classification), there is a small but annoying level of IP sockpuppetry. It is possible that a long semiprotection would be justified, but at the moment it is not *quite* bad enough. Let me know if you disagree. If semi is needed, I'd propose six months. The IP who is recently active is from 128.*. This is a different range from the 94.* we believed to be Mikemikev at this talk thread. I looked at Special:Contributions/128.41.0.0/16 and it is not all Mikmikev unless he has surprisingly wide interests. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Doug,
I was wondering if perhaps you had a moment to let me know what you thought about a difficult issue on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017. I could say a lot as there is a lot of history, but basically the current dispute is about the proper use of the word "illegal" (indepth: here, here, and here, if you ignore the other stuff). Having previously referred to the referendum there as "illegal referendum", it currently stands at "holding the referendum on that date was illegal under Spanish law". Some editors have disputed the factuality of that; that's not my stance, but so far I have said that interpreting law should be done by legal experts/judges/etc not the voice of Wikipedia, so it's fine to say the word "illegal" but it must be attributed every time. I would imagine you're very well-versed in the application of Wiki guidelines especially for complicated and controversial cases like this, so I was wondering what you thought would be best for this situation. Hope to hear from you soon, -- Calthinus ( talk) 15:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. [I changed my username, you know me from the AE race controversy, Ingushetia and the Rally the Right pages in case that wasn't clear]
I was taught in English language class that artifact and artefact are both legitimate words, with very different meanings. Artifact is a medical term that means, for example, something caught in your teeth. Artefact, on the other hand, means something of historical significance. There is a common misspelling to write artifact when you mean artefact. This is not a geographical abnormality but is rather an ignorance issue. This is not one of those things where Americans decided to rewrite the English language to make it easier for them, like with the case of colour (color). Rather, this is simply a mistake. All I was doing was correcting a mistake, and you choose to be a whopping great jerk about it. It is a very minor thing, but I expect you to correct that mistake, because otherwise you look like an idiot. Thank you for not being so rude and obnoxious. Mister Sneeze A Lot ( talk) 14:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Digging into my topical dictionary, encyclopedia, and style guide collection for a moment (and without duplicating what was cited above and at User talk:Mister Sneeze A Lot): Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology gives them as synonymous, but only provides a general definition, nothing field-specific. New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors has "artifact" as US spelling of "artefact". Scientific English (3rd ed.) doesn't address these words. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (5th ed.) gives archaeo., medical, histology, and communications definitions, all under "artifact", and doesn't include "artefact" at all. Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992 ed.) gives archaeo., radiology, and histology definitions, all under "artifact", with "artefact" listed as an alternative spelling. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (28th ed.) gives general, histology/microscopy, and radiology definitions, under "artifact", with "artefact" listed as an alt. spelling. American Medical Association Manual of Style (10th ed.) gives a medical statistics definition, as "artifact", and does not mention "artefact".
Hard to prove a negative, but so far that's a lot of evidence against the idea of "artefact" and "artifact" having distinct meanings as
terms of art, ever, and zero evidence in favo[u]r of the idea. Mister Sneeze A Lot's "It goes against everything written in any English language text" when a quick examination of even specialist works in the fields he's talking about shows this assertion to be bunkum, is a strong indication of
Dunning–Kruger effect (as is his username; anyone even cursorily familiar with works on English-language usage would know that the indefinite article is not capitalized even in the middle of a proper name). Maybe not a good use of my time, but I consider it among my duties here to knock "style warriors" off their high horses.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
05:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #282
Hi Doug, call me Sam. I noticed your "Eguor admin" userbox and read the associated essay. I'm wondering what identifying as an "Eguor admin" may mean for you in practice? For instance if brought to your attention are you willing to preventatively step in and 'nudge' (mentor?, guide) problematic situations/editors before they overtly cross lines warranting 'bringing-down-a-hatchet'? Or, as with some other admins, would you generally prefer to stay 'hands-off' while waiting for 'a problem' to escalate to a point unambiguously justifying an immediate block or trip to the WP:AN? Personally, I feel the latter approach has significant shortcomings when it leaves the efforts of other editors retarded by ongoing degrees of intermediate disruption.
As a more specific example, how do you imagine you'd respond if some editor A, left a message on your talkpage noting that they'd been reverted by editor B a few times without any explanation in edit summaries or on talkpages—despite editor A having offered edit summaries and/or talkpage input theirself—and in response editor A had checked editor B's edit history and observed that editor B was regularly reverting others across multiple articles without explanation as well? Doug, do you think in such a case you'd be inclined to proactively intervene in some manner? Perhaps to offer editor B advice (from an admin) on preferred practice/relevant policy/general courtesy. Or might you instead feel inclined to tell editor A to engage (ie 'deal with') editor B directly on their own unless/until some sort of overt WP:3RR violation arises? Or ... ?
In elaborating as to how you're inclined to interpret, express, and apply "Eguor admin" concepts please feel free to respond beyond what I've framed above. I'm trying to get some practical sense so as to avoid placing false hopes upon pretty words (the Wikipedia:Eguor admins essay felt like a-dream-come-true when I first read it but then some mature wisdom piped up and reminded me I might well be largely projecting my own desires upon it; much of my editing stems from using the Wiki as a reader and thus tends to sprawl across topics with brief WikiGnome engagements; unfortunately such seems to trigger territorial responses at times from those acting primarily as editors with dedicated ongoing interests invested into specific areas).
Anyway, Doug, thanks for your time and attention and I look forward to your response, -- 196.251.124.24 ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
My apologies - I was using Twinkle and somehow our wires crossed at Mohenjo-daro. I rollbacked your rollback, and didn't notice at first that I was putting the warning template on the wrong talk page. Kbseah ( talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)?
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jafar Dehghan (2nd nomination), since you nominated the article of deletion earlier.Regards:)
Winged Blades of Godric
On leave
11:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, any ideas about whether Leila Boloukat, created by the same author, passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG?Seems to have been subject to a withdrawn AFD! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)?
![]() |
If you're going to eat fried food, get the best |
Chicken fried bacon, Doug, it's the way to go. Fat covered in fat deep-fried in fat and served with a side of fat. It is the best. Also, happy birthday. Maybe I'll make corn dogs tonight in your honor. Drmies ( talk) 17:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC) |
(Really wanted to, modestly, avoid signing, to instead represent all anonymous admirers, but have to sign or the SineBot will get me! bishzilla ROARR!! 08:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC).)
Happy Birthday!
I'm not Dutch, but they look good. Anything with chocolate is good. – Corinne ( talk) 17:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
MikeInChrist leaving a message here because i don't see any other place to leave it. Okay then i've left the editing work to you i won't edit anything even if its wrong n am sorry i didn't know how to reply to you ,at the end of the day its just a site not life. I have clearly seen that you need more than just being a user to edit stuff keep up the work i'll just be a dormant user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeINCHRIST ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
A full length 115min film which is screening in cinemas in New Zealand by, and including a noted NZ personality (The Wizard of New Zealand Queens Service Medal); concerning a nationwide issue, ie the Chathams Islands and Maori (indigenous people of NZ) & Moriori (indigenous people of the Chatams Islands) according to govt treaty (The Treaty of Waitangi) founding document of New Zealand.
This film which documents the Holocaust of a small Pacific minority Moroiri, and also Pacific peoples origins, is not allowed to be mentioned on Wikipedia; "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" Wikipedia
The film is the second film to be produced by Samuel A. Miller, and as such is not a "one off" film. "Charles Luney - Master Builder (CNZM QSO) being the first.
The film has numerous articles in local publications IMDB and TV shows:
The film is narrated by a published author (Davey Round) who has written many papers and books and is presently a lecturer in law at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand /info/en/?search=University_of_Canterbury - the second oldest university to be established in NZ.
BUT WHY is a voice for the indigenous voiceless Moriori people, not allowed on Wikipedia, either on star of the films "The Wizard of New Zealand" page or on its own The Wizard & the Commodore film related page?
Are Wikipedia editors champions of free access to knowledge, or the opposite?
We all watch and wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fstopcinema ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfC vote validity. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
My deletion of SummerPhDv2's comment was on the *exact* same basis as his deletion of my comment. He even used the boilerplate "Please refrain from using talk pages...for general discussion of the topic". Yet this is exactly what he was doing on the Talk:Stand (R.E.M. song) page. He's seen engaging in editorial commentary and extensive general discussion of the topic - part of which he himself explicitly calls "obnoxious sarcasm.." blatantly stating it as his opinion. He goes on to say how consensus and citations won't sway his opinions. How are his opinions cogent to Wikipedia? By all means, clarify for me how any of this isn't blatant hypocrisy. TheDarkOneLives ( talk) 02:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
John Hill has been engaging in slow-burn edit wars to push some user-generated images uploaded by him on various WP articles. See for example [15]. I realised that the user has been continuing the same unconstructive behaviour on multiple articles. It would be nice if an admin warns the editor regarding the issue. Thanks. 5.3.211.141 ( talk) 22:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
A brand new account is making questionable edits across multiple articles. Please check these edits: [16] [17] [18] [19]. Some of his edits were removed by JamesBWatson [20] but the user continues the same distuption on other articles. Also, their editings suggest that they may not be a new user. 46.146.21.83 ( talk) 11:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug, if you have time it will be nice if you can look into the reasoning of the claimed origin. The Rasulids were more than likley not Ghassanid, but why did they claim to be Ghassanid? The edits I made explained the rivalry in Yemen at that time (Zaydi state were Hashemites, Arabs of Muhammad lineage) & (Ayyubids were Kurds), so the Rasulids picked a Ghassanid origin (Ghassanids were related to the recently disposed Hamdani dynasties, so claiming a Ghassanid origin was a strategic move to galvanize Qahtani populations vs the Zaydi & Ayyubid). The edit makes sense Unless you are assuming the Rasulids were actual Turkified Ghassanids. Tiwahi ( talk) 15:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The Zaydi Imams in their records always called the Rasulids Ghuzz (Anatolian Turks/Kurds) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305272602_The_Political_Agency_of_Kurds_as_an_Ethnic_Group_in_Late_Medieval_South_Arabia. The official Arabic sources repeat the same Ghassanid origin of the Rasulids because the Rasulids wrote their own history & they produced most literature work from that era, the article should mention why would the Rasulids are suspected of a Turkic origin & why would they claim a Ghassanid origin. (All official source claims the Turkic origin is assumed due to their arrival from Anatolia, but all these references depend on Rasulid history written by themselves & passed down as the official lineage). Tiwahi ( talk) 16:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The word expansion hints that Nioltes expanded out of South Sudan, while the same source used indicates that they came from the Sudd Marsh (middle off South Sudan), central Sudanic on the other part (despite the misleading "Sudanic" refers to geographic Sudan which is another term). Anyways I would like you to consider the edits on Nilotes also, because the way its written now, it makes it seem that the Nilotes expanded into South Sudan (from somehwere else)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I added the "liberal" to only one page to test how others would react. It was immediately removed and confirmed my prior belief that there shouldn't be "conservative" on the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B5gram ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Darkness Shines has reported me again for violation of TBAN. [21] C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 13:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
wikibase-snakview-indicators
area where gadgets and user scripts can safely add indicators instead of directly appending to the value (
phab:T95403,
d:WD:PC#Gadget / userscript editor feedback wanted)mw.config.get( 'wbEntity' )
will trigger a deprecation warning, gadgets and user script should use the wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded
hook instead (
phabricator:T169771)You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
Thank you for the edit war notice on my talk page. Yes, I'm aware of the policy re edit-warring. I noticed that you did not place the notice on the talk pages of the other participants, Corkythehornetfan ( talk · contribs) and Drmies ( talk · contribs). Could you please demonstrate fairness and place a notice on their pages also? FYI, it started when I reverted a bold edit to the article which Corkythehornetfan ( talk · contribs) reinstated wihtout going to the talk page. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 01:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Middle Pleistocene[edit]
Hi John. Please don't add this until it is official. Your edits make it seem as though it is, and in any case we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't realised you were adding this to other articles. My request applies to all articles. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Check the news. It is official and your decision to revert to keep "Ionian" is ridiculous. Check what it says. IUGS, the organization officially voted with the result over 60%. They will not keep "Ionian" as the proposed site no longer. Read the page carefully. Also, "Ionian" is only a proposed site from the news WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Do NOT act as an idiot ignoring the fact and official decision of the IUGS. The "Ionian" for the IUGS official name is a history, and gone. Do you understand and check the news as I mentioned. Your comment - Please stop[edit], did not pay attention of the official decision and fact which just had been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Stop reverting for nothing but your own wrong opinion. What the official decided will not be changed and the fact that the "Ionian" is already off from the candidate. You told "insult" without any matter of the fact and reality, and it is nothing but vandalism to keep reverting for unreality and without a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Doug. Can you have a look at my comment on Jytdog's page? [22] Thank you. 85.174.59.101 ( talk) 16:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Thank you for your attention. I have replied you here [23]. Kind regards, 37.204.54.76 ( talk) 07:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The Political Agency of Kurds as an Ethnic Group in Late Medieval South Arabia is probably the only English work on this subject, the 14 Arabic language references used in the study pretty much cover the subject with (a bit) more detail. I think we should keep the English source, as most readers will want to read something in English, I did reword the passage to match the translation, although the Arabic sources & the mainstream knowledge in Zaydi history is that the pact was formed, after intermarriage. This article about Imam Al Nasir whose wife was the daughter of the Kurdish prince of Dhamar indirectly discusses this era. (he advanced into Tihama, which is the core of the Rasulid influence). That article has 4 references in English, so I thought you might have the skills to know how to reference that paragraph properly, that way it can be useful for fellow humans who want to learn about medieval Yemen. I sincerely appreciate your work, as you are doing this for free & you have to deal with all kinds of ungrateful people who misunderstand your altruistic efforts, which I value highly more than paid research (which is still useful & necessary). Tiwahi ( talk) 08:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot ( talk) 04:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I don't know how to submit an acceptable SPI case for him because this new account uses a new form of agenda. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 promotes same stuff about the haplogroups on a racialist forum called theapricity.com but it's outside of WP and since he used/used many accounts, it's not easy to find one of his blocked sockpuppets which did similar edits in the past. Per Tirgil34's history, I'm sure a group/team operate those accounts and it's an organized act for promoting their nationalistic agenda via WP articles. Paid trolls and nationalist shills. It's not a simple vandalism or disruptive edits case and need serious attention by admins. Anyway, the mentioned account is new and if that anonymous user (IP) is 100% sure about the new account, he could submit a SPI case by himself. I myself think the new account is possibly related to Team Tirgil34, but I wait for more evidences. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 06:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Doug Weller, I have had correspondence with Gary Habermas about a text problem in Mark 1:1. He did not answer my question. Instead, he ranted about Jesus' resurrection. He is obsessed with Jesus' resurrection. I have doubts about his rationality. Miistermagico ( talk) 17:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The Sudd Marsh is in the Middle of South Sudan & that paragraph needs to be fixed. I will try to re-word look & see if its proper. Tiwahi ( talk) 12:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
Could you please take an eye on this disruptive pov-pushing account? The account engages in sneaky vandalism on many articles and i doubt that it is here to contribute. See for example: this. The user has sneakly deleted a very related link from the see also section with a false edit summary. Also please see this. He falsified a sourced content with again a false edit summary. I did not check all his edits, but probably he is doing the same things in other articles too. Could you please watch the this user? @ Yerevantsi:. Regards, 176.114.125.78 ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I never got around to this, but I wanted to say thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for the cookes :) Also, I admire your contributions to Wikipedia and I was wondering, how does someone eventually become an administrator? Is it after a long period of contributions?
Thank you Doug!:) ChaseF ( talk) 05:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
According to an editor, there is no need for a source to support the statement that Freeman is "perpetuating myths", instead stating that the quote and source given support it.
"David C. Lindberg, an American historian of science, was critical of Charles Freemann who has been accused of perpetuating myths. Lindberg wrote:Finally, to demonstrate that such views are alive and well, I quote Charles Freemen in his Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2003): By the fifth century of the Christian era, he argues, “not only has rational thought been suppressed, but there has been a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic, and authority’. It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition."
Do you see anywhere in the quoted section where it states Freemann is "perpetuating myths"? Page 358 of the Lindberg source -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I did notice your edit referring to the "Tower of Babel" by definition matched the article description of "Original Myth." While I do not know who would coin such a term, I left it for other editors to debate. In a peaceful manner, the term "Cosmopolitanism" was left for you (and perhaps other editors) for review. The edits were both reverted but the term remains in the notes on the talk page with a website. Hopefully you can use that in your contributions as oppose to using the word "myth" on biblical areas. Twillisjr ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Wikipedia essays on notability. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I appreciate your recent note on my talk page about a deletion I made to Luke Messer's wikipedia page. Recently, in local media in Indiana, there has been coverage suggesting that certain sections of his page were added deliberately by a political opponent in order to stoke controversy. Given that at least one of these two sections was about his spouse and not him, I opted to delete the two sections because they seemed subjective in nature. In addition, I am a newer editor and was only opperating in good faith when I made the change. Perhaps, it would have been a good idea to cite the article from the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) in my edit but, frankly, I'm not familiar enough with some aspects of coding on this platform to have cited it myself. If you wouldn't mind, could you help with this citation? And, if you have the ability to do so, it would likely make sense to add some level of protection to Luke Messer's page in order to prevent future hostile edits from political opponents. I've linked to the IBJ article below.
Best,
jblanchard2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblanchard 2020 ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstien reverted my revisions with no reason what so ever, I am claiming that he is an interested party and we need independent review
(I haven't figured out how to request independent admin review on these pages yet)
However, since you seem like a moderator - please check how another user on the Blagosklonny page and the Aging (journal) page accused me of defending predatory journals (not working to improve wiki by following policy guidelines)
Overall - I noticed these horrendous and poor sources being placed on a BLP page on the noticeboard, and I have decided to apply my skills at policy analysis to the discussion. I will not allow revisions with out reason - and they need to bring their concerns to the talk pages, the BLP noticeboard and stop edit warring with 0 rational.
In general, the citations on these pages is against wiki policy and blatant abuse. I will continue to monitor them and gain consensus in a firm manner consistent with wiki "be bold, not reckless" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakinaterJones ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #287 Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata
Hi Doug, Talk God is in my watch list and it is getting to be a real annoyance let alone a waste of time to have to check up on the latest random gibberish from Sky Letter. Please would you consider banning this editor, they are not contributing, they are just a drain on time and energy. Unibond ( talk) 02:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Knowing you're an administrator who's been reverted by 2620:22:4000:110:1ffd:69cc:1edf:fbfb, I'm hoping you can advise what to do about the IPs, all beginning with 2620:22:4000:110, who are editing Canadian Tory politician BLPs such as Andrew Scheer and Lisa Raitt. My reversion attempts result in being re-reverted with no attention to "go to talk page" requests, and my attempt to ping them (via the Andrew Scheer talk page) failed. Semi-protection might be wrong because the edits aren't obvious vandalism, merely not-quite-right and possibly too-trivial. Blocking might be wrong because they aren't all the same IP, they're only all starting with the same digits. Maybe this indicates they're all in the same institution. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 00:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It is a known fact that Jesselynn Desmond is a celebrity. She is the same person that you weren't sure was her in the newspaper for being inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame for being the loudest fan. In a google search with her name JESSELYNN DESMOND you will find she comes up in every single listing in the first 17 pages. There is no denying she needs her own page. She is in newspapers all around the world. Here are 24 pages that contribute to her bio and what she has done. France recognizes her as needing her own page as well: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] She is an actress in 23 films and many TV shows: Flavor of Love [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] She is a music video director: [14] [15] She toured Europe performing with Emily Autumn: [16] She is a founding member of Lucent Dossier: [17] [18] Rotten TOmatoes: [19] She is a singer [20] and community leader She is a psychic: [21] She is a teacher: [22] She is a stand-up comedian: [23] She produces live shows all around the world: [24]
Thank you so much! MissAbundance ( talk) 05:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
References
I think you may have pasted the wrong URL in your last edit on COIN ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
The automated message doesn't say and I made several recently. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfieldman ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: I found what you changed. What I wrote was accurate and there are good sources out there, but I don't know them off the top of my head and I don't have time to find them. If you wouldn't mind leaving it in with a "needs citation" tag, that would be great. If not, I understand. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfieldman ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S.:
What is a "sock puppet" and a "sock edit" or "sock ediitor"? Of course I know what a sock puppet is, as I used to make them for my kids when they were little. I still have one around her someplace. But this must be jargon exclusive to Wikipedia. I thank you in advance. Sciacchitano ( talk) 05:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Heir Doctor Weller:
Thanks for your several comments on my editing.
I do my best but I find Wikipedia a rather difficult outfit, partly because I find some of the requirements less than comprehensible, and partly because in some ways they are arbitrary, and while perhaps seemingly logical to the person who made them up, they are not logical to me, or easy to remember for that reason. Nevertheless, I apologize for any omissions or errors, and assure you they have been inadvertent.
FYI, I have a particular peeve regarding photographs. I have several times had objections to my posting of my own photographs, in one case because I had already placed the offending photo online elsewhere (a personal page on a photo website). This being discovered, I was asked to give myself permission to publish my own photo in order for it to be acceptable to Wikipedia. This reminds me of the story told by Will Rogers about being asked by a bureaucrat for his birth certificate. He replied that where he came from, if a fellow was standing in front of you, you kind of assumed he had been born. Needless to say, I didn't bother. If I can't post my own photos on Wiki, then so be it. It had no substantive effect on the article in question.
I often find it too bothersome to make fixes, unless for an article which I have authored or changed substantially, and just let them drop if a robot or editor makes some objection or demand. For instance, with the article on Dudley Tucker, where I supposedly plagiarized something (I have no idea what, as I only read your note to me this evening and I hardly remember anything about the edits I made), my initial inclination was to let it go. I do remember that I made some corrections on the Tucker article, which I felt made it more readable, and I had to look up some sources on Tucker to make sure my changes didn't make the article less accurate. I noticed today that someone (you perhaps) had re-written what I wrote, to the effect that it still contains the same information I had added (to the best of my recollection) while being at least as readable, and apparently without plagiarizing, which I doubt that I did. So mission accomplished from my point of view.
But no point in beating a dead horse. I use Wiki a lot, but almost never look at my Talk pages unless I am doing some editing or writing and notice a complaing or comment there. Not very professional, I know, but then I am not a professional.
I hereby cross my heart and promise to do better in the future, however, and as far as possible not to trouble you another time. My activities on Wiki are only aimed at improvement and informing your readers. See any of my contributions or talk comments for examples. Cheers to you, and I appreciate you and those of your colleagues who work so hard to make Wikipedia a decent, accurate, and informative product. Sciacchitano ( talk) 04:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
User:40.133.5.206 has been warned three times of the consequences of their persistent vandalism at Haiku. Would a warning suspension as promised be in order? Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 17:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. This account ( Hoze.hamar ( talk · contribs) on En WP) belongs to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. He's stale on En WP, but disrupts the description of an specific image on Wikimedia Commons [1]. See his edits. I have explained the details on the talk page of that page. How can I report him? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 19:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Lewis is a preexisting source of this Wiki page - do I need to write it out fully?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsarlls ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
mw.wikibase.getAllStatements
Lua function in addition to the existing getBestStatements
, that returns all statements regardless of their rank (
phabricator:T176124)about this: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sinsearach#Sodom_and_Gomorrah_.E2.80.8E_original_research
and yet, right there in the next paragraph is a sentence that relies on nothing EXCEPT a passage of scripture from the same site I linked. :( Sinsearach ( talk) 22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
WHAT IS THIS: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sinsearach#October_2017 I didnt do any such thing! You got the wrong guy :(((((( I have never even seen that page! Who were you trying to message? Sinsearach ( talk) 22:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Any reason for the silence?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsarlls ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dalai Lama. Legobot ( talk) 04:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether to call this incident a terrorist or terror attack has been previously discussed on this article's talkpage (see this discussion and this discussion) Is it necessary according to WP's rules/guidelines to cite a source stating that Kehoe's acts were a terrorist attack, perhaps that Kehoe was a terrorist, or does the Category rely on editorial consensus? Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 13:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I want to confirm your impression that User:Niele~enwiki was indeed voting for a different template (which is the Syria war map). Also, I want to note that I have clarified things with User:xaosflux, who has now added the comment: “If there is no use for data on this (template) … then deleting as orphaned is fine by me.” Would you be able to put in a “delete” vote along with your comment? I am afraid that the discussion might be confusing to the admin trying to close it. Thanks. Tradedia talk 03:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you can help me out. JavierNF96 has been lately changing the map in the Spanish Empire article. I've made my own map for it and edited it on to the article yesterday. But he keeps on changing it back to a (in my own opinion) more inaccurate map with really vague color codes. I'm trying to make the map JUST be a map of only the Spanish empire without the claimed territories, Habsburg dominions, and Dynastic unions.
Which one do you think is better in your opinion? Thanks. Empirecoins ( talk) 12:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out problem with current ideocracies section. Now corrected.
Europe and US now placed in 'Potential future ideocracies' section, is this OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawiki ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Squads of them being created here- and sometimes older ones being removed. What do you think? Johnbod ( talk) 01:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Doug, Its not clear to me why you left a notice on my page.-- Jane955 ( talk) 13:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.
You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
mw.wikibase.getLabelByLang
Lua function will be added (
phabricator:T173262)mw.wikibase.sitelink
Lua function will accept a second parameter with the global identifier of a wiki (e.g. "enwiki") to link to (
phabricator:T142903)In case you weren't already aware of this, thought you'd find this article informative. Or at least amusing. Rockypedia ( talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
By chance I have reviewed your admin interactions with some WP editors, blocked and active alike, and I keep being amazed by your equanimity and civility when dealing with them, that is with us. Zezen ( talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) |
I was curious about why my edit was greyed in the history after I said James Watson was harassed by Marxist activists and I found this:
Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Due to its potential, use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or Arbcom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool.
The emphasis is in the original. I guess this doesn't apply here. Perhaps you can explain whether this applies and why or not. Just out of curiosity. Rupert the Frog ( talk) 13:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Biswajeet34 is now defending his case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#EdJohnston warn me to block me. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. I've reverted what appeared to be peculiar edits at the user talk namespace template messages. Since I remember of an LTA (from Poland I think) often messing with these, I wondered if these new templates were not trolling (in case this can avoid the trouble of filing three MfDs). The templates are: {{ Uw-veil}}, {{ Uw-veilfinal}} and {{ Uw-veilim}}. PROD appears to not be for templates, I didn't find an obviously fitting CSD criteria... And I'm not sure if this is in any way related to the LTA I was talking about (user is TomBarker23). It's strange when a new user boldly edits such areas and puts a bite warning on their talk page. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This is just FYI -- I'm not saying anything needs done, but I noticed that an editor at Canaan (son of Ham) is discussed in the most recent entries at the bottom of Talk:Esau. Just so you know what you might be dealing with here. Alephb ( talk) 00:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Top right corner, there is a big box titled "Celtic Mythology".---- 217.248.11.88 ( talk) 15:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Numerous users are persistently adding "under God" to pre-1954 versions of the Pledge of Allegiance (United States). Will you please lock the article to prevent that? Maybe registered users could still edit, as it's mostly--but not entirely--IPs that are creating the problem. Or maybe block the vandals? (There's a note, "This text matches the reference. Vandalism will be reverted back to the original text.") Thanks for your attention, YoPienso ( talk) 23:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Done by EdJohnston. Thanks--
YoPienso (
talk)
15:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A few accounts and jumping IPs have emerged around certain Punjabi/Punjab-related topics, all of which are directly restoring the edits of User:Peeta Singh (PS), who was topic banned from this area of editing and further indefinitely banned for socking with User:Singh Azad.
It seems that even after a block the user is still around expecting us to keep going in circles. Is there anything that can be done to remedy this situation? Regards, -- Salma Mahmoud ( talk) 11:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug - if possible, can you intercede again on the Brutus of Troy article? That anonymous user will not stop edit warring and removing perfectly accurate, sourced material from a respected scholar. Cagwinn ( talk) 03:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
Did I really use the word amnesty?
Could you offer any advice as to how Tatelyle and/or Ellis can continue to participate in the discussion at The Exodus without being subject to immediate blockage?and you replied
Ellis can continue to participate on the talk page but clearly has a conflict of interest about his works.Bishonen said
I regard the old 2006 account, Ralphellis, as abandoned and defunct; no account should be blocked as a sock of that, eleven years later. I'd encourage the user to continue using the account Ralfellis.
Why do you believe his claims in the face of the evidence?
How does his excuse for using multiple usernames in 2010 hold water?
I've never used my Admin tools on any of his socks.
As for his claim that his edits are all within policy, many, possibly most of Tatelyle's edits were unsourced, ie original research, which as you know is banned by policy.
Perhaps he should have been read his Miranda rights before questioning: Although the WMF is a non-profit organization, its resources are private property (although the content is licensed for reuse in many ways). When a user is blocked, no loss of physical liberty occurs or anything that dramatic. It only technically protects the private property from abuse (which is also legal by all means). Editing Wikipedia is not a right but a privilege which can be rightfully removed. — Paleo Neonate – 04:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
He was just lucky not to get blocked for the Tatelyle sock puppetry, about which he was and still is being deceitful (the claim that he has a brother Ralf). You think it's fine to create socks, the community emphatically does not. Go ahead, take Alephb to ANI and see where you get. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I remembered the article that I tried to remove Brigitte Gabriel from - when I first started editing ARBPIA I saw she was quoted in the Zionism article in the Christian Zionism section. I didn't know anything about WP:SYNTH back then, and I don't really feel like fighting over its removal now. There is a lot of productive work I have wanted to get done, that I have not been able to do, because of issues like this. Bat Yeor is another case - she is not an academic, she doesn't hold an academic position, she does not even have a college degree but we use her as a source for statements about the Ottoman legal system. The difficulty and level of specialization of the topic alone should be enough to treat this source as suspect. She's been acknowledged as an "expert" by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and she is in the same group as these other polemical authors. The fact that other editors I had respect for are acting on their own prejudices without even looking into whether my complaint has merit and are unable to give a reasonable and predictable response to my complaint (which is a serious and not frivolous complaint about bias in Wikipedia), is enough reason for me to retire. We are hypersensitive about some things and tell editors of other backgrounds that it is "not helpful" to talk about these issues, or even threaten them with retaliation. Cultural diversity and sensitivity training would help develop procedures and conduct guidelines that would make all persons feel as though their complaints are being taken seriously. That is the acceptable norm of conduct for any institution of significance in 2017. Seraphim System ( talk) 16:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, and as per the terms of the ban, I have not, and will not violate it. Ban: "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" As you can see, the ban was only to the article and talk page, not to ANY pages beyond those or ANY topic discussions.
Do you wish to change the terms and conditions of this ban? Please advise, but currently I'm being harassed by Darkness Shines and that is my immediate concern. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I was posting the following and got an edit conflict. "You actually have to respect the ban, but I'll ask DS to stay away from your talk page." I'd have been happier if you hadn't added the last bit you added about DS.. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug Your suggestion: 'change the article Atheism to state that it's a religion...'. Well that's a great idea, but I assume that you'll just revert it. Why don't you instead address the fact that most contemporary and past scientific leaders consistently refer to the miraculous as a necessary factor in their discoveries? I know your point of view is that there are no miracles, but hey, point of view isn't allowed in Wikipedia, is it? There is plenty of evidence in the literature attesting to marvellous, miraculous events / things. The giraffe's 'Rede Mirabilus' is a case in point: it means miraculous net (of blood vessels). In short, if you think it is the proper, logical, reasonable path, I shall indeed change the topic atheism to a subset of religion.(assuming my humble editing permissions allow it) But you'll have to address the fact that, contrary to the Wikipedia regulations against bias, most PhD scientists who are creationists have their work denigrated and misrepresented here, while scientists who are atheists apparently 'aren't being literal' when they talk about miracles in their published work. See the inconsistency? I appreciate your time :)
203.118.151.166 ( talk) 20:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
hi again. Sorry if I get the wiki syntax wrong. About Bertrand. 'He once said he was an agnostic', which means, in common usage 'at some point he said he was, while at other points, he said he wasn't'. Conversely, 'he said he was an agnostic once' means he perhaps always was one. The NZ movie titled 'Once were Warriors' shows this: it means 'they used to be warriors, but now are just a bunch of thugs'. I'm pretty sure the reference I gave recorded him saying this: perhaps my wiki abilities were lacking there. He says, in the Impact of Science on Society, p59, that without Christian love there can be no intellectual honesty. Furthermore, in his autobiography, he confesses to the belief that mathematics would always be based on faith, that it could not be indubitable. This would be more than agnosticism, to the unbiased reader. Bertrand had a crisis of faith in his modernism and ended up, like CS Lewis, an unwilling believer, as his autobiography says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.151.166 ( talk) 20:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #282
wb_entity_per_page
table got removed now (
phabricator:T140890)wb_terms
table does have a term_full_entity_id
column now (
phabricator:T167114)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions. How do we determine which are opinions and which are more than opinions? Evidence and reliable sources. I recommend reading evidence of common descent which is a very nice article to start with. — Paleo Neonate – 07:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like that... nice... person's IP is from a school. What sucks is that the IP range of the school is large (128.41.0.0/16), and most of the edits appear to be from other people. Hopefully this won't continue, but if it does... we'll have to consider blocking subranges to try and stop the disruption. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. It looks like Biswajeet34 ( talk · contribs) (aka another sock of User:Purty) is back as Neurotm ( talk · contribs). He appeared right after Biswajeet34 was blocked. I notified Bishonen a couple days ago, she said it's likely, but to give him a little more rope to hang himself with. Tonight he is displaying the same behavior on Munda people, reverting and not responding to my invitations to discussion. Also violating WP:COPYWITHIN for which I warned him on his talk page. I am convinced this is him.-- William Thweatt Talk Contribs 09:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:Race (human classification), there is a small but annoying level of IP sockpuppetry. It is possible that a long semiprotection would be justified, but at the moment it is not *quite* bad enough. Let me know if you disagree. If semi is needed, I'd propose six months. The IP who is recently active is from 128.*. This is a different range from the 94.* we believed to be Mikemikev at this talk thread. I looked at Special:Contributions/128.41.0.0/16 and it is not all Mikmikev unless he has surprisingly wide interests. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Doug,
I was wondering if perhaps you had a moment to let me know what you thought about a difficult issue on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017. I could say a lot as there is a lot of history, but basically the current dispute is about the proper use of the word "illegal" (indepth: here, here, and here, if you ignore the other stuff). Having previously referred to the referendum there as "illegal referendum", it currently stands at "holding the referendum on that date was illegal under Spanish law". Some editors have disputed the factuality of that; that's not my stance, but so far I have said that interpreting law should be done by legal experts/judges/etc not the voice of Wikipedia, so it's fine to say the word "illegal" but it must be attributed every time. I would imagine you're very well-versed in the application of Wiki guidelines especially for complicated and controversial cases like this, so I was wondering what you thought would be best for this situation. Hope to hear from you soon, -- Calthinus ( talk) 15:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. [I changed my username, you know me from the AE race controversy, Ingushetia and the Rally the Right pages in case that wasn't clear]
I was taught in English language class that artifact and artefact are both legitimate words, with very different meanings. Artifact is a medical term that means, for example, something caught in your teeth. Artefact, on the other hand, means something of historical significance. There is a common misspelling to write artifact when you mean artefact. This is not a geographical abnormality but is rather an ignorance issue. This is not one of those things where Americans decided to rewrite the English language to make it easier for them, like with the case of colour (color). Rather, this is simply a mistake. All I was doing was correcting a mistake, and you choose to be a whopping great jerk about it. It is a very minor thing, but I expect you to correct that mistake, because otherwise you look like an idiot. Thank you for not being so rude and obnoxious. Mister Sneeze A Lot ( talk) 14:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Digging into my topical dictionary, encyclopedia, and style guide collection for a moment (and without duplicating what was cited above and at User talk:Mister Sneeze A Lot): Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology gives them as synonymous, but only provides a general definition, nothing field-specific. New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors has "artifact" as US spelling of "artefact". Scientific English (3rd ed.) doesn't address these words. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (5th ed.) gives archaeo., medical, histology, and communications definitions, all under "artifact", and doesn't include "artefact" at all. Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992 ed.) gives archaeo., radiology, and histology definitions, all under "artifact", with "artefact" listed as an alternative spelling. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (28th ed.) gives general, histology/microscopy, and radiology definitions, under "artifact", with "artefact" listed as an alt. spelling. American Medical Association Manual of Style (10th ed.) gives a medical statistics definition, as "artifact", and does not mention "artefact".
Hard to prove a negative, but so far that's a lot of evidence against the idea of "artefact" and "artifact" having distinct meanings as
terms of art, ever, and zero evidence in favo[u]r of the idea. Mister Sneeze A Lot's "It goes against everything written in any English language text" when a quick examination of even specialist works in the fields he's talking about shows this assertion to be bunkum, is a strong indication of
Dunning–Kruger effect (as is his username; anyone even cursorily familiar with works on English-language usage would know that the indefinite article is not capitalized even in the middle of a proper name). Maybe not a good use of my time, but I consider it among my duties here to knock "style warriors" off their high horses.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
05:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #282
Hi Doug, call me Sam. I noticed your "Eguor admin" userbox and read the associated essay. I'm wondering what identifying as an "Eguor admin" may mean for you in practice? For instance if brought to your attention are you willing to preventatively step in and 'nudge' (mentor?, guide) problematic situations/editors before they overtly cross lines warranting 'bringing-down-a-hatchet'? Or, as with some other admins, would you generally prefer to stay 'hands-off' while waiting for 'a problem' to escalate to a point unambiguously justifying an immediate block or trip to the WP:AN? Personally, I feel the latter approach has significant shortcomings when it leaves the efforts of other editors retarded by ongoing degrees of intermediate disruption.
As a more specific example, how do you imagine you'd respond if some editor A, left a message on your talkpage noting that they'd been reverted by editor B a few times without any explanation in edit summaries or on talkpages—despite editor A having offered edit summaries and/or talkpage input theirself—and in response editor A had checked editor B's edit history and observed that editor B was regularly reverting others across multiple articles without explanation as well? Doug, do you think in such a case you'd be inclined to proactively intervene in some manner? Perhaps to offer editor B advice (from an admin) on preferred practice/relevant policy/general courtesy. Or might you instead feel inclined to tell editor A to engage (ie 'deal with') editor B directly on their own unless/until some sort of overt WP:3RR violation arises? Or ... ?
In elaborating as to how you're inclined to interpret, express, and apply "Eguor admin" concepts please feel free to respond beyond what I've framed above. I'm trying to get some practical sense so as to avoid placing false hopes upon pretty words (the Wikipedia:Eguor admins essay felt like a-dream-come-true when I first read it but then some mature wisdom piped up and reminded me I might well be largely projecting my own desires upon it; much of my editing stems from using the Wiki as a reader and thus tends to sprawl across topics with brief WikiGnome engagements; unfortunately such seems to trigger territorial responses at times from those acting primarily as editors with dedicated ongoing interests invested into specific areas).
Anyway, Doug, thanks for your time and attention and I look forward to your response, -- 196.251.124.24 ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
My apologies - I was using Twinkle and somehow our wires crossed at Mohenjo-daro. I rollbacked your rollback, and didn't notice at first that I was putting the warning template on the wrong talk page. Kbseah ( talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)?
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jafar Dehghan (2nd nomination), since you nominated the article of deletion earlier.Regards:)
Winged Blades of Godric
On leave
11:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, any ideas about whether Leila Boloukat, created by the same author, passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG?Seems to have been subject to a withdrawn AFD! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)?
![]() |
If you're going to eat fried food, get the best |
Chicken fried bacon, Doug, it's the way to go. Fat covered in fat deep-fried in fat and served with a side of fat. It is the best. Also, happy birthday. Maybe I'll make corn dogs tonight in your honor. Drmies ( talk) 17:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC) |
(Really wanted to, modestly, avoid signing, to instead represent all anonymous admirers, but have to sign or the SineBot will get me! bishzilla ROARR!! 08:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC).)
Happy Birthday!
I'm not Dutch, but they look good. Anything with chocolate is good. – Corinne ( talk) 17:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
MikeInChrist leaving a message here because i don't see any other place to leave it. Okay then i've left the editing work to you i won't edit anything even if its wrong n am sorry i didn't know how to reply to you ,at the end of the day its just a site not life. I have clearly seen that you need more than just being a user to edit stuff keep up the work i'll just be a dormant user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeINCHRIST ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
A full length 115min film which is screening in cinemas in New Zealand by, and including a noted NZ personality (The Wizard of New Zealand Queens Service Medal); concerning a nationwide issue, ie the Chathams Islands and Maori (indigenous people of NZ) & Moriori (indigenous people of the Chatams Islands) according to govt treaty (The Treaty of Waitangi) founding document of New Zealand.
This film which documents the Holocaust of a small Pacific minority Moroiri, and also Pacific peoples origins, is not allowed to be mentioned on Wikipedia; "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" Wikipedia
The film is the second film to be produced by Samuel A. Miller, and as such is not a "one off" film. "Charles Luney - Master Builder (CNZM QSO) being the first.
The film has numerous articles in local publications IMDB and TV shows:
The film is narrated by a published author (Davey Round) who has written many papers and books and is presently a lecturer in law at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand /info/en/?search=University_of_Canterbury - the second oldest university to be established in NZ.
BUT WHY is a voice for the indigenous voiceless Moriori people, not allowed on Wikipedia, either on star of the films "The Wizard of New Zealand" page or on its own The Wizard & the Commodore film related page?
Are Wikipedia editors champions of free access to knowledge, or the opposite?
We all watch and wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fstopcinema ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfC vote validity. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
My deletion of SummerPhDv2's comment was on the *exact* same basis as his deletion of my comment. He even used the boilerplate "Please refrain from using talk pages...for general discussion of the topic". Yet this is exactly what he was doing on the Talk:Stand (R.E.M. song) page. He's seen engaging in editorial commentary and extensive general discussion of the topic - part of which he himself explicitly calls "obnoxious sarcasm.." blatantly stating it as his opinion. He goes on to say how consensus and citations won't sway his opinions. How are his opinions cogent to Wikipedia? By all means, clarify for me how any of this isn't blatant hypocrisy. TheDarkOneLives ( talk) 02:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
John Hill has been engaging in slow-burn edit wars to push some user-generated images uploaded by him on various WP articles. See for example [15]. I realised that the user has been continuing the same unconstructive behaviour on multiple articles. It would be nice if an admin warns the editor regarding the issue. Thanks. 5.3.211.141 ( talk) 22:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
A brand new account is making questionable edits across multiple articles. Please check these edits: [16] [17] [18] [19]. Some of his edits were removed by JamesBWatson [20] but the user continues the same distuption on other articles. Also, their editings suggest that they may not be a new user. 46.146.21.83 ( talk) 11:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug, if you have time it will be nice if you can look into the reasoning of the claimed origin. The Rasulids were more than likley not Ghassanid, but why did they claim to be Ghassanid? The edits I made explained the rivalry in Yemen at that time (Zaydi state were Hashemites, Arabs of Muhammad lineage) & (Ayyubids were Kurds), so the Rasulids picked a Ghassanid origin (Ghassanids were related to the recently disposed Hamdani dynasties, so claiming a Ghassanid origin was a strategic move to galvanize Qahtani populations vs the Zaydi & Ayyubid). The edit makes sense Unless you are assuming the Rasulids were actual Turkified Ghassanids. Tiwahi ( talk) 15:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The Zaydi Imams in their records always called the Rasulids Ghuzz (Anatolian Turks/Kurds) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305272602_The_Political_Agency_of_Kurds_as_an_Ethnic_Group_in_Late_Medieval_South_Arabia. The official Arabic sources repeat the same Ghassanid origin of the Rasulids because the Rasulids wrote their own history & they produced most literature work from that era, the article should mention why would the Rasulids are suspected of a Turkic origin & why would they claim a Ghassanid origin. (All official source claims the Turkic origin is assumed due to their arrival from Anatolia, but all these references depend on Rasulid history written by themselves & passed down as the official lineage). Tiwahi ( talk) 16:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The word expansion hints that Nioltes expanded out of South Sudan, while the same source used indicates that they came from the Sudd Marsh (middle off South Sudan), central Sudanic on the other part (despite the misleading "Sudanic" refers to geographic Sudan which is another term). Anyways I would like you to consider the edits on Nilotes also, because the way its written now, it makes it seem that the Nilotes expanded into South Sudan (from somehwere else)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I added the "liberal" to only one page to test how others would react. It was immediately removed and confirmed my prior belief that there shouldn't be "conservative" on the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B5gram ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Darkness Shines has reported me again for violation of TBAN. [21] C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 13:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
wikibase-snakview-indicators
area where gadgets and user scripts can safely add indicators instead of directly appending to the value (
phab:T95403,
d:WD:PC#Gadget / userscript editor feedback wanted)mw.config.get( 'wbEntity' )
will trigger a deprecation warning, gadgets and user script should use the wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded
hook instead (
phabricator:T169771)You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
Thank you for the edit war notice on my talk page. Yes, I'm aware of the policy re edit-warring. I noticed that you did not place the notice on the talk pages of the other participants, Corkythehornetfan ( talk · contribs) and Drmies ( talk · contribs). Could you please demonstrate fairness and place a notice on their pages also? FYI, it started when I reverted a bold edit to the article which Corkythehornetfan ( talk · contribs) reinstated wihtout going to the talk page. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 01:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Middle Pleistocene[edit]
Hi John. Please don't add this until it is official. Your edits make it seem as though it is, and in any case we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't realised you were adding this to other articles. My request applies to all articles. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Check the news. It is official and your decision to revert to keep "Ionian" is ridiculous. Check what it says. IUGS, the organization officially voted with the result over 60%. They will not keep "Ionian" as the proposed site no longer. Read the page carefully. Also, "Ionian" is only a proposed site from the news WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Do NOT act as an idiot ignoring the fact and official decision of the IUGS. The "Ionian" for the IUGS official name is a history, and gone. Do you understand and check the news as I mentioned. Your comment - Please stop[edit], did not pay attention of the official decision and fact which just had been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Stop reverting for nothing but your own wrong opinion. What the official decided will not be changed and the fact that the "Ionian" is already off from the candidate. You told "insult" without any matter of the fact and reality, and it is nothing but vandalism to keep reverting for unreality and without a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Doug. Can you have a look at my comment on Jytdog's page? [22] Thank you. 85.174.59.101 ( talk) 16:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Thank you for your attention. I have replied you here [23]. Kind regards, 37.204.54.76 ( talk) 07:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The Political Agency of Kurds as an Ethnic Group in Late Medieval South Arabia is probably the only English work on this subject, the 14 Arabic language references used in the study pretty much cover the subject with (a bit) more detail. I think we should keep the English source, as most readers will want to read something in English, I did reword the passage to match the translation, although the Arabic sources & the mainstream knowledge in Zaydi history is that the pact was formed, after intermarriage. This article about Imam Al Nasir whose wife was the daughter of the Kurdish prince of Dhamar indirectly discusses this era. (he advanced into Tihama, which is the core of the Rasulid influence). That article has 4 references in English, so I thought you might have the skills to know how to reference that paragraph properly, that way it can be useful for fellow humans who want to learn about medieval Yemen. I sincerely appreciate your work, as you are doing this for free & you have to deal with all kinds of ungrateful people who misunderstand your altruistic efforts, which I value highly more than paid research (which is still useful & necessary). Tiwahi ( talk) 08:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot ( talk) 04:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I don't know how to submit an acceptable SPI case for him because this new account uses a new form of agenda. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 promotes same stuff about the haplogroups on a racialist forum called theapricity.com but it's outside of WP and since he used/used many accounts, it's not easy to find one of his blocked sockpuppets which did similar edits in the past. Per Tirgil34's history, I'm sure a group/team operate those accounts and it's an organized act for promoting their nationalistic agenda via WP articles. Paid trolls and nationalist shills. It's not a simple vandalism or disruptive edits case and need serious attention by admins. Anyway, the mentioned account is new and if that anonymous user (IP) is 100% sure about the new account, he could submit a SPI case by himself. I myself think the new account is possibly related to Team Tirgil34, but I wait for more evidences. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 06:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Doug Weller, I have had correspondence with Gary Habermas about a text problem in Mark 1:1. He did not answer my question. Instead, he ranted about Jesus' resurrection. He is obsessed with Jesus' resurrection. I have doubts about his rationality. Miistermagico ( talk) 17:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The Sudd Marsh is in the Middle of South Sudan & that paragraph needs to be fixed. I will try to re-word look & see if its proper. Tiwahi ( talk) 12:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
Could you please take an eye on this disruptive pov-pushing account? The account engages in sneaky vandalism on many articles and i doubt that it is here to contribute. See for example: this. The user has sneakly deleted a very related link from the see also section with a false edit summary. Also please see this. He falsified a sourced content with again a false edit summary. I did not check all his edits, but probably he is doing the same things in other articles too. Could you please watch the this user? @ Yerevantsi:. Regards, 176.114.125.78 ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I never got around to this, but I wanted to say thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for the cookes :) Also, I admire your contributions to Wikipedia and I was wondering, how does someone eventually become an administrator? Is it after a long period of contributions?
Thank you Doug!:) ChaseF ( talk) 05:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
According to an editor, there is no need for a source to support the statement that Freeman is "perpetuating myths", instead stating that the quote and source given support it.
"David C. Lindberg, an American historian of science, was critical of Charles Freemann who has been accused of perpetuating myths. Lindberg wrote:Finally, to demonstrate that such views are alive and well, I quote Charles Freemen in his Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2003): By the fifth century of the Christian era, he argues, “not only has rational thought been suppressed, but there has been a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic, and authority’. It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition."
Do you see anywhere in the quoted section where it states Freemann is "perpetuating myths"? Page 358 of the Lindberg source -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I did notice your edit referring to the "Tower of Babel" by definition matched the article description of "Original Myth." While I do not know who would coin such a term, I left it for other editors to debate. In a peaceful manner, the term "Cosmopolitanism" was left for you (and perhaps other editors) for review. The edits were both reverted but the term remains in the notes on the talk page with a website. Hopefully you can use that in your contributions as oppose to using the word "myth" on biblical areas. Twillisjr ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Wikipedia essays on notability. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I appreciate your recent note on my talk page about a deletion I made to Luke Messer's wikipedia page. Recently, in local media in Indiana, there has been coverage suggesting that certain sections of his page were added deliberately by a political opponent in order to stoke controversy. Given that at least one of these two sections was about his spouse and not him, I opted to delete the two sections because they seemed subjective in nature. In addition, I am a newer editor and was only opperating in good faith when I made the change. Perhaps, it would have been a good idea to cite the article from the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) in my edit but, frankly, I'm not familiar enough with some aspects of coding on this platform to have cited it myself. If you wouldn't mind, could you help with this citation? And, if you have the ability to do so, it would likely make sense to add some level of protection to Luke Messer's page in order to prevent future hostile edits from political opponents. I've linked to the IBJ article below.
Best,
jblanchard2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblanchard 2020 ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstien reverted my revisions with no reason what so ever, I am claiming that he is an interested party and we need independent review
(I haven't figured out how to request independent admin review on these pages yet)
However, since you seem like a moderator - please check how another user on the Blagosklonny page and the Aging (journal) page accused me of defending predatory journals (not working to improve wiki by following policy guidelines)
Overall - I noticed these horrendous and poor sources being placed on a BLP page on the noticeboard, and I have decided to apply my skills at policy analysis to the discussion. I will not allow revisions with out reason - and they need to bring their concerns to the talk pages, the BLP noticeboard and stop edit warring with 0 rational.
In general, the citations on these pages is against wiki policy and blatant abuse. I will continue to monitor them and gain consensus in a firm manner consistent with wiki "be bold, not reckless" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakinaterJones ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #287 Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata
Hi Doug, Talk God is in my watch list and it is getting to be a real annoyance let alone a waste of time to have to check up on the latest random gibberish from Sky Letter. Please would you consider banning this editor, they are not contributing, they are just a drain on time and energy. Unibond ( talk) 02:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Knowing you're an administrator who's been reverted by 2620:22:4000:110:1ffd:69cc:1edf:fbfb, I'm hoping you can advise what to do about the IPs, all beginning with 2620:22:4000:110, who are editing Canadian Tory politician BLPs such as Andrew Scheer and Lisa Raitt. My reversion attempts result in being re-reverted with no attention to "go to talk page" requests, and my attempt to ping them (via the Andrew Scheer talk page) failed. Semi-protection might be wrong because the edits aren't obvious vandalism, merely not-quite-right and possibly too-trivial. Blocking might be wrong because they aren't all the same IP, they're only all starting with the same digits. Maybe this indicates they're all in the same institution. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 00:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It is a known fact that Jesselynn Desmond is a celebrity. She is the same person that you weren't sure was her in the newspaper for being inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame for being the loudest fan. In a google search with her name JESSELYNN DESMOND you will find she comes up in every single listing in the first 17 pages. There is no denying she needs her own page. She is in newspapers all around the world. Here are 24 pages that contribute to her bio and what she has done. France recognizes her as needing her own page as well: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] She is an actress in 23 films and many TV shows: Flavor of Love [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] She is a music video director: [14] [15] She toured Europe performing with Emily Autumn: [16] She is a founding member of Lucent Dossier: [17] [18] Rotten TOmatoes: [19] She is a singer [20] and community leader She is a psychic: [21] She is a teacher: [22] She is a stand-up comedian: [23] She produces live shows all around the world: [24]
Thank you so much! MissAbundance ( talk) 05:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
References
I think you may have pasted the wrong URL in your last edit on COIN ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)