![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the welcome. The term American Descendants of Slavery is an ethnicity (another term for African Americans) and is not a political group. Only some American Descendants of Slavery have claimed to align with the political movement that goes by "ADOS". I am following their group closely and am seeing that there are many descendants of United States chattel slavery who do not align with #ADOS or ADOS meaning the political movement. I also read that ADOS is organizing to get the term American Descendants of Slavery to replace the current term African American. Lastly, the sentence, "It focuses on the difference between African Americans whose ancestors were slaves and those whose ancestors were not calling for the descendants of slaves to be given priority over other African Americans and to have their own racial classification" is an odd sentence/opinion because African American is an ethnicity and that means to have descended from chattel slavery within the boundaries of the United States. A person can not just join an ethnicity group. The sentence doesn't make sense nor have I seen them say that. How can one African American tell another African American that they do not share the same lineage? I have seen that they would like specificity apart from other Black ethnic groups. I hope to see the quality, layout, and authenticity of this article improved. Thanks again. ( Writefactsonly ( talk) 14:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC))
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
:bloodofox: (
talk)
05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug. I thought the comment saying she was a communist makes it very clear she is far left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comelistentothetruth ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've just come across this edit from a 'new' editor with a similarly numerical name to the ones I brought to your attention on 11 July. I checked and there were a whole string of edits from the same source for an outfit called Loyal Books peddling stuff that is readily available elsewhere online. The audio files are better than Ligohi's, apart from a regional accent, but there's no way to link to them directly so you just get a bare URL and than have to search for what the edit promises. I'm wondering how useful all this eager activity is and whether we're dealing with a puppet plague. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 05:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The point is that Hawass states:"No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago."
That statement is no longer valid because of Göbekli Tepe. There are certainly plenty of sculptures and totem poles etc, there that have been proven to predate the 5,000 year criteria. It is evidence that obviously someone existed at that time capable of building them. Hawass talks about artifacts, pottery, inscription or anything, and in that sense he is wrong. 95kcp ( talk) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
It looks like it was part of some online Nova interview here [1] It sounds like Hawass answers in broad terms "any place" and then narrows it down to Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95kcp ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
The old redirect on that talk page was erroneous so was removed some time back, then a few users posted there, so I've fixed the redirect and moved the two messages above. — Paleo Neonate – 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I'm HalfdanRagnarsson. This is about a Leeroy-Jenkins character called Avis11, who decided one fine morning that he would change the format of all articles on Roman Emperors to his preferred style. Since then, he has repeatedly edit-warred against multiple editors to keep his preferred format, despite a discussion still going on here. I am the most recent editor whose efforts to restore the status quo have been reverted. I am here because this is not a block request (which is why I did not go to WP:AIV), but simply a request to delete his recent series of reversions from emperors Tiberius to Theodosius I, partly because it is his third or fourth instance of edit-warring on these pages, but mainly because he has slandered me in nearly all of those edits summaries as a "persistently disruptive editor". Thanks.
PS: He seems to have a penchant for abusive language; when someone told him off on his talk page, he called that person "full of crap". HalfdanRagnarsson ( talk) 04:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The thing is there is no citation for that kumari kandam. I am very surprised that you reversed my edit. EruTheLord ( talk) 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Please let me know if the recent reverts are valid. I've added sources that they support this, I cant fathom why it would be reverted unless it is due to politics. Valoem talk contrib 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Where?
I presume it was a mistake? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Does this qualify for revdel, or does it not quite rise to the occasion of egregious racist weirdness? He iro 22:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I have an academic relationship with Stefaan Missinne and and I asked for his copyright for this wikipedia article and he accepted. how can i solve the many problems i seem to have ? thanks a lot @davidguam— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidguam ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I dont see that the 7.21 Yuen Long Incidents and 8.31 Prince Edward Incidents are commonly recognized as domestic terrorism, and they dont match the definition of "domestic terrorism" at all.
The hong kong protesters are trying to deliver wrong messages to wikipedia users.
These two incidents should be removed from the examples.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The article Theories of Pashtun origin has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Casperti (
talk •
contribs)
08:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Vlad does deserve kudos for that, after all he's done, he's able to pull that off. It's as if wikipedia was actually able to get enough donations without putting those boxes everywhere. It seems impossible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey Doug Weller, I've just created a Spam-blacklist report on "Phoenicia.com". I noticed that you already reported it in 2008 ( Fringe theories). Do you know any other informations about the website? Could you take a look at my report? I hope you're safe and well during this pandemic. Kind Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 03:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller kindly visit Talk: Bijak to advise on proposed edits. Regards Satya Jaimala ( talk) 15:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that
Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine is protected at the templateeditor
level—did you mean to do that? Best, —
Mdaniels5757 (
talk •
contribs)
22:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
It seems that User:4.78.42.18, whose edits seem almost exclusively focused on the life and works of Jan. M. Ziolkowski, may be JMZ himself. Can you run a location check on him and see if he's from Harvard or area? He's not the only academic I've noticed up to that game. You'd think anyone intelligent would not make the pattern so cretinously obvious! Sweetpool50 ( talk) 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping on the case, Doug Weller. You best know procedures but...warned of what? I doubt if there's any sanction against unashamed puffery. & given that the IP seems to have quitted the former JMZ Research for a less obvious identity, might not a warning cause him to burrow even further out of sight? Sweetpool50 ( talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just come across this while stub-sorting, and note that you deleted a previous article with this title on 6th August as being created by a sockpuppet. You might want to check whether the new version seems connected to the old. Pam D 11:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug! I see that you left a notice on my talk page. I understand that I have to follow the policies. Now I don't know what edits could be appropriate for me. Can you please explain? Powering everyone ( talk) 15:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: 1. For your ready reference I have reproduced versions of three writers. Kindly visit Talk: Bijak and give your expert advise on proposed edits. I know your are fully occupied, but kindly help me in doing right things. 2. I wish to create new article page on "Chaurasi Lakh Yonia" (Eighty Four Hundred Thousand living entity species). This is very important aspect of "soul realization" and "salvation" from the miserable cycle of birth and death. All Indian scriptures and saints have spoken loudly about it. I shall do this after receiving your green signal. Kind Regards, Satya Jaimala ( talk) 14:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello there, just wanted to talk about my edits to the Society of Classical Poets page which were undone.
I think the quotations in the second paragraph of the "History" section should be removed because they don't just critique the "Inaugural Poem," but also promote political opinions. (For example, one of the quotations calls Trump a "terrible president." [1]) Additionally, I got the sense that the poem's critique itself was informed by those political biases. (Take the comment on immigration policy, [2] and notice that this article's reason for saying the poem plays into the anti-Lincoln "rhetoric" is that it calls Obama a "tyrant." [3] Also, the Michael Cohen who authored the latter article may be the Michael Cohen (lawyer) who was Trump's former attorney, so his article may be worth checking for bias.) To put it very coarsely, it seems like the reviewers don't like conservative political opinions and therefore don't like the poem. So even though the sources are credible, the reviews are ultimately expressions of debatable political opinion and because of that are without academic authority.
I hope this helps make sense of my edits--I'm happy to talk more. Penpiper ( talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the content is actually a problem with the article. The content about the poem doesn't even mention the poet (a Joseph Charles MacKenzie), and there is very, very little content on the club itself. In fact, the real question is whether the organization is notable in its own right. Drmies ( talk) 21:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Just saying hello, and that I've added a few timestamps/signatures that'll help the bot archive old threads. — Paleo Neonate – 07:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted this [3]. Is any further action necessary? Sweet6970 ( talk) 17:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
according to encyclopaedia iranica, cadusii were an iranian people, some other sources say they were non-iranian. non of these theories are proved, so you cant write they were neither iranian or non-iranian in the begining of an article!!! May you are probably judging history tendentiously??!! Arash2018m ( talk) 21:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that an edit by Fargtrease in my watchlist included the odd phrase Anal cunt felch. I checked their contributions and noticed it in a number of their edit summaries. I opened their talk page to leave a message asking why they were doing that, and deeply regretted at that moment that I had just eaten breakfast. Can you wipe out their talk page without looking? (You don't want to look.) (You were the most recently active admin in my watchlist) Schazjmd (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
श्रीमान २००२ is violating the topic ban made by you. He is talking about Sanskrit, a language not spoken outside India, on multiple pages. [4] [5] [6] On another page, he moved content from one section to other section and then started the talk page discussion [7] to move remaining content of the section (which is now all about India) to the section about India without naming "India" but using the word "countries" instead. Accesscrawl ( talk) 12:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: I would be grateful for your advice. If you kindly encourage me I shall write on Talk: Bijak page provided you check and approve after correction. Secondly, I wish to create new articles pages such as "Chaurasi Lakh Yonia" (Eighty Four Hundred Thousand living entity species) and other related topics on my sand box. I shall do this after receiving a word of your advice. Kind Regards, Satya Jaimala ( talk) 17:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Good day to you Doug. I wish you look into this issue being created by User:Kambliyil on the articles of certain districts of the South Indian state of Kerala. I think you may be aware that like with the European nations and also US and Australia, India is divided into *states* which are further subdivided into *districts*. Kerala State has 14 districts. And there are as many articles for the same. This user keeps adding a map of "North Kerala" in certain districts which happen to be in the northern part of the state.
As is typical of any old culture, there are subtle cultural differences from district to district, town to town, family to family, and caste to caste. There are 14 districts in Kerala State which is the very first primary level of division and then many other further subdivisions at secondary levels. This page [ [8]] clearly shows that the first official level of segregation is at the district level. Yes the state is much longer than it is broad and is a very coastal state. Though it had been under a group of three inter-related primary royal families of the Deep-South of India from the earliest point traceable in recorded-history which goes back centuries before Christ until well into the medieval period. The details - cultural and otherwise - of the districts are already present extensively in the article.
Wiki articles for every district in any state in India has had only one map - the one showing location of the same within the state e.g - /info/en/?search=Tirunelveli_district which is for Tirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu State.
The pages he is acting truant on are : Kannur district Kasaragod district Wayanad district Kozhikode district Malappuram district
This user has been on WIKI for hardly half a year and has already been blocked once. I did read your message at the head of this page. I do think this will merit your attention and that there is substance in what I say. I also apologize for this message being too long. I would be very obliged if you would look into this and stop this vandalism. NYCLover2016 ( talk) 15:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello read my reply on my talk page its related to this subject i mention .thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. In the past I have been helped by you, Moonriddengirl or Diannaa when problems have arisen with WP:COPYVIO. In this case I have recuperated a short text on the Wayback Machine. It was a short article on the History of Mathematics published in 1940 in the journal Scripta Mathematica, vol 7 , pages 59-62. [9] It was written by Thomas Higgins from Columbia and covered this topic from 1740-1940. In July 2020 I had prepared a paraphrase-summary of this content for the "History" section of the article.
Today, from his user talk page, D.Lazard started discussing Gumshoe2 together, with the goal of reverting my edits to the article Symmetry of second derivatives. They could not quite decide how to do that, but started with the History section. Gumshoe2 claimed that my paraphrase-summary in that section was a straight copy-paste, which is not true. On the article talk page I have described the difference between the original and my version in great detail (without disclosing too much of the original). I have given the original in the link above and I have also the paraphrase-summary here [10] before D.Lazard claimed there was a copy-vio. Is it possible for you or another copy-vio expert to check the original and my version? I am not sure how to retrieve the content in a clean way, but it is given in this diff. [11] D.Lazard has now been edit-warring on the article with 3 reverts & edit summaries. [12] [13] [14] I do not believe that D.Lazard's statements about the copy-vio are correct.
I would be very grateful if you or another copy-vio expert could check these edits and advise me how to proceed. Thanks in advance, Mathsci ( talk) 22:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I am responding to your message regarding Talpade page. You mentioned that when edits are reverted, we should engage in talk and not revert back without any reason. I just wanted to inform that I have been engaging in talk with RegentPark. He reverted them citing booksfacts as not a relevant source. But I have not mentioned booksfact as a source. Hence, I have re-edited the page. Kindly check my talk history with him. Thanks. ga11 ( talk) 17:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You have indefinitely banned Parassharma1 from editing all pages and discussion connected with India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. Their edits since then (regarding Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu expression with links to the Indian Bharatiya Janata Party, and about the Indian government at User talk:Tayi Arajakate) appear to be in contravention of that. Dorsetonian ( talk) 19:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: Kindly advice me what should I do? Regards Satya Jaimala ( talk) 11:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15. After a clerk endorsed CU, the user in question admitted to WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:MEATPUPPETRY ( diff). They have kept editing a little bit since ( contributions). As they have admitted to using a sockpuppet account (which in this instance is a clear case of WP:BLOCKEVASION), CU is at this point only necessary for a sleeper check. Do you think you could take the time to perform the CU (or perhaps just blocking the account that is an admitted sock without doing the CU if the CU would take too much time right now)? TompaDompa ( talk) 12:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure that you read my whole edit? There more than 12 resources (Books) that would lead people to read them.
It is not only Minorsky's word that you talked nonsensely. I want my edit back. Else I will go for a debate. (Redacted) Read your text you sent me. Key Mîrza ( talk) 11:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure? Then read his/her message sent me: We already have a section on the issue & that mentions Minorsky, however it fails to reflect the main article Origins of the Kurds - the section should be a summary of that - also we would need inline citations and preferably indepondent reliable sources discussing, not just possibly cherry picked quotes lacking context (TW) Key Mîrza ( talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
What the word "indepondent" means? Key Mîrza ( talk) 11:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
And may i know who are you? His/Her lawyer? Key Mîrza ( talk) 11:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You are the Boss. Key Mîrza ( talk) 12:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that an editor made reference to something you told them in an AN thread earlier today and there seems to be some disagreement over whether your words are being represented accurately. It's a complicated and confusing thread and I understand if you don't want to get involved, but I thought you should be given a chance to set the record straight if you so desire. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Doug Weller, an ip editor ( 174.74.161.72) changed referenced content from Siege of Málaga claiming that the words "conquest", "conquered" and "conquerors" are pov pushing. I reverted him but he started edit warring and now wikihounding me by adding "Citation needed" ( [15], [16]) to the (the references are in the body) articles that I created. This is not his first time removing referenced content and claiming that it's pov ( [17]) - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 20:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Doug Weller, a draft ( Moors before the Islamic Era) was accepted as an article. I redirected it to Mauri, because it's a POV fork (with a pseudohistorical afrocentrist agenda) full of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, misrepresentations and outdated material. If it's possible, can you delete the talk page/main article? Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 20:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the wp:drn regarding the reverting of my summary of Chapter 11. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Who We Are and How We Got Here.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Truth Is King 24 ( talk) 00:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it is transcluding the template. Too late at night for me to figure out how to clean it up. Anyhow, Truth is King is worse than my userid: Objective...
O3000 (
talk)
00:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
Hi! Is it possible for you to handle or reply ticket:2020081910005845 please? Thank you Doc Taxon ( talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I am a fairly new contributor (as I have mess than 200 edits), I am confused by being told that some of my edits are not neutral such as when I added that the founder of the Marine Corps was a Penn alumnus. How do I contact someone to review where I have gone wrong? OneMoreByte ( talk) 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE says Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
But which reliable sources should we consider for the criterion above? We know that WP:NEWSORG sources amplify controversy and are prone to Wikipedia:Recentism. If we considered them for the DUE criteria, then the articles Islam and Muslims would be mostly about terrorism.
Thinking out loud, the sources I'd consider for the DUE criteria are the sources that give WP:SIGCOV to the topic as a whole, not those who cover a small portion of the topic. Since WP:GNG requires every article to have such sources they shouldn't be hard to find. Other WP:RS (i.e. those do not give WP:SIGCOV to the topic as a whole) can certainly be used for content but they shouldn't be used to evaluate WP:DUE-ness.
Do you agree with this understanding of WP:UNDUE? I'm happy to hear about your understanding of the policy. VR talk 17:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Doug, perhaps you can help: Talk:Book of Joshua is supposed to be archived every 90 days, but there are three threads there all dated 2005. I have no idea why or how to fix it. Achar Sva ( talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft=3
meaning it left 3 threads left, although that is independent and may very well also be because of the timestamps, since more recent threads were archived. This means that if those had been fixed or archived manually, the last three recent threads would likely have replaced those old ones on the current talk page (I expect that to happen with future threads). Thanks for noticing and fixing, —
Paleo
Neonate –
07:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Hi Doug, I've tried to put this page in its proper category (WikiTable), and changed its orphaned status by linking it to the article "Polyphenols". I see my earlier reference was corrected and pray ask you once more clean up my flawed attempt to categorize this article. Thanks yet again! Respectfully, Steve C User: periodyssey -- Steve Culp ( talk) 10:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Doug, I appreciate the heads-up.
Although I have edited articles for quite a while, I continue to struggle with the details of how many things work. I hate to admit it, but only last May, I stumbled upon the fact that the markup language was called WikiText and that there was documentation for it. I did know there were lots and lots of Wikipedia documentation (I had used the MoS) but how and where to find any specific item is mysterious and annoying to me. That may sound disingenuous, but it is true. Wikipedia has been an almost impenetrable monolith to me. Is there a place that will allow a search of just Wikipedia documentation and not the entirety of Wikipedia to find a "piece" of documentation?
Specifically, about "pinging", could you point out where I can find some documentation for how to "ping" correctly?
I sit here and I am not sure that by just creating this new section on your talk page whether it will notify you or not. Or should I "ping" you? Or should I have replied to you on my Talk page where you left your post? I am puzzled by things like this often. Puzzles, so many puzzles.
I literally struggle every day trying to figure out how to find documentation about how to do something. And, when I find a page relative sort of relevant to what I need to know, it is like "drinking from a fire hydrant". Do you have any guidance about who I can approach my Wikipedia's documentation dilemma?
About me. I am not exactly a computer Luddite, although I am not exactly sure that electric works--it's all magic to me even though I have a degree in engineering and have worked as an engineer in a previous life. Begining in 1973, I have worked as a computer systems analyst, systems engineer, developer, a system designer, and I have been a software development manager. I still have the punch card deck for the last Fortran program I wrote in 1979. But as the technology has become increasingly more "cloud" like, it has become more cloudly for me since my method of learning is largely intuitive and observational.
Thanks again.
Osomite hablemos 19:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Example]]
would ping that user).
Johnuniq (
talk)
11:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)For starters this is a breach of WP:OWN, not to mention that what he's doing is patently un-civil and uncooperative in terms of how he responds to criticism. I'm citing how much of a mess the American Girl article was prior to the page being streamlined and made more concise, with a comment in the source page telling parents and/or fans of the franchise to add any extraneous content about the characters, settings and stuff on a wiki dedicated to the dolls. Given the excessive detail on the Mini 4WD article I don't think it would hurt to just provide a broad overview of the subject rather than to go into deep detail which isn't what enwiki is asking.
Which reminds me... The page for Our Lady of Porta Vaga is starting to get bloated as well, yet I don't want to end up pissing off devotees especially my brother who happened to be a confraternity member as they might view the deletion of information as irreverent or something. Just like the Mini 4WD page it would be ideal to provide a broad overview whilst keeping to what the major contributor intended. I mean sure the sources are lifted off Creative Commons material, but still... Blake Gripling ( talk) 10:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Yuuyatails, and I'm new here.
It had came to my attention that a user named Mini4WD has been showing some bad ownership behaviour over the article Mini 4WD. Said user keeps reverting the edits by other users and acts like he owns the article. Also, this article had some issues but that user doesn't let anyone edit it. I'm afraid that if this keeps going, it's going to escalate into a edit war.
Please do something about it.
Yuuyatails ( talk) 07:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:THQ § Where do we discuss the subjects of an article?. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
06:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Did you mean to log Zionist Freedom Alliance in the DSLOG/2020, rather than 2019? EdJohnston ( talk) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you please block user:2601:89:8302:9F00:9DB7:298:724D:A0C4 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent ( talk) 17:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello I received your message about me being unable to edit papers on the Arab-Israel conflict. I must say I am a little confused by this, I did not edit anything about said conflict instead I reported and added in what I thought was important information on a member of Congress that would fit with what I have seen from other pages. While it does indirectly deal with the conflict the news I posted about had to do with a member of Congress associating with people and organizations considered to be anti-Semitic. I have no bone in the fight between Israel and the Arab states, my interests was solely to provide more information on a member of congress and to explain why some have called her anti-Semitic. I cited from respected works and could find nothing factually wrong with what I posted. I believe that this ban is unneeded and should be removed. Thank-you.
@ Doug Weller: I do wait to your response about editing Bijak page and creating new article pages. Thanks in advance and regards. Satya Jaimala ( talk) 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello @ Doug Weller:,
I will not dispute the ban you have placed on me on the previously stated page. But I would like to tell you that I've placed a lot of effort and research on any of my contributions, which I've re-read to ensure that they are understandable and objective, with the aim of improving its corresponding article page. I've also refrained myself to make major edits on the article page, so to evade polemic discussions. I've reverted to just suggestions on this talk page, which I will like to continue until I'm convinced that there's no point in doing so (I'm not invulnerable to bans, disregard, avoidance of scientific discussion, etc.)
I'm also surprised by your remark about me being "warned a number of times about personal attacks" within the ban, I think you are referring to that *one time*, that I, as a newcomer, failed to refrain to write what can be understood as an attack. After that I publicly promised to not do it again, something that seemly I've failed to accomplish according the ban.
Today, I just can't be sure from where exactly this ban comes from. It seems that my interlocutor can use harsh descriptions and boast how he ignores me and my suggestions, but my constrained last response is judged as a personal attack from you, and this counts also a "yet a new warn" of my purported 'recurring' attitude.
You have the responsibility and authority to perform this action, and I will not judge you for it. But I don't want that my silence after it could be interpreted like that I feel is rightly deserved, thing that matters no one, except maybe, yourself. I, myself, feel somehow insulted by this treatment, so I don't promise that I would contribute more suggestions after the ban or long after. Thing that matters no one, except maybe, yourself. As science will walk their way to the article more sooner or later, with or without my contributions, I have to reflect on the pros and cons of me devoting time on it. Cjbaiget ( talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I've been reading Steve's blog for nearly 3 years now, and not once has he ever said anything that borders on white nationalism. He even had a debate with Jared Taylor, an actual white nationalist, in 2005, where he clearly argued that white nationalism is a bad political strategy. Please allow my edit to stand. Jmccubbi ( talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that user Jageracog2020 has removed a large section of material from Solid South, and that you had noted similar actions on their talk page. I would revert it myself but I also see from the talk page that it might result in an edit war. Thanks. Dubyavee ( talk) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I would require your help in the Haggadah article, where the lede mentions a "Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt". There were no Jews in pharaonic Egypt. Hebrews and Israelites were not Jews, neither in the Tanach nor in real history. Jews only came into existence in the 6th century BCE when Judeans were resettled by Persians, and became monotheists. Also, the entire Exodus story is not historical but religious fiction, alternative history as it were. WP should make a clear distinction between myth/legend and history in the lede. However, I fear editing the article will stir a whole wave of fundamentalism from religious editors. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Since you're familiar with the history of North Africa and the problems that often arise from the transcription of Arabic names into English, I was wondering whether you have ever come across a situation like this one? Basically, we have two historical figures (al-Hasan ibn Ammar al-Kutami and al-Hasan ibn Ammar al-Kalbi) with a similar name that is often abbreviated to "al-Hasan ibn Ammar" or simply "ibn Ammar". The fact that they lived more or less during the same period and were affiliated to the Fatimids has led some scholars, albeit a minority from what I can tell, to confuse the two, even though only one of them held the Wasita title.
Creating an article for each is not a problem, the real issue is how do we deal with the wikilinks of the abbreviated names (al-Hasan ibn Ammar and ibn Ammar)? I thought about a disambiguation page, but that could potentially confuse the reader, plus it wouldn't address the wp:weight problem. Any thoughts you have will be greatly appreciated. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug, sorry I didn't reply your earlier message. There is no conflict of interest with folio.ng --- I would have just created a page for the site if there are. I am a Nigerian who is trying to get the content of Nigerian platforms to places where readers can see them. I actually plan to move on to including links from other sites like okayafrica.com and native.com. Apparently, I didn't think this through. The pages I have included the links are pages whose references are not in-depth. I will stop and consult Wikipedia guidelines again. Thanks for highlighting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgunnaKanayo ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I know it seems insignificant but thank you for reverting the change in Cherokee spiritual beliefs. I was so tempted to do it and may have had someone else not done it. You are my hero. I monitor over 169 pages related to the Cherokee people and I am working like mad to bring as much of it together as possible. I appreciate you very much. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 19:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
Hi Doug, I have just noticed that on 27 Feb 2020 you reverted an edit I made in the article on J.C.D. Clark. I had listed it as a minor edit, and you took me to task for not explaining my edit sufficiently. My edit removed an unnecessarily clumsy duplication of a point in successive sentences. Here is the current text, as reverted:
"Clark criticised Marxists such as Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm and E. P. Thompson for advancing what he argued was an incorrect interpretation. Styled by Ronald Hutton as a "political and religious reactionary",[7] Clark criticised Hill, Hobsbawm and Thompson for advancing what he derided as an incorrect interpretation."
If you agree that this should be tidied up I will make the edit again, but with a proper explanation this time.
Kind regards,
Trident5000 ( talk) 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
just this: Styled by Ronald Hutton as a "political and religious reactionary",[7]Clark criticised Marxists such as Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm and E. P. Thompson for advancing what he argued was an incorrect interpretation. Trident5000 ( talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Why are you just targeting me? Key Mîrza used wrong words, I am not defending her,You questioned me saying "fascist" to the discussion page,Why don't you ever question Armanqur, You have not once accepted the currently blocked user " Armanqur" as "Faulty". You mentioned on the discussion page that I called him a fascist, so why didn't you draw any attention to his word "pseudo-history"? Here [19], : ":@Dirokakurdi: IT's not a surprise that you guys think that Hamma Mirwaisi is a reliable source. Seriously, good luck to all of you on perpetuating your pseudo-history. Armanqur ( talk) 22:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)" I am waiting answer. Resource sharing ( talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? My father? Stop acting me like a child. I do NOT talk history issues with Persians and Turks. Rather you or Wikipedia like it, or not. What's your problem? Are you okay? Key Mîrza ( talk) 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
As it stands now the page is inaccurate and misleading. This in turn delegitimizes Wikipedia as a reputable source of information. Amy Schucks ( talk) 00:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
All of this user's edits are just on Talk:Tajiks from 15 to 26 June. He/She was inactive for 3 months. Then just appeared on 4 October again. How we should deal with him/her? Zero contributions to other articles/namespaces. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 19:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am returning to Wikipedia after a couple of months of distancing from it. I have noticed that the entirety of the article I had written on West Eurasians was deleted by user Rsk6400 after what appears to be an inherent tirade against the information exposed there. While I personally perceive this enaction as vandalism and POV editing. He made some arguments that I would like to inquire about, as they don't seem entirely unjust to me.
1.Most of editing, or in other words his main argument, is that genetic studies of ANY KIND do not represent valid sources to be used in Wikipedia at all, given that they are "primary sources" rather than "secondary sources". Now, I understand why in some fields this distinction is very important, but population genetics in general is a natural science field with a high degree of replicability and there are many, many Wikipedia articles written exclusively, or almost entirely, using papers on genetic studies which are published on journals and peer reviewed (secondary sources, yes?). These papers have mentions and are part of a non-contradicting scholarly canon. Wikipedia's guidelines themselves specify that primary sources might be proper sources under some cases and perfectly usable, and doesn't outright describe primary sources as non-valid, but rather that they should exist in assistance of secondary sources, which the article did have. What would be the best way to approach this directive to de-legitimize these sources or what can be done around it?
2.He deleted enormous chunks of the article based of "no long form of source given", even for what were direct textual quotes. I understand that a non-long quote provided isn't a valid reason to delete it, but he did nonetheless over actually helping the article by adding the sensible quote himself. This to me appears to be entirely destructive in nature and born out of bad will over a true intent to elevate the standard of Wikipedia.
3. As soon as this user found the article, he added extremely arbitrary maintenance tags, particularly describing the concept of West Eurasian as "fringe", and "not based on enough reliable sources". What's the users authority to enforce these tags, specially without any kind of supported consensus? Isn't over 30 different studies on the field enough to validate an article? Ive seen featured articles with a lesser number of quotations (not that it makes them bad articles). What's up with such arbitrary manipulation of the guidelines? He also called the terminology of West Eurasian itself fringe, despite dozens of studies textually describing it or its alternative "Western Eurasian".
5. One of the more bothersome ones is his obtuse enforcement of "academic consistency". For example when quoting different studies which are talking about the same exact remains (for example, MA1), he deletes the quotations due to them applying different nomenclature despite being about the same exact subject and with the same exact conclusions (i.e being called ancient north eurasian in one and "siberian hunter gatherer" in another). Is this a valid practice? And, how would one be able to circumvent it?
4. The chart I utilized at first that was produced by Lazaridis was referred as non-primary and I agree. I provided a similar chart from another actually published study but he deleted it by referring to it as "similar to the previously used one", how is this valid at all? The image was ultimately deleted as it was directly taken from the study, but were I to replicate it and reference to it what would stop him from applied this logic again?
This user's motivations appear to me to be based around his dislike towards racism 19th century academic racism which he adamantly professes on his Wikipedia page. While I understand the motivations and everyone is free to produce contributions (in this case, destructive and possibly vandalic ones) based around personal interests and biases, whats the point at which POV starts being enforced at a meta-literary level. Because what it appears to me is that in an attempt to sanitize Wikipedia from such (possibly) dangerous concepts, he goes to the extent of deleting anything that even partially resembles it over a very specific worldview and system of beliefs this new information conflicts with.
I obviously would like my article reinstated, but I feel it would be best to know how to address these concerns in order to have a robust position. In case we would be able to reach a conclusion, this user seems to be engrossed nontheless with the aforementioned fields and constantly edits them to their liking. While I don't mind him contributing to his field of "expertise", is there any way to inhibit people like this from "contributing" to axiomatically different fields which are based around more robust bodies of data?. Ever since he deleted the article he has been editing several other ones on archaeogenetics applying the same exact methodologies. He is ruining them with his enforcement biases. Bathtub Barracuda ( talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you think Trevor Loudon is notable? Google shows only two pages of hits, the sources are either affiliated or namechecks, and his books are self-published. Guy ( help! - typo?) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed it, but I checked all the linked sources and I couldn't find the source for this specific claim: "IHR . . . has links to neo-Nazi organizations." Would you mind pointing it out for me? PCRON talk 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I assume you dont know how to read the arabic calligraphy otherwise you would have kept the same word as it is Saifullah.vguj ( talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed your comment on the ANI raised by this individual, and you also appear on his Talkpage; I don't think he knows what 'ad hominem' means :)
Just advice really; I'm confident the ANI has no merit and he's simply unused to not being able to bully people. He's now provided an 'explanation' which (after I'd managed to decipher it) is a pretty simple lie - should I just leave it? I don't want to make life more complicated for the administrator handling this, so is it best to just let it take its course? Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
This account [29] appears to be the sock of this account [30], which you blocked a few weeks ago. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@ user:Doug Weller How and when can we add NPOV tag in it? Can you please help me with it? Saifullah.vguj ( talk) 12:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the info Doug! Please let me know if you have any questions as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbot64 ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Can I make edit requests in the talk pages of the articles to restore images? I assume that's what edit requests are for. Thanks.-- Watchlonly ( talk) 15:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: bro , can you create article of Karikku.Karikku is an digital media company in Kochi, Kerala. Established by Nikhil Prasad in 2016.Karikku is started as sketch videos in YouTube and Facebook. lot of News references is available now.Please check it out. Chennai Passangai ( talk) 17:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I reverted two disruptive edits to Whiteness studies that contained anti-semitic slurs. The same IP also inserted anti-semitic slurs in Noel Ignatiev's BLP, which were reverted by another editor. If you think it's appropriate, please RevDel this vandalism and block the IP. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 22:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 11:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, you recently placed a DS template on PailSimon's page so I wanted to bring his more recent edits to your attention. I don't want to bring him any more attention but I don't think he is here to collaborate but to instigate or worse. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
can i ask why you or somebody else has deleted history of pages?. I find that a nuisance. You can not check now old versions of pages . There are some wiki backups in the net but it is more painful. Thanks-- 37.13.41.230 ( talk) 03:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Please do not advise this editor to request WP:DRN on the French Revolution. They are already saying at WP:ANI that they want to discuss at WP:DRN, but only with those editors who will behave properly (and apparently they want to decide what is proper behavior). This is a case where a difficult editor may misrepresent good-faith advice. Please don't tell them to try DRN. If they want to publish an RFC, that is fine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. You reverted my edit made on Oct.15 on the Mesha Stele page in the Authenticity section. You said it is "far too strong a statement to be made in Wikipedia's voice." I respect your opinion, however I would like to ask your opinion about 2 things. Firstly, I wrote on the Mesha Stele page: "...provided absolutely conclusive evidence of the Mesha Stele's authenticity" and so taking into account your concern I would like to edit it again , changing it to: " provided evidence for the Mesha Stele's authenticity." Do think this is okay for me to add?
The Khirbat Ataruz Inscribed Altar and its subsequent translation and interpretation by noted scholar Christopher Rollston and A. Bean et al. in the published 2018 Levant article I cited, showed, through its Moabite language text's narrative and linguistic connection to the Mesha Stele , that the famous stele is genuine.
Secondly, do you think that the first paragraph of the Authenticity section should be deleted since it says that several scholars in the early 20th Century doubted that the Mesha Stele was genuine? All scholars and archaeologists today believe the stele is genuine. The view that the Mesha Stele is a forgery has been debunked and in my humble opinion should not be on Wikipedia's Mesha Stele page. It is ultra, ultra fringe and harms Wikipedia's credibility. Would it be okay that I (or if you can do it, I will appreciate it ) delete the first paragraph in the Authenticity section? Take your time to respond Doug.-- BuckRogers25 ( talk) 03:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Doug Weller. What is the appropriate process for closing an ANI thread? It does not seem that any of the participating parties in the article content discussion are willing to adjust behavior, and it seems futile to continue investing energy into the article content discussion. 021120x ( talk) 23:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the Unite the Right edit, the identity of the "some people" in the USA Today article is explained in more detail further down the article (have to scroll past all the ads!). -- Pakbelang ( talk) 03:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Edion Petriti is getting to be a major nuisance (see Gospel of Matthew and its talk page. Can anything be done? Achar Sva ( talk) 09:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you can have intended your edit at [31]. Can you take a look. Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
There were some issues with the article below https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Foxx_Tha_Roc
I have since made some changes with additional information and would like to request for the article to be reviewed for publishing. Thanks. Francinelumbala ( talk) 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I would really appreciate it if you could have a word with this editor who doesn't seem to understand how consensus works. Having seen that both I and Kansas Bear disagree with their cherry picking, and instead of taking a step back to wonder about how they managed to alienate the very editor they invited to the discussion, they are now resorting to calling me "too stubborn", edit warring, [32] [33] harassing me [34] [35] and probably even socking to force their POV. Best regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It's very interesting for me to see that anyone making neutral edits on Wiki gets blamed of POVPushing. The last edit I made was reverted and called POVPushing for simply mentioning ethnicities of Pakistan and Ethnic poets. The one before that was reverted when all modern day nation states such as Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were mentioned in the wiki page of 'Journey to the West', but when I simply put Pakistan there it was removed as POVPushing? All my edits are undone by Indians who have Systemic Biases against Pakistan and don't even allow Pakistanis to edit pages on their own history because the moment one does it automatically becomes POVPushing for them. The current Wiki Page on 'Pakistani Nationalism' was edited by an Indian who removed all the original content and shifted it with Anti Pakistan narratives and how Pakistani nationalism is redundant. But when we try to edit it back, we are said to be POVPushing. Don't believe me? go check the wikipage yourself. All countries and their history is mentioned by their contemporary names, yet when it comes to Pakistan and we put the name of our country over regions which existed in this country, it is magically POVPushing? It is honestly shameful for me to see that Wiki is now a site which is solely run by people who are biased towards a certain community and have the backing of actual supposed neutral moderators. I hope you can reconsider and actually look into the edits of mine that are claimed to be POVPushing and see if literally mentioning ethnicities of Pakistan is somehow POVPushing and if it still makes you feel as if it is POVPushing, then you can go ahead and permanently block my account because I'd find it shameful to be a part of a community that is supposed to impart knowledge to millions of people but casually overlooks systemic bias in their own community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtar10 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Respected sir It has been suggested to me by the editors of my page to merge the page with the Adam's bridge page. You deleted the changes while I was in the process of doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, did you write on Theroadislong's talk page to ask him to read my edit comments, which he claimed I did not include? I doubt it. TheKingLives ( talk) 20:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug, Could I please bring to your attention the recent activities of 86.11.51.106 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I realise that you have already had dealings here. They inserted a notice on the Imber page regarding sources, in spite of the fact that the sources/references include the BBC and reliable authors on the subject. I have reverted the notice. As you know, it is not possible to engage with them on their Talk page, as they have stated "Please do not write here" and "Do not write here, I don't care and it will be blanked". Another admin, Oshwah, has previously warned them in 2019, and blocked them for a short period. I wonder if it is time for another block? Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 12:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll be more than happy to assume however I want, and don't write on my talk page again. Thanks TheKingLives ( talk) 20:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Whatever. Literally could not care less about what you think TheKingLives ( talk) 23:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
![]()
|
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
Doug, you get into so much trouble, my friend. I ran across this conversation doing research today and had to chuckle just a little. Talamachusee loved putting forward their beliefs as facts. They weren't always wrong looking at contributions but couldn't be reasoned with, even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I know a lot about known Cherokee history but I don't know everything and I always leave room to improve my understanding. Anyway, there you go. That is our episode of "A walk down memory lane with Doug". -- Tsistunagiska ( talk) 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, could you take a look at Shturmavik71's edits? They've linked to a website (independentsciencenews.org) that's promoting conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 at Mòjiāng virus ( diff). They have raised the same link and additionally argued for the use of a Medium blog at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology ( diff), where they are arguing for giving conspiracy theories about a lab origin for the virus greater prominence. I've been trying to explain to them that they can't use random websites, Medium blogs, and non-peer-reviewed Master's theses to make claims about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, but I'm not getting through (see Talk:Mòjiāng_virus and User_talk:Shturmavik71). I've also warned Shturmavik71 about General Sanctions related to CoVID-19: [36]. Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.
It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.
Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!
Thank you once again for being part of this global event! -- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
Hi Doug. Hope all is well in these interesting times. I'm here to ask for your advice in how to get a review of the diffs on a thread in ANI/3RR. It was originally closed by an admin without inspecting the diffs, and I strongly feel that the endless reverting in the WP:ARBMAC topic area cannot continue with impunity. An earlier report by myself was closed as stale because nobody looked at it, and I would like to avoid that neglect again in this troubled topic area. I am not trying to canvas you, but I would like to know the correct method for getting someone to inspect the diffs? I was looking through the WP:- pages on 3RR and I couldn't find it and... I'm stressed and busy myself, you know. Thanks a lot for your time. Cheers, -- Calthinus ( talk) 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
Beshogur’s case at AE, which is ongoing, has been archived. Can you please have it restored? Étienne Dolet ( talk) 08:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I will be leaving Wikipedia after your comments on my talk page. I will write a much more in-depth letter directly to Wikimedia so it can be documented for the record. It is obvious that you do not want me here and are unhappy that I created the "Stop the Steal" page regarding a current conspiracy theory. It was my understanding that Wikipedia was a non-partisan institution but it appears if something is unfavorable to right wing, then it is not acceptable. We live in a free country so I will respect that this is how Wikipedia is set up and I will no longer contribute.
Pacificgov ( talk) 07:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I echo what the previous respondent said. It is a shame that a non-profit organization that requests donations is beginning to be bias towards the Right-wing. Can't wait to tell all of my friends to stop using wikipedia. Fairwiki2020 ( talk) 19:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) FairWiki2020
Hello. I recently filed a report at ANI about a user who engages in OR/Syth, edit warring, adds low quality sources (including repeatedly adding a non-peer-reviewed preprint), and refuses to engage/discuss (reverting me and completely ignoring my edit summaries trying to explain the problems with their edits). However, the report has been there for a while now, and although two non-admin users have commented (corroborating what I described), no admins have yet and nothing has been done. The user who is the subject of the report has begun to edit again and thus I worry the problem will continue (since they have a tendency to be unresponsive to explanations and to make strange and unfounded accusations). I'm not sure what to do (I remember it took a long time to get a response from ANI when I reported User:Dalhoa and hope this is not similar). Here is a link to my report: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#USER:Toltol15_making_WP:OR_edits_and_edits_using_low_quality_sources,_ignoring_edit_notes/edit_wars,_and_refusing_to_engage/discuss
Is there another admin I should perhaps also contact? Any help is appreciated. Thank you Skllagyook ( talk) 01:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I saw that you've left a discretionary sanctions message for me on my talk page, could you tell me what this means please? I've had a read of your message but not sure what it entials.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
You are right abouit the modern area name, but see the start of the article, and the translation at the other article. Was this originally just the name for Newgrange alone? Johnbod ( talk) 05:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I just thought I'd bring this to your attention, as I noticed you've come into contact with this user in the past. Much of this sidebar spamming seems unhelpful, and it's not always relevant to the article in question, or only weakly related. I'm not familiar with sidebars so wasn't sure whether to leave them a message about this and/or start reverting some of the additions. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 14:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug, seems this user keeps reverting content 1 2 by other users, using weird edit summaries to justify. He was blocked before for doing that. Mr.User200 ( talk) 00:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and Talk:Cherokee history, where much of this discussion is repeated, as well as on my User Page. User: Tsistunagiska, who joined in August 2020, asked me on my User page why I made an edit in Cherokee history saying that the Cherokee did not build mounds, then referred to her statements above to "prove" that they did, citing James Mooney's late 19th c. work and Cherokee web sources for most of these mounds, and the Citizen Times On Biltmore Mound (this article attributed the mound to the Connestee.) But mostly she is saying that the Cherokee occupied these sites and hold them sacred, which I did not disagree with. I tried to suggest that some of Mooney's work had been superseded, and that it might be useful to differentiate between who built the mounds and which cultures later used them. I thought I remembered that there were several places where more than one people used them. Parkwells ( talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
(cont'd) It had been a while since I worked on these mounds, so reviewed her cited Citizen Times on Biltmore [but apparently got diverted to a different article without realizing it, as later I could not find the quotes!], then went back to other WP articles for review of individual mounds to learn more about them, several of which are NHL or on the NRHP. I suggested we move the thread from my User Page (mistake- Indigenous peoples project) to Cherokee history, as it seemed more specific to this, and since she was covering all the mounds there. She moved it back to my page. [This was my error; it was on the WikiProject Indigenous Peoples Talk page} = {She did not respond to my attempt to clarify the issues, and claimed I read the Citizen Times article wrong, even when I quoted directly from it in a response to her. [This was another error of mine, somehow - could not find the content I quoted, so perhaps had gotten diverted to a different article, for which I apologized.] Her rhetoric has heated up and become very accusatory, in more heated and longer terms each time. In my review of the mounds, which was not completed, some are definitely attributed to the Mississippian culture, which I think worth noting, while also noting Cherokee use and control, and claim of ancestral ties. She reverted all my changes (even when related only to word choice) and repeatedly made accusations of bias and intention that are inaccurate. I really do not know how to proceed. Most articles can be strengthened, and should integrate new information (such as on the Connestee). But reaching consensus on several articles will be difficult to conduct on several article pages at once. Parkwells ( talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug Weller,
I'm editing Wikipedia in legal manners, as I'm notified in your last notification. Besides, I want to quote that all the content that I post is unique and genuine, then kindly specify to me what kind of issue is arsing. As the text I have requested to publish is completely unique and does not violet anyone's copyrights. And please clarify to me that whether I can edit text next time from thenewsengine.com as I'm officially their team member.
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, regarding your recent indefinite extended-confirmed protection of these noticeboards, AE is a bit of a vague log reason for such a high visibility page coupled with the indefinite duration. Can you point to a discussion to further support the necessity of this? — xaosflux Talk 12:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
I am responding regarding a baseless decision to revert the edit that I made below...
The alert that I received contained the following two comments:
To begin, I would first direct attention the quote by user Nyook. The premise for Nyook's decision to remove and archive my edit is that "[I] didn't provide a reliable source." My first objection is that I did include a "reliable source;" I cited the reference that I used for "Satanism," which was a direct link to Satanism. Historically, the source of Satan ( Satan) and Christ ( Jesus) is the Bible. These are facts, indisputable, according to the full extant pages currently denoted on Wikipedia (as sourced hyperlinks, aforementioned). For example, under the definition section of Satanism, third paragraph, is the following paragraph that reads,
"In 1994, the Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne suggested defining Satanism with the simultaneous presence of "1) the worship of the character identified with the name of Satan or Lucifer in the Bible, 2) by organized groups with at least a minimal organization and hierarchy, 3) through ritual or liturgical practices." The definition applies regardless the way in which "each group perceives Satan, as personal or impersonal, real or symbolical.[9]"
Unless I'm completely missing something, this is a reliable source, by definition. Are you and Nyook suggesting this citation is unreliable? Or do you think it's possible a couple of individuals failed miserably to actually read the content that was sourced and cited as reference? Or maybe there was simply bias and prejudice involved in the general decision to revert my edit?
Additionally, see the section "Etymology" in the Wikipedia entry for " Satanism" for additional source citations. Moreover, the section "Medieval and Early Modern Christendom" continues at length ad banality, as pertains to instance a "Devil Worship.". Thus, it appears, as noted above, that Satan and Christianity are wedded ad infinitum. Here it must be noted that even in the entry Theistic Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism is also referenced, even if a demarcation is attempted to be drawn to distinguish between various denominations of " Satanism. As noted on Satanism page, under the section "Medieval and Early Modern Christendom," where it states, "The Knights Templar were accused of worshipping an idol known as Baphomet, with Lucifer having appeared at their meetings in the form of a cat.[33]", The Satanic Temple also uses the symbol of Baphomet. According to Massimo Introvigne, whether " The Satanic Temple", " LaVeyan Satanism", " Church of Satan", or other fringe cultists or occultists, these institutions meet the definition: "by organized groups with at least a minimal organization and hierarchy." Furthermore, as example, the following seven "Fundamental Tenets" of the The Satanic Temple constitute " ritual" and " liturgical practices":
Here it is noted that the about us section of the website ( https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us) denotes the conflict between " The Satanic Temple" and " Church of Satan" as follows...
"The Church of Satan expresses vehement opposition to the campaigns and activities of The Satanic Temple, asserting themselves as the only “true” arbiters of Satanism, while The Satanic Temple dismisses the Church of Satan as irrelevant and inactive."
Under the section "Antagonism towards Satanism" on the Satanism page, the following is quoted at length...
"Another contributing factor to the idea of Satanism is the concept that there is an agent of misfortune and evil who operates on a cosmic scale,[22] something usually associated with a strong form of ethical dualism that divides the world clearly into forces of good and forces of evil.[23] The earliest such entity known is Angra Mainyu, a figure that appears in the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.[24] This concept was also embraced by Judaism and early Christianity, and although it was soon marginalized within Jewish thought, it gained increasing importance within early Christian understandings of the cosmos.[25] While the early Christian idea of the Devil was not well developed, it gradually adapted and expanded through the creation of folklore, art, theological treatises, and morality tales, thus providing the character with a range of extra-Biblical associations.[26]
Based on this, it's utterly not poppycock to suggest that existential crisis of handfuls of individuals, whether organized or disorganized, are currently under way to ensure the ideology of "the Devil" is "well developed."
If Wikipedia citation can be self-referential, where one page (e.g. Christian mythology) references another page (e.g. Christianity), then it necessarily follows that mutual correlations, even if underdeveloped (e.g. Satanism, must also be referenced and cited, good sir! Otherwise, you risk general rot of intellectual integrity. However these Satanic denominations differ from their Christian counterparts is for neither you nor I to determine! And THAT is truly a page that is not written: please try a Google search (or any) as pertains to "differences between Christianity and Satanism Wikipedia."
I look forward to receiving our response.
Best regards, Tony O'Connor
https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/satanism#section_4
It appears you're deflecting and not addressing my argument, justification, and response. You're the individual who also said, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian mythology, you may be blocked from editing." Your response is underdeveloped and unacceptable. Please address my comments. See my Twitter blast: https://twitter.com/TonyOConnor_/status/1328627702912397312?s=20.
I plan to edit the reference again and this entire section can be added, there, as you suggest. If I can anticipate discourse similar to your redress, what literally is the issue? Are you the sole arbiter of intellectual discourse on Wikipedia? Did you even read what I wrote?
Regards,
Tony
P.S. Where is the articles talk page?
I'm contacting you regarding the revert of my edit on the Informed Consent Action Network page on 16 November 2020.
I have reviewed your guidance at the following URL:
/info/en/?search=User:Doug_Weller/reversion
I'd like to better understand the reason for the revert. Here is the edit summary.
Not encyclopedic - maybe if it ever gets substantial coverage, but not until then
What does encyclopedic mean in this context? I have done some research into Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, but have not found a definition of encyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia. (The dictionary definition doesn't appear to be applicable.)
Also, what does "substantial coverage" mean? Is is possible to quantify what the term substantial means in this context?
CarlJParker ( talk) 19:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
--
To be clear: My edit occurred on 16 November 2020 and the revert occurred on 17 November 2020.
CarlJParker ( talk) 19:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, actually there's no such thing as a "stable version"; [38]. I think the concept can stifle article development. Arcturus ( talk) 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Can you take a look at [39]. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug, would you like to express a third (actually fourth) opinion on Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari and the edit war that is taking shape on the article page? The new editor stunned me for good with their eloquence, but now they are starting an edit war with another editor who is asking to achieve a consensus before proceeding, to no avail. Khruner ( talk) 18:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your mention of mechanisms to protect from impersonation. Do you think they should apply re Leslyn Ann Lewis who has contributed to the Leslyn Lewis page? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you have reverted one of my edits on the Cyrus Cylinder page. I work at the British Museum and I can confirm that the cylinder is in gallery 52 not 55 as described underneath the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.83.103 ( talk) 22:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Weller. You deleted an edit I made on the Iranian Religions page. I removed the Kalasha religion from that page. I did leave a message explaining why I removed the Kalasha religion from the Iranian religions page. The Kalasha people are an Indo-Aryan group, not an Iranian group. Although the two groups are very similar, the Kalasha religion is more closely aligned with ancient Vedic religion. Thus, the Kalasha religion is more accurately described as a form of Hinduism, not Iranian religion. Let me know if you have any questions.
ताज ( talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering why you removed the category "English communists" from Ash Sarkar's page? She has stated numerous times that she is in fact a communist including once to Piers Morgan on national television with an outburst that included the line "I'm literally a communist". Mobslayerno1 ( talk) 20:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings Doug. You added an American-Politics DS notice to this user's talk page in June. Would you mind taking a look at this as well as their recent edits here? Thank you. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
You are the boss User:Doug Weller. Love you. jp× g 14:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI, there's an ancient Egyptian race controversy-related spat developing at Ahmose-Nefertari. A. Parrot ( talk) 01:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: With all due respect, my reply on whether your comment was appropriate or not had nothing to do with your intent, at all, but in the appearance of what you said. You stating your intent is of little consequence to the fact the comment should never have been made in the context in which it was. Anyone casually observing could come to the same conclusion as I did that you may have made the comment in order to influence Doug's response (hopefully) in your favor or set-up a rebuttal of a response not in your favor. At any rate, it could be conceived as an attempt to cast doubt upon Doug's ability to remain a neutral admin to which you have not provided any proof to support. The statement being made is what was inappropriate, irregardless of intent. I need not confirm anything concerning Doug or his actions as an admin. -- Tsistunagiska ( talk) 21:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I just posted to Wikipedia for the first time yesterday. I started a talk thread with the heading above on the Dominion Voting System page. It was labeled by you as WP:NOTFORUM. I am trying to understand what caused this. I do admit I didn't give the most cordial and polite response to having a link and virtual quote from the Clinton Foundation being labelled a conspiracy theory. And some other back and forth was not the most constructive, but I provided 3 links. Can you please enlighten me on how I can avoid this in the future.
Thank you Jray2175 ( talk) 19:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Is this notice related to anything specifically about my edits or is it a general notice to many? Seki1949 ( talk) 18:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The Government of India has threatened Wikipedia over the map on this page Bhutan–India relations. Vandalism is increasing. RFP is running late. thanks Aghore ( talk) 07:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering where to ask for local account creation for my bot, which can't log in as my IP range at my place of education is blocked for vandalism. Thanks, Seem pl ez 12:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Does it sounds like Zhomron is quacking in ancient phoenician? (paraphrasing from SPI comment in BedrockPerson )
What I'm seeing looks familiar: Moabite Language edit, Talk:Solomon's temple section (it's hard to tell what he wrote vs. anyone else, he's been characteristically careless in where he inserts his signature), Solomon's Temple edit, ... Tarl N. ( discuss) 03:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. I don't think that [[User:Stonkaments]] has had the standard reminder of DS for R&I posted on his user talk page. Many of his recent edits seem to be directed in that topic area. Here are two examples. [44] [45] Regards, Mathsci ( talk) 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I suspected the user is a block evasion by User:Deathismetal14 (I posted in the user's talk page). Can you take a look at the user and other blocked socks? 2402:1980:336:A2C:E6DB:B4C0:9DC6:39ED ( talk) 16:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
"vendetta • ter"? -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
Sir, I have legitimate good-faith additions intended to help build the encyclopedia. Sincerely Yours, Sir blue ( talk) 12:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The term Indian refers to a person with Indian nationality, not Native American. Native Americans associate themselves with their designated tribe, not an antiquated misnomer designating them as Indian. This was used by European settlers and not by the tribes themselves. The modern use is Native American or Natives. Historically it was also designated for Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc. However as they are not referred to as Indian now. Vajra Raja ( talk) 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug.
I have had a slight problem with the editor [[user:Generalrelative]], who is normally a reasonable editor.
I watch the article History of the race and intelligence controversy, that I created in Spring 2010 and which sparked off the WP:ARBR&I case. Generally I have stayed away from that article and anything related to it: it has been fairly stable. Yesterday, however, without warning, in a series of edits Generalrelative deleted 2 images relevant to the article. One was of Richard Lynn, controversial in R&I; the other was "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholarly Achievement*, the document which sparked the R&I controversy in the late 60s. The edit-summary was WP:UNDUE. I restored the images explaining their relevance. Generalrelative then created a WP:FORUM on Talk:Race and intelligence inviting other editors to join Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy. I do not edit the article Race and intelligence, so am baffled.
I fear that this is political correctness gone wrong. Generalrelative is undoubtedly well-intentioned, but for the two images they seem to have made a misjudgement. I believe Generalrelative has not received a formal notification of DS for WP:ARBR&I, so could that now be done? Using Talk:Race and intelligence as a means to send messages about another article does not seem to be permitted by WP:ARBR&I.
Sorry to bother about you about this. Mathsci ( talk) 18:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Doug, thank you for your tireless work at mediating while remaining patient. I'm not sure the total of your work here can even be measured in a way that does it justice. It has been my pleasure to watch your colors on display. From what I have seen you are a wonderful human being. I am grateful for our discussions. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 16:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Mister Weller, wonderful that you are working for our good. I appreciate that. Sorry that I added something which you regarded as disruptive. Please let me know exactly what you mean. Best wishes and a wonderful evening I wish you. 202012101858 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do better ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It is disruptive fora for? "Amplifying". Sorry but I just don't follow what you have written. I will return and place all the sources next to my "original work" and remove any of my"personal views" such as stating that something cannot be seen, when anyone can see that it - cannot be seen. I am really sorry to have disrupted your day and like yourself wish to have the truth revealed. kk ( talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2020 12 10 19:42
Eek!! How bad is it that I reverted edits made by an admin? I go into protection mode over particular articles and I just feel it's best to bring up concerns in an article's talk page before making huge edits to that article removing accurate and researched information that took days to verify and meticulously add to the article. I didn't even check who made the edits, only what edits were made. I rarely remove information, even if unsourced, unless it is blatantly false. Even then I probably will mention something in the talk page about it. I do not add OR, myself. It must be sourced or it's a no-go for me. What is hard is when you have a familiarity with the subject and you know the truth but it's not really documented to that degree in what most would call RS. The sources you may find the information in are reliable from that particular subjects standpoint but not in general, if that makes sense. In other words, If I am baking a pizza with pineapple as a topping I might go to a website created by a pizza maker but I wouldn't go there to get advice on how to invest money in the stock market. -- Tsistunagiska ( talk) 15:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tsistunagiska, I'm Iggy. Did you know that there's actual factual Cherokee folks that edit Wikipedia? There are! Some are tradish, some not so much - the point is they are here. There is also a collective of other Indigenous folks who edit here. There is a general consensus that there are certain things that are not for public consumption because we greatly respect our ancestors, elders and Elders - we've grown up within our community and we understand the dynamics of what should be shared and what shouldn't along with the irreparable damage that is caused by oversharing. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a go to for cultural appropriation. You're not like Chief Joseph. You're a fairly new editor who is frustrated. It happens to all of us. Relax. Calm down. Reread what you've posted on Doug's page and ask yourself if that's really a look you want to present in order to be taken seriously. I understand that you are passionate about the topic, I get it. I really do. Unfortunately it's colouring your reaction and in your desire for excellence and I dunno to uber honor your ancestors (this is wikipedia, go out and leave them tobacco to honor them, they'll care more about that. They don't gaf about digital media, I guarantee. They would be more inclined to rejoice at protection of ceremonies than sharing there of) you were inserting questionable sources and content that the Nation its self protects. Anyway, belated welcome to Wikipedia. Hopefully you'll just take a break and rethink your approach. *There are no lies in the article. Be well. Indigenous girl ( talk) 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
We have various source that confirmed that china is supporting Al badr
Check this link:
https://theprint.in/defence/terror-recruitment-in-kashmir-very-high-al-badr-active-again-as-pakistan-revives-outfit/523249/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.103.25 ( talk) 03:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I was delivering a DS/alert and I think I inadvertently forgot to fill in the code. I went back and filled in the already-subst'ed template, but I'm realizing it may have been improperly logged. If so, is there any way to fix that, or any further steps you know of that I should take? Thanks, -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I really don't think a full protection for a week was the right way to go with Amanda Kloots. The article is still very new and undergoing a lot of construction. Full protection makes it extremely hard to get any work done on the article, and a week is a significant amount of time. The edit warring was only between two users. Please reconsider it. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 19:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, have sent you an email, hope you can help.
Thanks Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianHorne ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid registered editors are making contentious changes that are currently the subject of two RfCs. Since changes like that aren't supposed to occur while the issues are being debated at RfCs, and two different editors have violated this — one of them currently the subject of an ANI for this behavior — I would like to ask for full protection to this article until the two RfCs are concluded. I believe it's the only way to tamp down the heat here.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I see that one of the contributors to the contentious Kloots RfC has just been blocked for sockpuppetry. Am I right in thinking that the general policy is to strike out such contributions? Obviously, as someone involved (and a lowly IP at that) I shouldn't do it myself. 165.120.15.66 ( talk) 20:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, let me thank you for taking the time to make recommendations like this [48] for me when necessary. All your different advices have helped me a lot. The desire to do a better job, motivates me to ask your help with an explanation of why the Infobox person/Wikidata template is not recommended, or if it can be used under certain conditions. In case you have time, there will be a willing and grateful mind to read carefully.-- Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco ( talk) 17:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Not that this is the biggest deal in the world, but I do not appreciate being
pinged to a discussion from which I have completely disengaged and in which my final contribution ended Please no one ping me back to this discussion.
If, 60+ hours after my last post, my behavior was troubling you, I feel the appropriate thing would have been to discuss it with me on my talk page. (As I said, this is not the biggest deal in the world.) --
JBL (
talk)
12:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Re: [49] would you be so kind as to comment at Wikipedia:Help desk#Is there a restriction on what a blocked user can use his talk page for? I am in no way criticizing your comment: I am genuinely curious about what the actual wording of policy is. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I would *highly* recommend not posting lies and propaganda on my talk page again, making unhinged accusations. Further flaming will result in consequences beyond your imagination. Tread very carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bswastek ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug,
I am not interested in online arguments on Wikipedia. But please, I am respectfully asking you to stop reverting edits just for the sake of doing so.
You reverted some edits from Phoenicianism. The edits involved removing the following propaganda (written in bold just in case the reader misses how grotesque it is):
Phoenicianism embraces Phoenicia as an alternative cultural foundation by rejecting 850 years of Arabization.
Is this a direct quote from A House of many Mansions? why is it written in Bold in first place and why did you revert it back to its bold format? The latter book is not a reliable publication.
We can disagree on citing Kamal Salibi as a valid source (and other post civil-war Lebanese intellectuals who profit from selling books and should not be confused peer-reviewed research). That does not negate that the aforementioned sentence is a pan-arabist political statement and not a valid scientific counter argument. In other words, I would like to see some criticism for actual research such as this article regarding ancestral continuity in Lebanon and this article (published by Nature) that dates 7,300 years of unique ancestral heritage. We need to shift the debate in that direction.
Citing the likes of Kamal Salibi (Pan Arabist fiction writer) and Assad Bou Khalil (Conspiracy theory advocate,just check his twitter feed don't take my word for it) leaves the debate in opinionated political arguments that lead to nowhere. The subject of Phoenicianism is a highly divisive topic among Lebanese to begin with so lets shift the arguments and counter arguments to a right path. The big elephant(s) in the room is the grotesque propaganda in the criticism section so why don't we start from there.
Any thoughts/suggestions? Cheers -- 2601:249:8280:CF70:9E:9CFC:620C:8100 ( talk) 00:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The criticism section also includes the following paragraph:
The Dutch university professor Leonard C. Biegel, in his 1972 book Minorities in the Middle East: Their significance as political factor in the Arab World, coined the term Neo-Shu'ubiyya to name the modern attempts of alternative non-Arab nationalisms in the Middle East, e.g. Aramaeanism, Assyrianism, Greater Syrian nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, Berberism, Pharaonism, Phoenicianism. Is recency bias permitted per Wikipedia Standards? Neo-Shu'ubiyya simply refers to populism and that paragraph is clearly subjective and does not add any value to the article. Please provide an explanation for this permissible subjectivity.
Moreover, you had no problem deleting a whole section from a technical paper published by Nature (on 07:40, 5 March 2016). The study did in fact provide context to the Jewish genome with respect to Lebanese and Levantine Populations but you dismissed it. Why did you dismiss that study completely?
-- 2601:249:8280:CF70:9E:9CFC:620C:8100 ( talk) 04:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you removed the POV tag from the article Anti-gender movement citing that it requires specific on talk page. However, if you look at the discussion page there's a topic about wording and neutrality there: /info/en/?search=Talk:Anti-gender_movement#Wording_and_neutrality?
Therefore, isn't the POV tag completely valid? -- Rusentaja ( talk) 04:14, 17 December 2020 (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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the welcome. The term American Descendants of Slavery is an ethnicity (another term for African Americans) and is not a political group. Only some American Descendants of Slavery have claimed to align with the political movement that goes by "ADOS". I am following their group closely and am seeing that there are many descendants of United States chattel slavery who do not align with #ADOS or ADOS meaning the political movement. I also read that ADOS is organizing to get the term American Descendants of Slavery to replace the current term African American. Lastly, the sentence, "It focuses on the difference between African Americans whose ancestors were slaves and those whose ancestors were not calling for the descendants of slaves to be given priority over other African Americans and to have their own racial classification" is an odd sentence/opinion because African American is an ethnicity and that means to have descended from chattel slavery within the boundaries of the United States. A person can not just join an ethnicity group. The sentence doesn't make sense nor have I seen them say that. How can one African American tell another African American that they do not share the same lineage? I have seen that they would like specificity apart from other Black ethnic groups. I hope to see the quality, layout, and authenticity of this article improved. Thanks again. ( Writefactsonly ( talk) 14:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC))
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
:bloodofox: (
talk)
05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug. I thought the comment saying she was a communist makes it very clear she is far left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comelistentothetruth ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've just come across this edit from a 'new' editor with a similarly numerical name to the ones I brought to your attention on 11 July. I checked and there were a whole string of edits from the same source for an outfit called Loyal Books peddling stuff that is readily available elsewhere online. The audio files are better than Ligohi's, apart from a regional accent, but there's no way to link to them directly so you just get a bare URL and than have to search for what the edit promises. I'm wondering how useful all this eager activity is and whether we're dealing with a puppet plague. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 05:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The point is that Hawass states:"No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago."
That statement is no longer valid because of Göbekli Tepe. There are certainly plenty of sculptures and totem poles etc, there that have been proven to predate the 5,000 year criteria. It is evidence that obviously someone existed at that time capable of building them. Hawass talks about artifacts, pottery, inscription or anything, and in that sense he is wrong. 95kcp ( talk) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
It looks like it was part of some online Nova interview here [1] It sounds like Hawass answers in broad terms "any place" and then narrows it down to Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95kcp ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
The old redirect on that talk page was erroneous so was removed some time back, then a few users posted there, so I've fixed the redirect and moved the two messages above. — Paleo Neonate – 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I'm HalfdanRagnarsson. This is about a Leeroy-Jenkins character called Avis11, who decided one fine morning that he would change the format of all articles on Roman Emperors to his preferred style. Since then, he has repeatedly edit-warred against multiple editors to keep his preferred format, despite a discussion still going on here. I am the most recent editor whose efforts to restore the status quo have been reverted. I am here because this is not a block request (which is why I did not go to WP:AIV), but simply a request to delete his recent series of reversions from emperors Tiberius to Theodosius I, partly because it is his third or fourth instance of edit-warring on these pages, but mainly because he has slandered me in nearly all of those edits summaries as a "persistently disruptive editor". Thanks.
PS: He seems to have a penchant for abusive language; when someone told him off on his talk page, he called that person "full of crap". HalfdanRagnarsson ( talk) 04:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The thing is there is no citation for that kumari kandam. I am very surprised that you reversed my edit. EruTheLord ( talk) 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Please let me know if the recent reverts are valid. I've added sources that they support this, I cant fathom why it would be reverted unless it is due to politics. Valoem talk contrib 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Where?
I presume it was a mistake? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Does this qualify for revdel, or does it not quite rise to the occasion of egregious racist weirdness? He iro 22:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I have an academic relationship with Stefaan Missinne and and I asked for his copyright for this wikipedia article and he accepted. how can i solve the many problems i seem to have ? thanks a lot @davidguam— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidguam ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I dont see that the 7.21 Yuen Long Incidents and 8.31 Prince Edward Incidents are commonly recognized as domestic terrorism, and they dont match the definition of "domestic terrorism" at all.
The hong kong protesters are trying to deliver wrong messages to wikipedia users.
These two incidents should be removed from the examples.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The article Theories of Pashtun origin has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Casperti (
talk •
contribs)
08:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Vlad does deserve kudos for that, after all he's done, he's able to pull that off. It's as if wikipedia was actually able to get enough donations without putting those boxes everywhere. It seems impossible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey Doug Weller, I've just created a Spam-blacklist report on "Phoenicia.com". I noticed that you already reported it in 2008 ( Fringe theories). Do you know any other informations about the website? Could you take a look at my report? I hope you're safe and well during this pandemic. Kind Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 03:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller kindly visit Talk: Bijak to advise on proposed edits. Regards Satya Jaimala ( talk) 15:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that
Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine is protected at the templateeditor
level—did you mean to do that? Best, —
Mdaniels5757 (
talk •
contribs)
22:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
It seems that User:4.78.42.18, whose edits seem almost exclusively focused on the life and works of Jan. M. Ziolkowski, may be JMZ himself. Can you run a location check on him and see if he's from Harvard or area? He's not the only academic I've noticed up to that game. You'd think anyone intelligent would not make the pattern so cretinously obvious! Sweetpool50 ( talk) 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping on the case, Doug Weller. You best know procedures but...warned of what? I doubt if there's any sanction against unashamed puffery. & given that the IP seems to have quitted the former JMZ Research for a less obvious identity, might not a warning cause him to burrow even further out of sight? Sweetpool50 ( talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just come across this while stub-sorting, and note that you deleted a previous article with this title on 6th August as being created by a sockpuppet. You might want to check whether the new version seems connected to the old. Pam D 11:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug! I see that you left a notice on my talk page. I understand that I have to follow the policies. Now I don't know what edits could be appropriate for me. Can you please explain? Powering everyone ( talk) 15:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: 1. For your ready reference I have reproduced versions of three writers. Kindly visit Talk: Bijak and give your expert advise on proposed edits. I know your are fully occupied, but kindly help me in doing right things. 2. I wish to create new article page on "Chaurasi Lakh Yonia" (Eighty Four Hundred Thousand living entity species). This is very important aspect of "soul realization" and "salvation" from the miserable cycle of birth and death. All Indian scriptures and saints have spoken loudly about it. I shall do this after receiving your green signal. Kind Regards, Satya Jaimala ( talk) 14:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello there, just wanted to talk about my edits to the Society of Classical Poets page which were undone.
I think the quotations in the second paragraph of the "History" section should be removed because they don't just critique the "Inaugural Poem," but also promote political opinions. (For example, one of the quotations calls Trump a "terrible president." [1]) Additionally, I got the sense that the poem's critique itself was informed by those political biases. (Take the comment on immigration policy, [2] and notice that this article's reason for saying the poem plays into the anti-Lincoln "rhetoric" is that it calls Obama a "tyrant." [3] Also, the Michael Cohen who authored the latter article may be the Michael Cohen (lawyer) who was Trump's former attorney, so his article may be worth checking for bias.) To put it very coarsely, it seems like the reviewers don't like conservative political opinions and therefore don't like the poem. So even though the sources are credible, the reviews are ultimately expressions of debatable political opinion and because of that are without academic authority.
I hope this helps make sense of my edits--I'm happy to talk more. Penpiper ( talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the content is actually a problem with the article. The content about the poem doesn't even mention the poet (a Joseph Charles MacKenzie), and there is very, very little content on the club itself. In fact, the real question is whether the organization is notable in its own right. Drmies ( talk) 21:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Just saying hello, and that I've added a few timestamps/signatures that'll help the bot archive old threads. — Paleo Neonate – 07:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted this [3]. Is any further action necessary? Sweet6970 ( talk) 17:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
according to encyclopaedia iranica, cadusii were an iranian people, some other sources say they were non-iranian. non of these theories are proved, so you cant write they were neither iranian or non-iranian in the begining of an article!!! May you are probably judging history tendentiously??!! Arash2018m ( talk) 21:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that an edit by Fargtrease in my watchlist included the odd phrase Anal cunt felch. I checked their contributions and noticed it in a number of their edit summaries. I opened their talk page to leave a message asking why they were doing that, and deeply regretted at that moment that I had just eaten breakfast. Can you wipe out their talk page without looking? (You don't want to look.) (You were the most recently active admin in my watchlist) Schazjmd (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
श्रीमान २००२ is violating the topic ban made by you. He is talking about Sanskrit, a language not spoken outside India, on multiple pages. [4] [5] [6] On another page, he moved content from one section to other section and then started the talk page discussion [7] to move remaining content of the section (which is now all about India) to the section about India without naming "India" but using the word "countries" instead. Accesscrawl ( talk) 12:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: I would be grateful for your advice. If you kindly encourage me I shall write on Talk: Bijak page provided you check and approve after correction. Secondly, I wish to create new articles pages such as "Chaurasi Lakh Yonia" (Eighty Four Hundred Thousand living entity species) and other related topics on my sand box. I shall do this after receiving a word of your advice. Kind Regards, Satya Jaimala ( talk) 17:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Good day to you Doug. I wish you look into this issue being created by User:Kambliyil on the articles of certain districts of the South Indian state of Kerala. I think you may be aware that like with the European nations and also US and Australia, India is divided into *states* which are further subdivided into *districts*. Kerala State has 14 districts. And there are as many articles for the same. This user keeps adding a map of "North Kerala" in certain districts which happen to be in the northern part of the state.
As is typical of any old culture, there are subtle cultural differences from district to district, town to town, family to family, and caste to caste. There are 14 districts in Kerala State which is the very first primary level of division and then many other further subdivisions at secondary levels. This page [ [8]] clearly shows that the first official level of segregation is at the district level. Yes the state is much longer than it is broad and is a very coastal state. Though it had been under a group of three inter-related primary royal families of the Deep-South of India from the earliest point traceable in recorded-history which goes back centuries before Christ until well into the medieval period. The details - cultural and otherwise - of the districts are already present extensively in the article.
Wiki articles for every district in any state in India has had only one map - the one showing location of the same within the state e.g - /info/en/?search=Tirunelveli_district which is for Tirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu State.
The pages he is acting truant on are : Kannur district Kasaragod district Wayanad district Kozhikode district Malappuram district
This user has been on WIKI for hardly half a year and has already been blocked once. I did read your message at the head of this page. I do think this will merit your attention and that there is substance in what I say. I also apologize for this message being too long. I would be very obliged if you would look into this and stop this vandalism. NYCLover2016 ( talk) 15:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello read my reply on my talk page its related to this subject i mention .thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. In the past I have been helped by you, Moonriddengirl or Diannaa when problems have arisen with WP:COPYVIO. In this case I have recuperated a short text on the Wayback Machine. It was a short article on the History of Mathematics published in 1940 in the journal Scripta Mathematica, vol 7 , pages 59-62. [9] It was written by Thomas Higgins from Columbia and covered this topic from 1740-1940. In July 2020 I had prepared a paraphrase-summary of this content for the "History" section of the article.
Today, from his user talk page, D.Lazard started discussing Gumshoe2 together, with the goal of reverting my edits to the article Symmetry of second derivatives. They could not quite decide how to do that, but started with the History section. Gumshoe2 claimed that my paraphrase-summary in that section was a straight copy-paste, which is not true. On the article talk page I have described the difference between the original and my version in great detail (without disclosing too much of the original). I have given the original in the link above and I have also the paraphrase-summary here [10] before D.Lazard claimed there was a copy-vio. Is it possible for you or another copy-vio expert to check the original and my version? I am not sure how to retrieve the content in a clean way, but it is given in this diff. [11] D.Lazard has now been edit-warring on the article with 3 reverts & edit summaries. [12] [13] [14] I do not believe that D.Lazard's statements about the copy-vio are correct.
I would be very grateful if you or another copy-vio expert could check these edits and advise me how to proceed. Thanks in advance, Mathsci ( talk) 22:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I am responding to your message regarding Talpade page. You mentioned that when edits are reverted, we should engage in talk and not revert back without any reason. I just wanted to inform that I have been engaging in talk with RegentPark. He reverted them citing booksfacts as not a relevant source. But I have not mentioned booksfact as a source. Hence, I have re-edited the page. Kindly check my talk history with him. Thanks. ga11 ( talk) 17:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You have indefinitely banned Parassharma1 from editing all pages and discussion connected with India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. Their edits since then (regarding Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu expression with links to the Indian Bharatiya Janata Party, and about the Indian government at User talk:Tayi Arajakate) appear to be in contravention of that. Dorsetonian ( talk) 19:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: Kindly advice me what should I do? Regards Satya Jaimala ( talk) 11:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15. After a clerk endorsed CU, the user in question admitted to WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:MEATPUPPETRY ( diff). They have kept editing a little bit since ( contributions). As they have admitted to using a sockpuppet account (which in this instance is a clear case of WP:BLOCKEVASION), CU is at this point only necessary for a sleeper check. Do you think you could take the time to perform the CU (or perhaps just blocking the account that is an admitted sock without doing the CU if the CU would take too much time right now)? TompaDompa ( talk) 12:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure that you read my whole edit? There more than 12 resources (Books) that would lead people to read them.
It is not only Minorsky's word that you talked nonsensely. I want my edit back. Else I will go for a debate. (Redacted) Read your text you sent me. Key Mîrza ( talk) 11:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure? Then read his/her message sent me: We already have a section on the issue & that mentions Minorsky, however it fails to reflect the main article Origins of the Kurds - the section should be a summary of that - also we would need inline citations and preferably indepondent reliable sources discussing, not just possibly cherry picked quotes lacking context (TW) Key Mîrza ( talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
What the word "indepondent" means? Key Mîrza ( talk) 11:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
And may i know who are you? His/Her lawyer? Key Mîrza ( talk) 11:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You are the Boss. Key Mîrza ( talk) 12:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that an editor made reference to something you told them in an AN thread earlier today and there seems to be some disagreement over whether your words are being represented accurately. It's a complicated and confusing thread and I understand if you don't want to get involved, but I thought you should be given a chance to set the record straight if you so desire. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Doug Weller, an ip editor ( 174.74.161.72) changed referenced content from Siege of Málaga claiming that the words "conquest", "conquered" and "conquerors" are pov pushing. I reverted him but he started edit warring and now wikihounding me by adding "Citation needed" ( [15], [16]) to the (the references are in the body) articles that I created. This is not his first time removing referenced content and claiming that it's pov ( [17]) - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 20:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Doug Weller, a draft ( Moors before the Islamic Era) was accepted as an article. I redirected it to Mauri, because it's a POV fork (with a pseudohistorical afrocentrist agenda) full of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, misrepresentations and outdated material. If it's possible, can you delete the talk page/main article? Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 20:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the wp:drn regarding the reverting of my summary of Chapter 11. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Who We Are and How We Got Here.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Truth Is King 24 ( talk) 00:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it is transcluding the template. Too late at night for me to figure out how to clean it up. Anyhow, Truth is King is worse than my userid: Objective...
O3000 (
talk)
00:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
Hi! Is it possible for you to handle or reply ticket:2020081910005845 please? Thank you Doc Taxon ( talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I am a fairly new contributor (as I have mess than 200 edits), I am confused by being told that some of my edits are not neutral such as when I added that the founder of the Marine Corps was a Penn alumnus. How do I contact someone to review where I have gone wrong? OneMoreByte ( talk) 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE says Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
But which reliable sources should we consider for the criterion above? We know that WP:NEWSORG sources amplify controversy and are prone to Wikipedia:Recentism. If we considered them for the DUE criteria, then the articles Islam and Muslims would be mostly about terrorism.
Thinking out loud, the sources I'd consider for the DUE criteria are the sources that give WP:SIGCOV to the topic as a whole, not those who cover a small portion of the topic. Since WP:GNG requires every article to have such sources they shouldn't be hard to find. Other WP:RS (i.e. those do not give WP:SIGCOV to the topic as a whole) can certainly be used for content but they shouldn't be used to evaluate WP:DUE-ness.
Do you agree with this understanding of WP:UNDUE? I'm happy to hear about your understanding of the policy. VR talk 17:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Doug, perhaps you can help: Talk:Book of Joshua is supposed to be archived every 90 days, but there are three threads there all dated 2005. I have no idea why or how to fix it. Achar Sva ( talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft=3
meaning it left 3 threads left, although that is independent and may very well also be because of the timestamps, since more recent threads were archived. This means that if those had been fixed or archived manually, the last three recent threads would likely have replaced those old ones on the current talk page (I expect that to happen with future threads). Thanks for noticing and fixing, —
Paleo
Neonate –
07:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Hi Doug, I've tried to put this page in its proper category (WikiTable), and changed its orphaned status by linking it to the article "Polyphenols". I see my earlier reference was corrected and pray ask you once more clean up my flawed attempt to categorize this article. Thanks yet again! Respectfully, Steve C User: periodyssey -- Steve Culp ( talk) 10:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Doug, I appreciate the heads-up.
Although I have edited articles for quite a while, I continue to struggle with the details of how many things work. I hate to admit it, but only last May, I stumbled upon the fact that the markup language was called WikiText and that there was documentation for it. I did know there were lots and lots of Wikipedia documentation (I had used the MoS) but how and where to find any specific item is mysterious and annoying to me. That may sound disingenuous, but it is true. Wikipedia has been an almost impenetrable monolith to me. Is there a place that will allow a search of just Wikipedia documentation and not the entirety of Wikipedia to find a "piece" of documentation?
Specifically, about "pinging", could you point out where I can find some documentation for how to "ping" correctly?
I sit here and I am not sure that by just creating this new section on your talk page whether it will notify you or not. Or should I "ping" you? Or should I have replied to you on my Talk page where you left your post? I am puzzled by things like this often. Puzzles, so many puzzles.
I literally struggle every day trying to figure out how to find documentation about how to do something. And, when I find a page relative sort of relevant to what I need to know, it is like "drinking from a fire hydrant". Do you have any guidance about who I can approach my Wikipedia's documentation dilemma?
About me. I am not exactly a computer Luddite, although I am not exactly sure that electric works--it's all magic to me even though I have a degree in engineering and have worked as an engineer in a previous life. Begining in 1973, I have worked as a computer systems analyst, systems engineer, developer, a system designer, and I have been a software development manager. I still have the punch card deck for the last Fortran program I wrote in 1979. But as the technology has become increasingly more "cloud" like, it has become more cloudly for me since my method of learning is largely intuitive and observational.
Thanks again.
Osomite hablemos 19:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Example]]
would ping that user).
Johnuniq (
talk)
11:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)For starters this is a breach of WP:OWN, not to mention that what he's doing is patently un-civil and uncooperative in terms of how he responds to criticism. I'm citing how much of a mess the American Girl article was prior to the page being streamlined and made more concise, with a comment in the source page telling parents and/or fans of the franchise to add any extraneous content about the characters, settings and stuff on a wiki dedicated to the dolls. Given the excessive detail on the Mini 4WD article I don't think it would hurt to just provide a broad overview of the subject rather than to go into deep detail which isn't what enwiki is asking.
Which reminds me... The page for Our Lady of Porta Vaga is starting to get bloated as well, yet I don't want to end up pissing off devotees especially my brother who happened to be a confraternity member as they might view the deletion of information as irreverent or something. Just like the Mini 4WD page it would be ideal to provide a broad overview whilst keeping to what the major contributor intended. I mean sure the sources are lifted off Creative Commons material, but still... Blake Gripling ( talk) 10:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Yuuyatails, and I'm new here.
It had came to my attention that a user named Mini4WD has been showing some bad ownership behaviour over the article Mini 4WD. Said user keeps reverting the edits by other users and acts like he owns the article. Also, this article had some issues but that user doesn't let anyone edit it. I'm afraid that if this keeps going, it's going to escalate into a edit war.
Please do something about it.
Yuuyatails ( talk) 07:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:THQ § Where do we discuss the subjects of an article?. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
06:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Did you mean to log Zionist Freedom Alliance in the DSLOG/2020, rather than 2019? EdJohnston ( talk) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you please block user:2601:89:8302:9F00:9DB7:298:724D:A0C4 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent ( talk) 17:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello I received your message about me being unable to edit papers on the Arab-Israel conflict. I must say I am a little confused by this, I did not edit anything about said conflict instead I reported and added in what I thought was important information on a member of Congress that would fit with what I have seen from other pages. While it does indirectly deal with the conflict the news I posted about had to do with a member of Congress associating with people and organizations considered to be anti-Semitic. I have no bone in the fight between Israel and the Arab states, my interests was solely to provide more information on a member of congress and to explain why some have called her anti-Semitic. I cited from respected works and could find nothing factually wrong with what I posted. I believe that this ban is unneeded and should be removed. Thank-you.
@ Doug Weller: I do wait to your response about editing Bijak page and creating new article pages. Thanks in advance and regards. Satya Jaimala ( talk) 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello @ Doug Weller:,
I will not dispute the ban you have placed on me on the previously stated page. But I would like to tell you that I've placed a lot of effort and research on any of my contributions, which I've re-read to ensure that they are understandable and objective, with the aim of improving its corresponding article page. I've also refrained myself to make major edits on the article page, so to evade polemic discussions. I've reverted to just suggestions on this talk page, which I will like to continue until I'm convinced that there's no point in doing so (I'm not invulnerable to bans, disregard, avoidance of scientific discussion, etc.)
I'm also surprised by your remark about me being "warned a number of times about personal attacks" within the ban, I think you are referring to that *one time*, that I, as a newcomer, failed to refrain to write what can be understood as an attack. After that I publicly promised to not do it again, something that seemly I've failed to accomplish according the ban.
Today, I just can't be sure from where exactly this ban comes from. It seems that my interlocutor can use harsh descriptions and boast how he ignores me and my suggestions, but my constrained last response is judged as a personal attack from you, and this counts also a "yet a new warn" of my purported 'recurring' attitude.
You have the responsibility and authority to perform this action, and I will not judge you for it. But I don't want that my silence after it could be interpreted like that I feel is rightly deserved, thing that matters no one, except maybe, yourself. I, myself, feel somehow insulted by this treatment, so I don't promise that I would contribute more suggestions after the ban or long after. Thing that matters no one, except maybe, yourself. As science will walk their way to the article more sooner or later, with or without my contributions, I have to reflect on the pros and cons of me devoting time on it. Cjbaiget ( talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I've been reading Steve's blog for nearly 3 years now, and not once has he ever said anything that borders on white nationalism. He even had a debate with Jared Taylor, an actual white nationalist, in 2005, where he clearly argued that white nationalism is a bad political strategy. Please allow my edit to stand. Jmccubbi ( talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that user Jageracog2020 has removed a large section of material from Solid South, and that you had noted similar actions on their talk page. I would revert it myself but I also see from the talk page that it might result in an edit war. Thanks. Dubyavee ( talk) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I would require your help in the Haggadah article, where the lede mentions a "Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt". There were no Jews in pharaonic Egypt. Hebrews and Israelites were not Jews, neither in the Tanach nor in real history. Jews only came into existence in the 6th century BCE when Judeans were resettled by Persians, and became monotheists. Also, the entire Exodus story is not historical but religious fiction, alternative history as it were. WP should make a clear distinction between myth/legend and history in the lede. However, I fear editing the article will stir a whole wave of fundamentalism from religious editors. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Since you're familiar with the history of North Africa and the problems that often arise from the transcription of Arabic names into English, I was wondering whether you have ever come across a situation like this one? Basically, we have two historical figures (al-Hasan ibn Ammar al-Kutami and al-Hasan ibn Ammar al-Kalbi) with a similar name that is often abbreviated to "al-Hasan ibn Ammar" or simply "ibn Ammar". The fact that they lived more or less during the same period and were affiliated to the Fatimids has led some scholars, albeit a minority from what I can tell, to confuse the two, even though only one of them held the Wasita title.
Creating an article for each is not a problem, the real issue is how do we deal with the wikilinks of the abbreviated names (al-Hasan ibn Ammar and ibn Ammar)? I thought about a disambiguation page, but that could potentially confuse the reader, plus it wouldn't address the wp:weight problem. Any thoughts you have will be greatly appreciated. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug, sorry I didn't reply your earlier message. There is no conflict of interest with folio.ng --- I would have just created a page for the site if there are. I am a Nigerian who is trying to get the content of Nigerian platforms to places where readers can see them. I actually plan to move on to including links from other sites like okayafrica.com and native.com. Apparently, I didn't think this through. The pages I have included the links are pages whose references are not in-depth. I will stop and consult Wikipedia guidelines again. Thanks for highlighting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgunnaKanayo ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I know it seems insignificant but thank you for reverting the change in Cherokee spiritual beliefs. I was so tempted to do it and may have had someone else not done it. You are my hero. I monitor over 169 pages related to the Cherokee people and I am working like mad to bring as much of it together as possible. I appreciate you very much. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 19:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
Hi Doug, I have just noticed that on 27 Feb 2020 you reverted an edit I made in the article on J.C.D. Clark. I had listed it as a minor edit, and you took me to task for not explaining my edit sufficiently. My edit removed an unnecessarily clumsy duplication of a point in successive sentences. Here is the current text, as reverted:
"Clark criticised Marxists such as Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm and E. P. Thompson for advancing what he argued was an incorrect interpretation. Styled by Ronald Hutton as a "political and religious reactionary",[7] Clark criticised Hill, Hobsbawm and Thompson for advancing what he derided as an incorrect interpretation."
If you agree that this should be tidied up I will make the edit again, but with a proper explanation this time.
Kind regards,
Trident5000 ( talk) 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
just this: Styled by Ronald Hutton as a "political and religious reactionary",[7]Clark criticised Marxists such as Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm and E. P. Thompson for advancing what he argued was an incorrect interpretation. Trident5000 ( talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Why are you just targeting me? Key Mîrza used wrong words, I am not defending her,You questioned me saying "fascist" to the discussion page,Why don't you ever question Armanqur, You have not once accepted the currently blocked user " Armanqur" as "Faulty". You mentioned on the discussion page that I called him a fascist, so why didn't you draw any attention to his word "pseudo-history"? Here [19], : ":@Dirokakurdi: IT's not a surprise that you guys think that Hamma Mirwaisi is a reliable source. Seriously, good luck to all of you on perpetuating your pseudo-history. Armanqur ( talk) 22:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)" I am waiting answer. Resource sharing ( talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? My father? Stop acting me like a child. I do NOT talk history issues with Persians and Turks. Rather you or Wikipedia like it, or not. What's your problem? Are you okay? Key Mîrza ( talk) 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
As it stands now the page is inaccurate and misleading. This in turn delegitimizes Wikipedia as a reputable source of information. Amy Schucks ( talk) 00:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
All of this user's edits are just on Talk:Tajiks from 15 to 26 June. He/She was inactive for 3 months. Then just appeared on 4 October again. How we should deal with him/her? Zero contributions to other articles/namespaces. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 19:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am returning to Wikipedia after a couple of months of distancing from it. I have noticed that the entirety of the article I had written on West Eurasians was deleted by user Rsk6400 after what appears to be an inherent tirade against the information exposed there. While I personally perceive this enaction as vandalism and POV editing. He made some arguments that I would like to inquire about, as they don't seem entirely unjust to me.
1.Most of editing, or in other words his main argument, is that genetic studies of ANY KIND do not represent valid sources to be used in Wikipedia at all, given that they are "primary sources" rather than "secondary sources". Now, I understand why in some fields this distinction is very important, but population genetics in general is a natural science field with a high degree of replicability and there are many, many Wikipedia articles written exclusively, or almost entirely, using papers on genetic studies which are published on journals and peer reviewed (secondary sources, yes?). These papers have mentions and are part of a non-contradicting scholarly canon. Wikipedia's guidelines themselves specify that primary sources might be proper sources under some cases and perfectly usable, and doesn't outright describe primary sources as non-valid, but rather that they should exist in assistance of secondary sources, which the article did have. What would be the best way to approach this directive to de-legitimize these sources or what can be done around it?
2.He deleted enormous chunks of the article based of "no long form of source given", even for what were direct textual quotes. I understand that a non-long quote provided isn't a valid reason to delete it, but he did nonetheless over actually helping the article by adding the sensible quote himself. This to me appears to be entirely destructive in nature and born out of bad will over a true intent to elevate the standard of Wikipedia.
3. As soon as this user found the article, he added extremely arbitrary maintenance tags, particularly describing the concept of West Eurasian as "fringe", and "not based on enough reliable sources". What's the users authority to enforce these tags, specially without any kind of supported consensus? Isn't over 30 different studies on the field enough to validate an article? Ive seen featured articles with a lesser number of quotations (not that it makes them bad articles). What's up with such arbitrary manipulation of the guidelines? He also called the terminology of West Eurasian itself fringe, despite dozens of studies textually describing it or its alternative "Western Eurasian".
5. One of the more bothersome ones is his obtuse enforcement of "academic consistency". For example when quoting different studies which are talking about the same exact remains (for example, MA1), he deletes the quotations due to them applying different nomenclature despite being about the same exact subject and with the same exact conclusions (i.e being called ancient north eurasian in one and "siberian hunter gatherer" in another). Is this a valid practice? And, how would one be able to circumvent it?
4. The chart I utilized at first that was produced by Lazaridis was referred as non-primary and I agree. I provided a similar chart from another actually published study but he deleted it by referring to it as "similar to the previously used one", how is this valid at all? The image was ultimately deleted as it was directly taken from the study, but were I to replicate it and reference to it what would stop him from applied this logic again?
This user's motivations appear to me to be based around his dislike towards racism 19th century academic racism which he adamantly professes on his Wikipedia page. While I understand the motivations and everyone is free to produce contributions (in this case, destructive and possibly vandalic ones) based around personal interests and biases, whats the point at which POV starts being enforced at a meta-literary level. Because what it appears to me is that in an attempt to sanitize Wikipedia from such (possibly) dangerous concepts, he goes to the extent of deleting anything that even partially resembles it over a very specific worldview and system of beliefs this new information conflicts with.
I obviously would like my article reinstated, but I feel it would be best to know how to address these concerns in order to have a robust position. In case we would be able to reach a conclusion, this user seems to be engrossed nontheless with the aforementioned fields and constantly edits them to their liking. While I don't mind him contributing to his field of "expertise", is there any way to inhibit people like this from "contributing" to axiomatically different fields which are based around more robust bodies of data?. Ever since he deleted the article he has been editing several other ones on archaeogenetics applying the same exact methodologies. He is ruining them with his enforcement biases. Bathtub Barracuda ( talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you think Trevor Loudon is notable? Google shows only two pages of hits, the sources are either affiliated or namechecks, and his books are self-published. Guy ( help! - typo?) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed it, but I checked all the linked sources and I couldn't find the source for this specific claim: "IHR . . . has links to neo-Nazi organizations." Would you mind pointing it out for me? PCRON talk 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I assume you dont know how to read the arabic calligraphy otherwise you would have kept the same word as it is Saifullah.vguj ( talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed your comment on the ANI raised by this individual, and you also appear on his Talkpage; I don't think he knows what 'ad hominem' means :)
Just advice really; I'm confident the ANI has no merit and he's simply unused to not being able to bully people. He's now provided an 'explanation' which (after I'd managed to decipher it) is a pretty simple lie - should I just leave it? I don't want to make life more complicated for the administrator handling this, so is it best to just let it take its course? Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
This account [29] appears to be the sock of this account [30], which you blocked a few weeks ago. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@ user:Doug Weller How and when can we add NPOV tag in it? Can you please help me with it? Saifullah.vguj ( talk) 12:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the info Doug! Please let me know if you have any questions as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbot64 ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Can I make edit requests in the talk pages of the articles to restore images? I assume that's what edit requests are for. Thanks.-- Watchlonly ( talk) 15:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: bro , can you create article of Karikku.Karikku is an digital media company in Kochi, Kerala. Established by Nikhil Prasad in 2016.Karikku is started as sketch videos in YouTube and Facebook. lot of News references is available now.Please check it out. Chennai Passangai ( talk) 17:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I reverted two disruptive edits to Whiteness studies that contained anti-semitic slurs. The same IP also inserted anti-semitic slurs in Noel Ignatiev's BLP, which were reverted by another editor. If you think it's appropriate, please RevDel this vandalism and block the IP. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 22:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 11:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, you recently placed a DS template on PailSimon's page so I wanted to bring his more recent edits to your attention. I don't want to bring him any more attention but I don't think he is here to collaborate but to instigate or worse. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
can i ask why you or somebody else has deleted history of pages?. I find that a nuisance. You can not check now old versions of pages . There are some wiki backups in the net but it is more painful. Thanks-- 37.13.41.230 ( talk) 03:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Please do not advise this editor to request WP:DRN on the French Revolution. They are already saying at WP:ANI that they want to discuss at WP:DRN, but only with those editors who will behave properly (and apparently they want to decide what is proper behavior). This is a case where a difficult editor may misrepresent good-faith advice. Please don't tell them to try DRN. If they want to publish an RFC, that is fine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. You reverted my edit made on Oct.15 on the Mesha Stele page in the Authenticity section. You said it is "far too strong a statement to be made in Wikipedia's voice." I respect your opinion, however I would like to ask your opinion about 2 things. Firstly, I wrote on the Mesha Stele page: "...provided absolutely conclusive evidence of the Mesha Stele's authenticity" and so taking into account your concern I would like to edit it again , changing it to: " provided evidence for the Mesha Stele's authenticity." Do think this is okay for me to add?
The Khirbat Ataruz Inscribed Altar and its subsequent translation and interpretation by noted scholar Christopher Rollston and A. Bean et al. in the published 2018 Levant article I cited, showed, through its Moabite language text's narrative and linguistic connection to the Mesha Stele , that the famous stele is genuine.
Secondly, do you think that the first paragraph of the Authenticity section should be deleted since it says that several scholars in the early 20th Century doubted that the Mesha Stele was genuine? All scholars and archaeologists today believe the stele is genuine. The view that the Mesha Stele is a forgery has been debunked and in my humble opinion should not be on Wikipedia's Mesha Stele page. It is ultra, ultra fringe and harms Wikipedia's credibility. Would it be okay that I (or if you can do it, I will appreciate it ) delete the first paragraph in the Authenticity section? Take your time to respond Doug.-- BuckRogers25 ( talk) 03:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Doug Weller. What is the appropriate process for closing an ANI thread? It does not seem that any of the participating parties in the article content discussion are willing to adjust behavior, and it seems futile to continue investing energy into the article content discussion. 021120x ( talk) 23:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the Unite the Right edit, the identity of the "some people" in the USA Today article is explained in more detail further down the article (have to scroll past all the ads!). -- Pakbelang ( talk) 03:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Edion Petriti is getting to be a major nuisance (see Gospel of Matthew and its talk page. Can anything be done? Achar Sva ( talk) 09:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you can have intended your edit at [31]. Can you take a look. Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
There were some issues with the article below https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Foxx_Tha_Roc
I have since made some changes with additional information and would like to request for the article to be reviewed for publishing. Thanks. Francinelumbala ( talk) 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I would really appreciate it if you could have a word with this editor who doesn't seem to understand how consensus works. Having seen that both I and Kansas Bear disagree with their cherry picking, and instead of taking a step back to wonder about how they managed to alienate the very editor they invited to the discussion, they are now resorting to calling me "too stubborn", edit warring, [32] [33] harassing me [34] [35] and probably even socking to force their POV. Best regards. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It's very interesting for me to see that anyone making neutral edits on Wiki gets blamed of POVPushing. The last edit I made was reverted and called POVPushing for simply mentioning ethnicities of Pakistan and Ethnic poets. The one before that was reverted when all modern day nation states such as Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were mentioned in the wiki page of 'Journey to the West', but when I simply put Pakistan there it was removed as POVPushing? All my edits are undone by Indians who have Systemic Biases against Pakistan and don't even allow Pakistanis to edit pages on their own history because the moment one does it automatically becomes POVPushing for them. The current Wiki Page on 'Pakistani Nationalism' was edited by an Indian who removed all the original content and shifted it with Anti Pakistan narratives and how Pakistani nationalism is redundant. But when we try to edit it back, we are said to be POVPushing. Don't believe me? go check the wikipage yourself. All countries and their history is mentioned by their contemporary names, yet when it comes to Pakistan and we put the name of our country over regions which existed in this country, it is magically POVPushing? It is honestly shameful for me to see that Wiki is now a site which is solely run by people who are biased towards a certain community and have the backing of actual supposed neutral moderators. I hope you can reconsider and actually look into the edits of mine that are claimed to be POVPushing and see if literally mentioning ethnicities of Pakistan is somehow POVPushing and if it still makes you feel as if it is POVPushing, then you can go ahead and permanently block my account because I'd find it shameful to be a part of a community that is supposed to impart knowledge to millions of people but casually overlooks systemic bias in their own community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtar10 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Respected sir It has been suggested to me by the editors of my page to merge the page with the Adam's bridge page. You deleted the changes while I was in the process of doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, did you write on Theroadislong's talk page to ask him to read my edit comments, which he claimed I did not include? I doubt it. TheKingLives ( talk) 20:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug, Could I please bring to your attention the recent activities of 86.11.51.106 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I realise that you have already had dealings here. They inserted a notice on the Imber page regarding sources, in spite of the fact that the sources/references include the BBC and reliable authors on the subject. I have reverted the notice. As you know, it is not possible to engage with them on their Talk page, as they have stated "Please do not write here" and "Do not write here, I don't care and it will be blanked". Another admin, Oshwah, has previously warned them in 2019, and blocked them for a short period. I wonder if it is time for another block? Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 12:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll be more than happy to assume however I want, and don't write on my talk page again. Thanks TheKingLives ( talk) 20:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Whatever. Literally could not care less about what you think TheKingLives ( talk) 23:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
![]()
|
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
Doug, you get into so much trouble, my friend. I ran across this conversation doing research today and had to chuckle just a little. Talamachusee loved putting forward their beliefs as facts. They weren't always wrong looking at contributions but couldn't be reasoned with, even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I know a lot about known Cherokee history but I don't know everything and I always leave room to improve my understanding. Anyway, there you go. That is our episode of "A walk down memory lane with Doug". -- Tsistunagiska ( talk) 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, could you take a look at Shturmavik71's edits? They've linked to a website (independentsciencenews.org) that's promoting conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 at Mòjiāng virus ( diff). They have raised the same link and additionally argued for the use of a Medium blog at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology ( diff), where they are arguing for giving conspiracy theories about a lab origin for the virus greater prominence. I've been trying to explain to them that they can't use random websites, Medium blogs, and non-peer-reviewed Master's theses to make claims about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, but I'm not getting through (see Talk:Mòjiāng_virus and User_talk:Shturmavik71). I've also warned Shturmavik71 about General Sanctions related to CoVID-19: [36]. Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.
It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.
Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!
Thank you once again for being part of this global event! -- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
Hi Doug. Hope all is well in these interesting times. I'm here to ask for your advice in how to get a review of the diffs on a thread in ANI/3RR. It was originally closed by an admin without inspecting the diffs, and I strongly feel that the endless reverting in the WP:ARBMAC topic area cannot continue with impunity. An earlier report by myself was closed as stale because nobody looked at it, and I would like to avoid that neglect again in this troubled topic area. I am not trying to canvas you, but I would like to know the correct method for getting someone to inspect the diffs? I was looking through the WP:- pages on 3RR and I couldn't find it and... I'm stressed and busy myself, you know. Thanks a lot for your time. Cheers, -- Calthinus ( talk) 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
Beshogur’s case at AE, which is ongoing, has been archived. Can you please have it restored? Étienne Dolet ( talk) 08:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I will be leaving Wikipedia after your comments on my talk page. I will write a much more in-depth letter directly to Wikimedia so it can be documented for the record. It is obvious that you do not want me here and are unhappy that I created the "Stop the Steal" page regarding a current conspiracy theory. It was my understanding that Wikipedia was a non-partisan institution but it appears if something is unfavorable to right wing, then it is not acceptable. We live in a free country so I will respect that this is how Wikipedia is set up and I will no longer contribute.
Pacificgov ( talk) 07:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I echo what the previous respondent said. It is a shame that a non-profit organization that requests donations is beginning to be bias towards the Right-wing. Can't wait to tell all of my friends to stop using wikipedia. Fairwiki2020 ( talk) 19:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) FairWiki2020
Hello. I recently filed a report at ANI about a user who engages in OR/Syth, edit warring, adds low quality sources (including repeatedly adding a non-peer-reviewed preprint), and refuses to engage/discuss (reverting me and completely ignoring my edit summaries trying to explain the problems with their edits). However, the report has been there for a while now, and although two non-admin users have commented (corroborating what I described), no admins have yet and nothing has been done. The user who is the subject of the report has begun to edit again and thus I worry the problem will continue (since they have a tendency to be unresponsive to explanations and to make strange and unfounded accusations). I'm not sure what to do (I remember it took a long time to get a response from ANI when I reported User:Dalhoa and hope this is not similar). Here is a link to my report: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#USER:Toltol15_making_WP:OR_edits_and_edits_using_low_quality_sources,_ignoring_edit_notes/edit_wars,_and_refusing_to_engage/discuss
Is there another admin I should perhaps also contact? Any help is appreciated. Thank you Skllagyook ( talk) 01:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I saw that you've left a discretionary sanctions message for me on my talk page, could you tell me what this means please? I've had a read of your message but not sure what it entials.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
You are right abouit the modern area name, but see the start of the article, and the translation at the other article. Was this originally just the name for Newgrange alone? Johnbod ( talk) 05:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I just thought I'd bring this to your attention, as I noticed you've come into contact with this user in the past. Much of this sidebar spamming seems unhelpful, and it's not always relevant to the article in question, or only weakly related. I'm not familiar with sidebars so wasn't sure whether to leave them a message about this and/or start reverting some of the additions. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 14:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug, seems this user keeps reverting content 1 2 by other users, using weird edit summaries to justify. He was blocked before for doing that. Mr.User200 ( talk) 00:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and Talk:Cherokee history, where much of this discussion is repeated, as well as on my User Page. User: Tsistunagiska, who joined in August 2020, asked me on my User page why I made an edit in Cherokee history saying that the Cherokee did not build mounds, then referred to her statements above to "prove" that they did, citing James Mooney's late 19th c. work and Cherokee web sources for most of these mounds, and the Citizen Times On Biltmore Mound (this article attributed the mound to the Connestee.) But mostly she is saying that the Cherokee occupied these sites and hold them sacred, which I did not disagree with. I tried to suggest that some of Mooney's work had been superseded, and that it might be useful to differentiate between who built the mounds and which cultures later used them. I thought I remembered that there were several places where more than one people used them. Parkwells ( talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
(cont'd) It had been a while since I worked on these mounds, so reviewed her cited Citizen Times on Biltmore [but apparently got diverted to a different article without realizing it, as later I could not find the quotes!], then went back to other WP articles for review of individual mounds to learn more about them, several of which are NHL or on the NRHP. I suggested we move the thread from my User Page (mistake- Indigenous peoples project) to Cherokee history, as it seemed more specific to this, and since she was covering all the mounds there. She moved it back to my page. [This was my error; it was on the WikiProject Indigenous Peoples Talk page} = {She did not respond to my attempt to clarify the issues, and claimed I read the Citizen Times article wrong, even when I quoted directly from it in a response to her. [This was another error of mine, somehow - could not find the content I quoted, so perhaps had gotten diverted to a different article, for which I apologized.] Her rhetoric has heated up and become very accusatory, in more heated and longer terms each time. In my review of the mounds, which was not completed, some are definitely attributed to the Mississippian culture, which I think worth noting, while also noting Cherokee use and control, and claim of ancestral ties. She reverted all my changes (even when related only to word choice) and repeatedly made accusations of bias and intention that are inaccurate. I really do not know how to proceed. Most articles can be strengthened, and should integrate new information (such as on the Connestee). But reaching consensus on several articles will be difficult to conduct on several article pages at once. Parkwells ( talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug Weller,
I'm editing Wikipedia in legal manners, as I'm notified in your last notification. Besides, I want to quote that all the content that I post is unique and genuine, then kindly specify to me what kind of issue is arsing. As the text I have requested to publish is completely unique and does not violet anyone's copyrights. And please clarify to me that whether I can edit text next time from thenewsengine.com as I'm officially their team member.
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, regarding your recent indefinite extended-confirmed protection of these noticeboards, AE is a bit of a vague log reason for such a high visibility page coupled with the indefinite duration. Can you point to a discussion to further support the necessity of this? — xaosflux Talk 12:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
I am responding regarding a baseless decision to revert the edit that I made below...
The alert that I received contained the following two comments:
To begin, I would first direct attention the quote by user Nyook. The premise for Nyook's decision to remove and archive my edit is that "[I] didn't provide a reliable source." My first objection is that I did include a "reliable source;" I cited the reference that I used for "Satanism," which was a direct link to Satanism. Historically, the source of Satan ( Satan) and Christ ( Jesus) is the Bible. These are facts, indisputable, according to the full extant pages currently denoted on Wikipedia (as sourced hyperlinks, aforementioned). For example, under the definition section of Satanism, third paragraph, is the following paragraph that reads,
"In 1994, the Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne suggested defining Satanism with the simultaneous presence of "1) the worship of the character identified with the name of Satan or Lucifer in the Bible, 2) by organized groups with at least a minimal organization and hierarchy, 3) through ritual or liturgical practices." The definition applies regardless the way in which "each group perceives Satan, as personal or impersonal, real or symbolical.[9]"
Unless I'm completely missing something, this is a reliable source, by definition. Are you and Nyook suggesting this citation is unreliable? Or do you think it's possible a couple of individuals failed miserably to actually read the content that was sourced and cited as reference? Or maybe there was simply bias and prejudice involved in the general decision to revert my edit?
Additionally, see the section "Etymology" in the Wikipedia entry for " Satanism" for additional source citations. Moreover, the section "Medieval and Early Modern Christendom" continues at length ad banality, as pertains to instance a "Devil Worship.". Thus, it appears, as noted above, that Satan and Christianity are wedded ad infinitum. Here it must be noted that even in the entry Theistic Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism is also referenced, even if a demarcation is attempted to be drawn to distinguish between various denominations of " Satanism. As noted on Satanism page, under the section "Medieval and Early Modern Christendom," where it states, "The Knights Templar were accused of worshipping an idol known as Baphomet, with Lucifer having appeared at their meetings in the form of a cat.[33]", The Satanic Temple also uses the symbol of Baphomet. According to Massimo Introvigne, whether " The Satanic Temple", " LaVeyan Satanism", " Church of Satan", or other fringe cultists or occultists, these institutions meet the definition: "by organized groups with at least a minimal organization and hierarchy." Furthermore, as example, the following seven "Fundamental Tenets" of the The Satanic Temple constitute " ritual" and " liturgical practices":
Here it is noted that the about us section of the website ( https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us) denotes the conflict between " The Satanic Temple" and " Church of Satan" as follows...
"The Church of Satan expresses vehement opposition to the campaigns and activities of The Satanic Temple, asserting themselves as the only “true” arbiters of Satanism, while The Satanic Temple dismisses the Church of Satan as irrelevant and inactive."
Under the section "Antagonism towards Satanism" on the Satanism page, the following is quoted at length...
"Another contributing factor to the idea of Satanism is the concept that there is an agent of misfortune and evil who operates on a cosmic scale,[22] something usually associated with a strong form of ethical dualism that divides the world clearly into forces of good and forces of evil.[23] The earliest such entity known is Angra Mainyu, a figure that appears in the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.[24] This concept was also embraced by Judaism and early Christianity, and although it was soon marginalized within Jewish thought, it gained increasing importance within early Christian understandings of the cosmos.[25] While the early Christian idea of the Devil was not well developed, it gradually adapted and expanded through the creation of folklore, art, theological treatises, and morality tales, thus providing the character with a range of extra-Biblical associations.[26]
Based on this, it's utterly not poppycock to suggest that existential crisis of handfuls of individuals, whether organized or disorganized, are currently under way to ensure the ideology of "the Devil" is "well developed."
If Wikipedia citation can be self-referential, where one page (e.g. Christian mythology) references another page (e.g. Christianity), then it necessarily follows that mutual correlations, even if underdeveloped (e.g. Satanism, must also be referenced and cited, good sir! Otherwise, you risk general rot of intellectual integrity. However these Satanic denominations differ from their Christian counterparts is for neither you nor I to determine! And THAT is truly a page that is not written: please try a Google search (or any) as pertains to "differences between Christianity and Satanism Wikipedia."
I look forward to receiving our response.
Best regards, Tony O'Connor
https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/satanism#section_4
It appears you're deflecting and not addressing my argument, justification, and response. You're the individual who also said, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian mythology, you may be blocked from editing." Your response is underdeveloped and unacceptable. Please address my comments. See my Twitter blast: https://twitter.com/TonyOConnor_/status/1328627702912397312?s=20.
I plan to edit the reference again and this entire section can be added, there, as you suggest. If I can anticipate discourse similar to your redress, what literally is the issue? Are you the sole arbiter of intellectual discourse on Wikipedia? Did you even read what I wrote?
Regards,
Tony
P.S. Where is the articles talk page?
I'm contacting you regarding the revert of my edit on the Informed Consent Action Network page on 16 November 2020.
I have reviewed your guidance at the following URL:
/info/en/?search=User:Doug_Weller/reversion
I'd like to better understand the reason for the revert. Here is the edit summary.
Not encyclopedic - maybe if it ever gets substantial coverage, but not until then
What does encyclopedic mean in this context? I have done some research into Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, but have not found a definition of encyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia. (The dictionary definition doesn't appear to be applicable.)
Also, what does "substantial coverage" mean? Is is possible to quantify what the term substantial means in this context?
CarlJParker ( talk) 19:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
--
To be clear: My edit occurred on 16 November 2020 and the revert occurred on 17 November 2020.
CarlJParker ( talk) 19:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, actually there's no such thing as a "stable version"; [38]. I think the concept can stifle article development. Arcturus ( talk) 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Can you take a look at [39]. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug, would you like to express a third (actually fourth) opinion on Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari and the edit war that is taking shape on the article page? The new editor stunned me for good with their eloquence, but now they are starting an edit war with another editor who is asking to achieve a consensus before proceeding, to no avail. Khruner ( talk) 18:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your mention of mechanisms to protect from impersonation. Do you think they should apply re Leslyn Ann Lewis who has contributed to the Leslyn Lewis page? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you have reverted one of my edits on the Cyrus Cylinder page. I work at the British Museum and I can confirm that the cylinder is in gallery 52 not 55 as described underneath the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.83.103 ( talk) 22:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Weller. You deleted an edit I made on the Iranian Religions page. I removed the Kalasha religion from that page. I did leave a message explaining why I removed the Kalasha religion from the Iranian religions page. The Kalasha people are an Indo-Aryan group, not an Iranian group. Although the two groups are very similar, the Kalasha religion is more closely aligned with ancient Vedic religion. Thus, the Kalasha religion is more accurately described as a form of Hinduism, not Iranian religion. Let me know if you have any questions.
ताज ( talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering why you removed the category "English communists" from Ash Sarkar's page? She has stated numerous times that she is in fact a communist including once to Piers Morgan on national television with an outburst that included the line "I'm literally a communist". Mobslayerno1 ( talk) 20:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings Doug. You added an American-Politics DS notice to this user's talk page in June. Would you mind taking a look at this as well as their recent edits here? Thank you. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
You are the boss User:Doug Weller. Love you. jp× g 14:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI, there's an ancient Egyptian race controversy-related spat developing at Ahmose-Nefertari. A. Parrot ( talk) 01:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: With all due respect, my reply on whether your comment was appropriate or not had nothing to do with your intent, at all, but in the appearance of what you said. You stating your intent is of little consequence to the fact the comment should never have been made in the context in which it was. Anyone casually observing could come to the same conclusion as I did that you may have made the comment in order to influence Doug's response (hopefully) in your favor or set-up a rebuttal of a response not in your favor. At any rate, it could be conceived as an attempt to cast doubt upon Doug's ability to remain a neutral admin to which you have not provided any proof to support. The statement being made is what was inappropriate, irregardless of intent. I need not confirm anything concerning Doug or his actions as an admin. -- Tsistunagiska ( talk) 21:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I just posted to Wikipedia for the first time yesterday. I started a talk thread with the heading above on the Dominion Voting System page. It was labeled by you as WP:NOTFORUM. I am trying to understand what caused this. I do admit I didn't give the most cordial and polite response to having a link and virtual quote from the Clinton Foundation being labelled a conspiracy theory. And some other back and forth was not the most constructive, but I provided 3 links. Can you please enlighten me on how I can avoid this in the future.
Thank you Jray2175 ( talk) 19:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Is this notice related to anything specifically about my edits or is it a general notice to many? Seki1949 ( talk) 18:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The Government of India has threatened Wikipedia over the map on this page Bhutan–India relations. Vandalism is increasing. RFP is running late. thanks Aghore ( talk) 07:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering where to ask for local account creation for my bot, which can't log in as my IP range at my place of education is blocked for vandalism. Thanks, Seem pl ez 12:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Does it sounds like Zhomron is quacking in ancient phoenician? (paraphrasing from SPI comment in BedrockPerson )
What I'm seeing looks familiar: Moabite Language edit, Talk:Solomon's temple section (it's hard to tell what he wrote vs. anyone else, he's been characteristically careless in where he inserts his signature), Solomon's Temple edit, ... Tarl N. ( discuss) 03:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. I don't think that [[User:Stonkaments]] has had the standard reminder of DS for R&I posted on his user talk page. Many of his recent edits seem to be directed in that topic area. Here are two examples. [44] [45] Regards, Mathsci ( talk) 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I suspected the user is a block evasion by User:Deathismetal14 (I posted in the user's talk page). Can you take a look at the user and other blocked socks? 2402:1980:336:A2C:E6DB:B4C0:9DC6:39ED ( talk) 16:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
"vendetta • ter"? -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
Sir, I have legitimate good-faith additions intended to help build the encyclopedia. Sincerely Yours, Sir blue ( talk) 12:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The term Indian refers to a person with Indian nationality, not Native American. Native Americans associate themselves with their designated tribe, not an antiquated misnomer designating them as Indian. This was used by European settlers and not by the tribes themselves. The modern use is Native American or Natives. Historically it was also designated for Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc. However as they are not referred to as Indian now. Vajra Raja ( talk) 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug.
I have had a slight problem with the editor [[user:Generalrelative]], who is normally a reasonable editor.
I watch the article History of the race and intelligence controversy, that I created in Spring 2010 and which sparked off the WP:ARBR&I case. Generally I have stayed away from that article and anything related to it: it has been fairly stable. Yesterday, however, without warning, in a series of edits Generalrelative deleted 2 images relevant to the article. One was of Richard Lynn, controversial in R&I; the other was "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholarly Achievement*, the document which sparked the R&I controversy in the late 60s. The edit-summary was WP:UNDUE. I restored the images explaining their relevance. Generalrelative then created a WP:FORUM on Talk:Race and intelligence inviting other editors to join Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy. I do not edit the article Race and intelligence, so am baffled.
I fear that this is political correctness gone wrong. Generalrelative is undoubtedly well-intentioned, but for the two images they seem to have made a misjudgement. I believe Generalrelative has not received a formal notification of DS for WP:ARBR&I, so could that now be done? Using Talk:Race and intelligence as a means to send messages about another article does not seem to be permitted by WP:ARBR&I.
Sorry to bother about you about this. Mathsci ( talk) 18:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Doug, thank you for your tireless work at mediating while remaining patient. I'm not sure the total of your work here can even be measured in a way that does it justice. It has been my pleasure to watch your colors on display. From what I have seen you are a wonderful human being. I am grateful for our discussions. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 16:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Mister Weller, wonderful that you are working for our good. I appreciate that. Sorry that I added something which you regarded as disruptive. Please let me know exactly what you mean. Best wishes and a wonderful evening I wish you. 202012101858 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do better ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It is disruptive fora for? "Amplifying". Sorry but I just don't follow what you have written. I will return and place all the sources next to my "original work" and remove any of my"personal views" such as stating that something cannot be seen, when anyone can see that it - cannot be seen. I am really sorry to have disrupted your day and like yourself wish to have the truth revealed. kk ( talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2020 12 10 19:42
Eek!! How bad is it that I reverted edits made by an admin? I go into protection mode over particular articles and I just feel it's best to bring up concerns in an article's talk page before making huge edits to that article removing accurate and researched information that took days to verify and meticulously add to the article. I didn't even check who made the edits, only what edits were made. I rarely remove information, even if unsourced, unless it is blatantly false. Even then I probably will mention something in the talk page about it. I do not add OR, myself. It must be sourced or it's a no-go for me. What is hard is when you have a familiarity with the subject and you know the truth but it's not really documented to that degree in what most would call RS. The sources you may find the information in are reliable from that particular subjects standpoint but not in general, if that makes sense. In other words, If I am baking a pizza with pineapple as a topping I might go to a website created by a pizza maker but I wouldn't go there to get advice on how to invest money in the stock market. -- Tsistunagiska ( talk) 15:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tsistunagiska, I'm Iggy. Did you know that there's actual factual Cherokee folks that edit Wikipedia? There are! Some are tradish, some not so much - the point is they are here. There is also a collective of other Indigenous folks who edit here. There is a general consensus that there are certain things that are not for public consumption because we greatly respect our ancestors, elders and Elders - we've grown up within our community and we understand the dynamics of what should be shared and what shouldn't along with the irreparable damage that is caused by oversharing. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a go to for cultural appropriation. You're not like Chief Joseph. You're a fairly new editor who is frustrated. It happens to all of us. Relax. Calm down. Reread what you've posted on Doug's page and ask yourself if that's really a look you want to present in order to be taken seriously. I understand that you are passionate about the topic, I get it. I really do. Unfortunately it's colouring your reaction and in your desire for excellence and I dunno to uber honor your ancestors (this is wikipedia, go out and leave them tobacco to honor them, they'll care more about that. They don't gaf about digital media, I guarantee. They would be more inclined to rejoice at protection of ceremonies than sharing there of) you were inserting questionable sources and content that the Nation its self protects. Anyway, belated welcome to Wikipedia. Hopefully you'll just take a break and rethink your approach. *There are no lies in the article. Be well. Indigenous girl ( talk) 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
We have various source that confirmed that china is supporting Al badr
Check this link:
https://theprint.in/defence/terror-recruitment-in-kashmir-very-high-al-badr-active-again-as-pakistan-revives-outfit/523249/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.103.25 ( talk) 03:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I was delivering a DS/alert and I think I inadvertently forgot to fill in the code. I went back and filled in the already-subst'ed template, but I'm realizing it may have been improperly logged. If so, is there any way to fix that, or any further steps you know of that I should take? Thanks, -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I really don't think a full protection for a week was the right way to go with Amanda Kloots. The article is still very new and undergoing a lot of construction. Full protection makes it extremely hard to get any work done on the article, and a week is a significant amount of time. The edit warring was only between two users. Please reconsider it. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 19:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, have sent you an email, hope you can help.
Thanks Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianHorne ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid registered editors are making contentious changes that are currently the subject of two RfCs. Since changes like that aren't supposed to occur while the issues are being debated at RfCs, and two different editors have violated this — one of them currently the subject of an ANI for this behavior — I would like to ask for full protection to this article until the two RfCs are concluded. I believe it's the only way to tamp down the heat here.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I see that one of the contributors to the contentious Kloots RfC has just been blocked for sockpuppetry. Am I right in thinking that the general policy is to strike out such contributions? Obviously, as someone involved (and a lowly IP at that) I shouldn't do it myself. 165.120.15.66 ( talk) 20:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, let me thank you for taking the time to make recommendations like this [48] for me when necessary. All your different advices have helped me a lot. The desire to do a better job, motivates me to ask your help with an explanation of why the Infobox person/Wikidata template is not recommended, or if it can be used under certain conditions. In case you have time, there will be a willing and grateful mind to read carefully.-- Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco ( talk) 17:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Not that this is the biggest deal in the world, but I do not appreciate being
pinged to a discussion from which I have completely disengaged and in which my final contribution ended Please no one ping me back to this discussion.
If, 60+ hours after my last post, my behavior was troubling you, I feel the appropriate thing would have been to discuss it with me on my talk page. (As I said, this is not the biggest deal in the world.) --
JBL (
talk)
12:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Re: [49] would you be so kind as to comment at Wikipedia:Help desk#Is there a restriction on what a blocked user can use his talk page for? I am in no way criticizing your comment: I am genuinely curious about what the actual wording of policy is. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I would *highly* recommend not posting lies and propaganda on my talk page again, making unhinged accusations. Further flaming will result in consequences beyond your imagination. Tread very carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bswastek ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Doug,
I am not interested in online arguments on Wikipedia. But please, I am respectfully asking you to stop reverting edits just for the sake of doing so.
You reverted some edits from Phoenicianism. The edits involved removing the following propaganda (written in bold just in case the reader misses how grotesque it is):
Phoenicianism embraces Phoenicia as an alternative cultural foundation by rejecting 850 years of Arabization.
Is this a direct quote from A House of many Mansions? why is it written in Bold in first place and why did you revert it back to its bold format? The latter book is not a reliable publication.
We can disagree on citing Kamal Salibi as a valid source (and other post civil-war Lebanese intellectuals who profit from selling books and should not be confused peer-reviewed research). That does not negate that the aforementioned sentence is a pan-arabist political statement and not a valid scientific counter argument. In other words, I would like to see some criticism for actual research such as this article regarding ancestral continuity in Lebanon and this article (published by Nature) that dates 7,300 years of unique ancestral heritage. We need to shift the debate in that direction.
Citing the likes of Kamal Salibi (Pan Arabist fiction writer) and Assad Bou Khalil (Conspiracy theory advocate,just check his twitter feed don't take my word for it) leaves the debate in opinionated political arguments that lead to nowhere. The subject of Phoenicianism is a highly divisive topic among Lebanese to begin with so lets shift the arguments and counter arguments to a right path. The big elephant(s) in the room is the grotesque propaganda in the criticism section so why don't we start from there.
Any thoughts/suggestions? Cheers -- 2601:249:8280:CF70:9E:9CFC:620C:8100 ( talk) 00:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The criticism section also includes the following paragraph:
The Dutch university professor Leonard C. Biegel, in his 1972 book Minorities in the Middle East: Their significance as political factor in the Arab World, coined the term Neo-Shu'ubiyya to name the modern attempts of alternative non-Arab nationalisms in the Middle East, e.g. Aramaeanism, Assyrianism, Greater Syrian nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, Berberism, Pharaonism, Phoenicianism. Is recency bias permitted per Wikipedia Standards? Neo-Shu'ubiyya simply refers to populism and that paragraph is clearly subjective and does not add any value to the article. Please provide an explanation for this permissible subjectivity.
Moreover, you had no problem deleting a whole section from a technical paper published by Nature (on 07:40, 5 March 2016). The study did in fact provide context to the Jewish genome with respect to Lebanese and Levantine Populations but you dismissed it. Why did you dismiss that study completely?
-- 2601:249:8280:CF70:9E:9CFC:620C:8100 ( talk) 04:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you removed the POV tag from the article Anti-gender movement citing that it requires specific on talk page. However, if you look at the discussion page there's a topic about wording and neutrality there: /info/en/?search=Talk:Anti-gender_movement#Wording_and_neutrality?
Therefore, isn't the POV tag completely valid? -- Rusentaja ( talk) 04:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)