![]() | 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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
I clearly showed an edit was made without being a "neutral point of view" and you accused me of not treating that editor with "civility and respect". Terratian ( talk) 03:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Boy, i am editing wiki. Skeyerise cast a magic spell to figure it out after his ownership of chaos magic, also ridiculously spelled as chaos magick, was revealed by myself, roxy the cay Raxythecat ( talk) 01:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Editingwiki777 ( talk · contribs) has reappeared as Raxythecat ( talk · contribs). An SPI has been opened. Skyerise ( talk) 13:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
And back again as 107.202.75.102 ( talk · contribs) Skyerise ( talk) 05:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello again Doug. Considering that you were familiar with it already ( 1, 2, 3), I thought I'd initially share it here in case it interests you. I found out yesterday that we have a number of articles that appear to cite it... A few days ago I saw a (questionable) video that stressed strange dates for some native artefacts, arguing often about "academia"'s different conclusions or it not mentioning what they don't want you to know. It then included what appeared to be forged objects, then confirmed my suspicion with things like an out-of-place "10 commandments stone". Finally, it ended as a travel agency advert. The advertized URL's TLD was .co.uk, but it may possibly be related? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
An insource search for the spam link they posted led me to this: User:Jimsorzo/Hank Kunneman — Paleo Neonate – 19:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
![]()
|
Dear Doug, you may have seen that last week at ANI two editors (one of them me) proposed sanctions against MfactDr, after a period of him once more stepping way out of line with his disruptive POV editing. I think that at least I presented a good case that something needed to happen. In the beginning there was a little bit of back and forth between MfactDr and the two OPs, but beyond that nobody else contributed anything to that discussion, until the case died in the archives today. There wasn't even anyone telling me that my case was weak or badly presented or even frivolous - there was just no reaction (and certainly no action) at all. In terms of the matter that may be okay, as I can see that under the impression of being dragged to ANI MfactDr has calmed down significantly, has even taken steps to improve his behavior, such as archiving his talk page now instead of just deleting all the warnings. If he sticks to that for a while I will be quite happy. So my question to you is more what I can learn from this experience.
This was the first time I brought something to ANI, so maybe I'm disappointed about something that is actually quite normal - should I expect things to be ignored at ANI and contact administrators directly, as I have done in the past, sometimes approaching you or Cordless Larry? Whenever I did that, you usually acted swiftly. Presenting a case at ANI certainly took a lot more preparation, and I wasted a lot of time watching the ANI page for something to happen (and got sidetracked that way into another discussion). Or should I instead go directly to AE, because technically MfactDr violated the Horn-of-Africa DS? Or should I rather refrain from any attempts to get sanctions invoked against editors such as him or David S Gondaria, who is in every respect MfactDr's counterpart from a different ethnic perspective? Whatever advice you can give, I will take it to heart. LandLing 06:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See
[2]
♟♙ (
talk)
00:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I saw what was happening they are back using a new Ip [3]. Seems like the page needs to be protected again. Starkid1979 ( talk) 02:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
No more on my talk page thanks. Questions about the scope of
discretionary sanctions might be asked at WP:ARCA. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi Doug, you posted this notice on my talkpage, however I haven't edited (or even thought about editing anything to do with AMerican politics for a long time (not since 2020 perhaps), just wondering what made you post this notice on my talkpage? Aeonx ( talk) 09:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure sure what brought you to read my userpage (casual stalking?), and then interpret that as an interest to post the US Politics DS notification, but regardless it's not an interest, it's an opinion formed by observation. There's clear difference since its widely philipshopically accepted that one can have a disinterested opinion as I do. Aeonx ( talk) 13:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Perhaps it's just an excuse so you can pounce on an editor that doesn't share the Wikipedia administrator club preclusions for unconscious bias against certain aspects like selectively applying rules to those that challenge norms, overlooking WP:5P when it suits best. If it were up to me, every Wikipedia admin should have to undertake annual unconscious bias training and testing, what is there left to provides confidence and assurance otherwise? Perhaps food for the thought. Aeonx ( talk) 13:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
|
When you have time, could you read through User:Kansas Bear/Great Bullion Famine and give me your thoughts regarding flow, information, sectioning, sources, etc. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Help!!!!!!!! My sandbox is not working!!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace ( talk) 10:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, can something be done about Kurgans r us, he's been making personal attacks [9], [10]. That's in addition to making what I take to be questionable edits on genetics related topics and edit-warring about them [11], [12], [13], [14]. Also his first edit [15] appears to be making an unsourced claim that the Ancient Egyptians came from Eurasia?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 23:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Turns out that user:OceanRockLegend is Moody's manger [16]. Still trying to get Hcm2021 ( talk · contribs) to clarify his connection and why he was uploading an image as his own work when it wasn't. Meters ( talk) 19:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Doug! Would you consider taking a look on the 'new' user here, using your tools if appropriate? I've a mind to take them to ANI (harassment [18] [19]; far-right POV-pushing [20] [21] [22]), but maybe you could save us some time? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This template must be substituted. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes ( talk) 17:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Hi Doug, it took me awhile to figure out why I was getting so many alerts from my talk page all at once until I remember the Vandana Shiva article checks off all those boxes. I think for better, I haven't been in a situation until this year where I wasn't already technically WP:AWARE of the GMO DS since we had the first ArbCom case on that. That was a bit of welcome realization. That said, I noticed I was the only one who was getting all those templates, so did something catch your eye there? Thanks. KoA ( talk) 16:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! User 103.25.248.251 performed an edit in which a Facebook profile link was put into the edit summary. Since WP:Spam was entered into the summary, the edit meets the criteria for a RevDelete, correct? I went ahead and reverted the edit and I'm here to request a deletion of the revision. This is my first encounter with vandalism in an edit summary so if my request is out of place or I'm mistaken, please let me know!
Thank you, RFZYNSPY talk 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, if you're not too busy I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the contribution history of the new user Total random nerd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm reaching out to you since you thanked me for a partial walk-back I did to one of their edits: [23] My initial concern had to do with persistent ref spamming of a blog called fascinatingpolitics.com, but the overall purpose seems to be imposing their view of who is and isn't a "conservative", and re-categorizing accordingly, on as broad an array of bios as possible. I left a personalized note on their talk page [24] but was met with hostility [25] and an insistence that WP:IAR overrides all other concerns, including WP:NPA [26]. Not quite at the level of an ANI complaint yet, I think, but more eyes on this user's activities would be helpful. Many thanks for all you do, Generalrelative ( talk) 20:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This looks like a ?blog? Your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you help me to move this article Naga people (Lanka) to Naga people (Sri Lanka) and List of major attacks attributed to the LTTE to List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE Amritsvāraya ( talk) 12:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear administrator Dough Weller,
greetings ! I am sorry for using abusive languages, but I did so when I was attacked by a Pakistani IP address(119.160.65.104 ) calling me a 'Hindu' Vandal. And now IP(203.135.44.86 ) is calling me Hindu extremist ! I consider this a severe act of using discriminatory language -- how this guy know that I am a Hindu ? Is being a Hindu a crime ? Isn't that discriminatory and disturbing ? I do not see provision for conveying grievence, otherwise I would have done so without wasting my time with such people. Please take stern action.
Well I suppose I provided adequate reference to the change I made. Politically speaking Kashmir has been an integral part of India, as the last king of Kashmir his majesty Hari Singh signed to acceed to India -- while Kashmir was experiencing unprecidented attack by Pakistani militia and regular army in 1948 (along with genocide of Hindus). I provided reference to the edit I made, but these guys abused me first.
Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by AsVw3 ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
I am a classicist, deeply pained by the current discussions around racism in classics. I read the old "black people in ancient Rome" article and, boy, it was one of the most racist articles I'd read on this site. Several anachronistic misnomers, (ie. "sub-saharan african"), misquoting of sources (including Isaac and Snowden, Jr.), outright false information (re: denying the existence of racism in antiquity, denying the multiplicities of meaning for various terminologies), and deeply misleading (no discussion whatsoever about the complexity and malleability of Blackness as descriptive at that time). Reading the talk page made me choke on my coffee, it was full of aggressive racism in the discussions of craniometry (as if it were a valid divider for "North" vs. "Sub-Saharan" Africans) and the denial of polychromatism in the ancient world. I would like to get the article somehow protected, and although it is still in a limited state at the moment, I do not want it to continue being a source of white nationalist talking points that have so gripped the public understanding of the ancient Mediterranean for so long (which we are just now, in the last 50 years, growing cognizant of). Please advise as to my options in this respect, and how we might ensure that the next generation of classicists (in addition to lay people) will not continue to be misled by outdated racism in an article that (in my opinion) probably shouldn't exist. Instead, we should roll it up in something about "Diversity in ancient Rome" and have a more advanced discussion about the fluidity and complexity of applying modern notions to the past. But if we keep the current article about "Black people" specifically, there should be better writing in it (and frankly, better classics). Thank you for reading.
Best, Ali— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleet Admiral Ali ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi buddy, You recently blocked Godwatch49. But he has now made another account and has again started vandalism on articles. His new ID (sockpuppet account) is Viratyuddh. For proof you can see the edit history of Arjuna and you might also check his contributions. Contributions of both the accounts are exactly same. Regards, WikiEdit talk HiWikiEdit ( talk) 11:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, Thank u so much. BTW u r fast. He edited my motice out but you saw it. Thanks again. WikiEdit talk HiWikiEdit ( talk) 12:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buddy, This time I am here to complain about Yashwantbhoj who is continuously vandalising Wikipedia. He is doing disruptive editing across pages without citing reliable sources. He has received many warnings on his talk page but he continues to ignore them and is not abiding with the rules. Please look into this matter and do what's best for Wikipedia. WikiEdit talk HiWikiEdit ( talk) 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Good day. You left a very unsettling message on my Talk page but provided no details or background regarding the reason you had for leaving it. I take a great deal of pride in my work on Wikipedia and feel that I have been blessed to have a reputation as a hard-working editor who is always unbiased in their edits, and that articles are much improved when I have completed my edits on them. I believe this because of the feedback I have received from other editors. Never, in more than 11 years of editing here, has anyone ever accused me of anything untoward. I attempt in all my actions to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the letter. If you are going to leave embarrassing or provocative comments on a person's user page, you are compelled to give details and sources to support your position. If you leaves such items in your position as administrator and particularly if there is another editor or editors involved, then you are compelled to prove that you have considered all sides equally and have held all editors involved to the same accountability and process. Since I don't know why you posted what you did, my expectations of your behavior might not be covered in my examples, but I think you get the idea. I am sure we can work together to bring whatever issues you have with my editing to an agreeable solution. Please assume good faith, as that is the only way in which I conduct myself here. I do not believe your actions were personally motivated, since we don't know each other and I don't believe our paths have crossed before. I assume you are acting in what you believe to be good faith, but your comments on my page leave far more questions than you probably thought you answered. Even so, I thank you for your time and contributions to Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd ( talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
MarydaleEd ( talk) 01:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I have rewritten the paragraph; however the previous addition could not be a copyright violation as the copyright in the article in a 1937 Australian publication has expired long ago ( Copyright law of Australia), and in any event, the test for copyright infringement in Australia (and other jurisdictions) is the reproduction of a “substantial” amount of the previous work, which is not the same as paraphrasing a portion of the previous work, with a footnote that credits the source. ( MozzazzoM ( talk) 07:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC))
I know my mom's advice, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all", is good, but I don't always follow it, especially when users refuse to drop the stick. Thanks for your comments here, as they were well thought out without being condescending, which my response wouldn't have been! Here's hoping your advice is taken. (But I'm not holding my breath on that one!) BilCat ( talk) 23:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This user, Special:Contributions/178.202.82.89, has vandalized the Femme Fatales (TV series) page twice. Here’s the proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1043298917&oldid=1042808998&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1047329548&oldid=1043730081&diffmode=source
Could you please handle this problem with him and tell him not to vandalize the page a third time? Because if he does, he may start an edit war with me. AdamDeanHall ( talk) 03:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
![]()
|
Hi Doug,
I'm not certain of the correct location to bring this (if there was a registered account involved, I believe it would be SPI, but as there is not, I am unsure) so I thought the best place would be to bring it to the admin who blocked the user.
2A01:598:918A:4B91:1:1:8713:81E4 recently turned up at AUKUS, making some strange arguments that the article should be in French. Out of curiosity, I looked at their contributions, and they had made a few contributions to AUKUS in that direction, and one to a TV show called "Femme Fatales". This contribution continues an edit war involving the banned IP, here and here.
The banned IP was also heavily involved in editing AUKUS, which adds further evidence if it is needed.
BilledMammal ( talk) 12:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I doubt they are the same user, Frankfurt is an important internet hub in Europe, and there are millions of people living in the region. 2A02:908:182:AF40:481B:4E0F:1E1:22D0 ( talk) 16:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Dushan Jugum has just significantly modified the lede of the article R&I, [27] without any discussion at the article talk page or any attempt to seek consensus (cf notices on WP:ARBR&I, FAQs, RfCs, etc). Please could the standard DS notice be posted on Dushan Juqum's user talk page? Thanks in advance, Mathsci ( talk) 06:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
There is an IP, making numerous questionable edits to Philip III of France, a GA article. I have reverted them twice, and one of their edits is clear WP:OR and source misrepresentation. [28]
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
If you have tried to send me an email, I am not successfully receiving email now. Please wait until I say that the problem has been addressed. Thanks. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller:Hello, I am contributing to this talk page and just saw that you added this label. Unless I am mistaken, I have not seen any discussion on gender on this talk page. Is there any specific purpose, or is it only a general purpose, as on any other wikipedia article? Thank you in advance, cheers, -- Emigré55 ( talk) 10:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Some code
|
---|
$.when(mw.loader.using('mediawiki.util'), $.ready).then(function(){ if (mw.config.get('wgCanonicalSpecialPageName') === 'Watchlist'){ mw.util.addPortletLink('p-namespaces', '/wiki/Special:CheckUserLog', 'CU Log', 'ca-culog', 'CheckUser log'); } }); |
-- zzuuzz (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey there, would you be willing to revdelete an edit summary in accordance to revdel criterion 2? Here's the diff. Thanks! RFZYNSPY talk 16:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
why did you warn me on my talk page? i did not make any disruptive edit. i removed a single, unsourced sentence, and said that It would be okay to be in if someone gave it a source. could you not find a source for your personal opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlkha ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I have taken the liberty to message you because I see you as an administrator have had previous dealings with the above editor. This time, they have posted a non-existent article for B Class assessment. Link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#New_requests.
I posted a message on their Talk page rebuking them for vandalism. Given their prior history,you may want to take action. Georgejdorner ( talk) 23:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Dear Doug, I've read the instructions about how to ceate a talk page archive but my brain keeps going into spasm. Since you have had a lot of practice, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to create one for me and put into it all talk posts up to the end of May 2021. My apologies for being so feeble. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 13:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
-- Dylan620 ( talk) 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
Could you read through this and give me your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I just wanted to say thank you for calm and clear explanations both here and on twitter. I am thankful that the focus there seemed to have shifted off me personally to wikipedia more broadly. I'm guessing that might mean more new editing on the article as a result, so hopefully all here can follow your example and stay equally clear and calm in responding. Cheers, Melcous ( talk) 07:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Kinda amazing that nobody caught Hatto's sock, back then. He wasn't actually creative in the name he gave it. GoodDay ( talk) 15:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Doug, what was his name again? Sometimes a nice guy, sometimes completely abusive? Wasn't he in the DC area? Drmies ( talk) 23:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ha, I was thinking of Middayexpress, but it was Hoeater. Maybe they're actually the same anyway. Drmies ( talk) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I tried to start an RfC on the Nation of Islam article. So far, you and one other person are the only ones to comment. Is there anything I should do to get more comments to close the RfC? Thanks, Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.
Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
Thank you once again for your valued participation! -- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
i dig what was said oh Doug Weller. We do not want to propagate Hate speech. Nonsense is another description exactly printed in word coming from the criterion chamber three of the book of one won where it was said: quote unquote you are talking foolish nonsense: Linking it to GIBBERISH was about cloaking the murder of Jab11111111116bar the genocide of the whole Arab race including Israel the killing of every man in the world by the 644Bot then dividing the earth into grub and stencils. That was Hiroshima, Nagasaki,the battle of Poitiers, the carol that we sing and made our desks in libraries. Merry Christmas. Pharaohs ascend at that solstice. Pharaoh is in paradise. Jena blessed are those in the fire and around the fire.88 337
Pharaoh worshiping the act at the Bot tomes of tomb city of all of this went to kill every twelfth son of Israel, Every first son 1117 'toI of Egypt killed to say: politely made a fellowship.aeiou: 'to the strongest357. TOYS ARE USSr. :the nutcracker suite. KIDS. Carnations.
Jean: We are always together in spirit and love. Time or space cannot change our everlasting love and relationship. Love always, DAD..6:43 2017.663 mundane . Jean Louise Dell'Aquila ( talk) 15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)JEAN LOUISE DELL'AQUILAe.669
Hey Doug, appreciate the message and instructions. I have now added them back citing the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srihariramadas ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm reaching out because I see that you've advised this user about the I/P discretionary sanctions. If you have a moment, could you review their edits and edit requests on Talk:Yom Kippur War, as well as my talk page, and let me know if I need to go to AE, or of the disruption is enough to take action without going through that. Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Good morning, there is a user who on articles with a geographical topic is changing the region of different geographical entities to " Armenian highlands". I suspect that theirs are POV edits. I have reverted one edit, but I don't want to change more because i don't want to end up with a discretionary sanctions banner on my talk page again. :-) Question: there is a guideline regarding geographical names in this region? Thanks, Alex2006 ( talk) 15:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. Please could the recently registered account Alan B. Samuels have an R&I standard DS notice be posted on their user talk page. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 08:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the meaning 79.117.44.113 ( talk) 16:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I've just tried to help if you are to disturbed by this you've must be mad at the all internet informations from which no one will know what is the true identity of the Minoan Language! 79.117.44.113 ( talk) 17:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This argues are a blasfemy to their adress! 79.117.44.113 ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that spammer! Autarch ( talk) 18:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, you (and User:KrakatoaKatie) recently assisted with a Sockpuppet report: [31] I made recently, I believe there are a large number of other related sockpuppets which have been created which may be related, which you can see from this article's edit history: [32], many have a similar name and have only edited the article Jason Dasey. I actually think it is possible these accounts (including ones previously blocked) may be associated with several journalists working out of the same office. I wanted to ask if this is something you could look into further? or what would be the best approach to deal with this? Should I just open a new sockpuppet report?
Thanks, Aeonx ( talk) 00:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
You keep saying they are Asian origin!! But you know this is not the case!!! Why not tell the truth please. 92.249.155.251 ( talk) 19:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You left a message on my talk page which said this:
“ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Biblical cosmology. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)”
Well the thing is I did give a reason, I said that the verse (Revelation 7:1) was not referring to a flat earth, rather was saying that there was Angles all over the world. (The ‘four corners’ is a idiom).
Please answer me on my talk page.
Thank you
-Teertrevo
Teertrevo (
talk) 21:35, 29 November 2021
331dot ( talk) 08:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thanks for letting me know i was getting used to editing sorry for the inconvenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcaz007 ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey I just want to let you know I am not trying to be enemies with you. I want the same thing with Wikipedia as you do, a free encyclopedia. If you feel like I’m being a bigot please let me know. Teertrevo ( talk) 17:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm contacting you as per WP:IPECPROXY because you are listed as a Checkuser. I use a VPN service to circumvent internet censorship in Russia. Usually, I turn it off to edit Wikipedia, but this is inconvenient, and makes it especially difficult to cite web sources that are blocked in Russia. My account is over a year old and in good standing. Is there any chance of having the block on VPN/proxy-editing removed for my account so that I can edit using a VPN? Many thanks, Akakievich ( talk) 20:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
Not sure if the ongoing Rfc about J. K. Rowling's views on transgender-related topics is on your radar or not. It started 28 November, and is already very long. Being on a controversial topic, it's not surprising that the discussion has become heated in places, and there are already four portions of it that have been collapsed by various editors (not me), for good cause in my opinion, in order to keep the discussion on track.
There is another portion of the discussion that I believe should be collapsed, but as I am involved I don't think I should be the one to do it. It can be found in subsection #Response count. This subsection was initiated 21:52, 3 December 2021, and includes a table of editor names, and how many times each editor has contributed to the Rfc. As a result, one named editor has quit the Rfc, "and the entire topic area", in a huff. The rest of this subsection is about and among editors, and not about the Rfc topic. In my opinion, this subsection, or parts of it, richly deserves collapsing.
Can you have a look at the #Response count subsection of this Rfc, and see if you think any action should be taken? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
I'm wondering if you think this new SPA's behavior looks like a duck for Mikemikev? To my far less experienced eye it seems to be, based not only on the unrelenting racialist POV-pushing but also the pattern of hectoring opposing editors on their user talk pages [33], [34], [35], [36]. Folks are currently spending time responding to this user's demands for attention and it seems to me like a waste. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 01:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is Mikemikev as well: [37]. Their contrib history begins with this comment at ArbCom yesterday: [38]. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 16:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
There's an user canvassing or attempting to canvass editors to an RFC, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Wall Street Journal. The RFC is here.
The problem, as I see it, is the non-neutral message and the selection of audience, notifying only FTN (that problem has been mitigated by others).
The same user is also making personal attacks against other editors in the same FTN discussion. I have trouble deciphering what "ordering milkshakes" means. Is that some kind of physical threat or culinary advice? Cheers, Politrukki ( talk) 12:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
You wrote that did you? I paraphrased that comment (without mentioning you by name or diff) to someone in 2019 or 2020 when I told them that it would be unwise to selectively ping editors to discussions. But I also said that mentioning blocks or topic bans might could be perceived as overreaction. Or something like that. There's already one long ANI thread involving the WSJ article. How many do we need? Please don't ping me. Thank you. Politrukki ( talk) 17:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)This is the sort of thing that can get you blocked or topic banned. Even if this wasn't in an area of discretionary sanctions it could get you blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
When you blocked Penjogjoposioćio as a sockpuppet, you made an error, as the sockpuppeteer has a symbol over the "I", and I'm here to let you know that the sockpuppeteer is "İsmail Kendir", not "Ismail Kendir". Just thought I'd drop by and let you know the red link showed up from the block. DarkMatterMan4500 ( talk) ( contribs) 11:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Styyx: Hi, you questioned the edits of an editor's contributions here. That account looks to be a sockpuppet of the user Ismail Kendir. They engage in the same religious proselytizing, write the same way, continue the edit warring of said sockmaster's previous accounts, and lastly, amongst all their adding religious POV to articles, are also editing meme-related word redirect pages -- here their previous sock account did this, now here is this new account doing the exact same. Pinging the editor who made me aware of this for good measure as well. Eik Corell ( talk) 00:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on Paititi. I'm on it. Hoopes ( talk) 18:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to understand why you have put this notice on my page.I did not vandalize or edit any page. I was talking to a couple of editors civilly and respectfully asking for reasons of why my suggested edit is in violation of wp:blp when an eerily similar statement already present on the Article is'nt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 ( talk) 19:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Io, Saturnalia! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Slatersteven#Delhi_Riots He has used the same racist word in the past and attributed it to his reading habits. He has used the derogatory spelling intentionally in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3A2020_Delhi_riots&type=revision&diff=1028862882&oldid=1028858212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 ( talk) 19:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Jacob Zumba does not sound at all like a newbie. Can you check who they are? tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
You say that I have a history of disruption. If you are referring to my supposed edit warring, I have to point out that some of the administrators on the JFK Assassination Conspiracy page apply a selective interpretation of edit warring. In other words, it seems that only certain editors, mainly administrators, are allowed to revert edits, unquestioningly and without consequence. Any editor outside of the administrator clique who reverts is automatically labeled by these administrators as an edit warrior, worthy of sanctions. Pretty sad. BrandonTRA ( talk) 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday!
Whether you celebrate
Christmas,
Hanukkah,
Kwanzaa,
Hogmanay,
Festivus or your hemisphere's
Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
11:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
It would have been helpful if you explained what a minor edit is and given me grace due to the fact I’ve done this all of 5 times. Believe it or not, I edit documents for a living, to me the “minor” of it was that it had no citation and there was a very similar with appropriate citations in the next section of the article. Putting me on notice officially is punishing me for a innocent mistake w/ no intention to make sure I have the knowledge to not do that again.
Also this is why I don’t give to Wikipedia ever. It is an elitist space. The fact that those who have been on here for such a long time do nothing but antagonize others who are new and just trying to learn is awful. Fatimaniqbal ( talk) 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I am talking about the fact that at Wikipedia you all speak a language that is specific to Wikipedia. Language is hard to learn. While others are learning, people are not interested in helping them, but interested in keeping knowledge and power to themselves. That is the elitism.
Editing articles is a certain type of power. Articles are now cited in Courtrooms as fact. So the person who just deleted my commentary before you, didn’t tell me anything. Didn’t say “that is not how you mark that a citation is needed” and just went on their way. So they reverted the changes w/o addressing the problem.
That person was not you and forgive me, notice is a legal concept and putting someone on notice is a reprimand in the real world. Again, at Wikipedia language does not take the normal meaning of the word, at Wikipedia, notice is something different. Minor is something different.
Here is another way of explaining what I am trying to say: the Edwardians used manners not to be “polite”, but to differentiate themselves from the lower class. ostracizing them when they didn’t understand their manners.
Here is my question to you, where can I learn the basics? Where can I learn the language of Wikipedia editing?
Fatimaniqbal ( talk) 17:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
So having a set of rules is very different from using language in a new way (and there is nothing wrong with that, but this idea is antithetical to the ones you are describing above) Grass and golf both meant something in the 50s; today, depending on who’s speaking, it could mean something else. Same as Kool-aid. It would put one at a disadvantage if they were trying to speak with these people who’ve attributed new meanings to old words to not know their new definitions. They are not changing meaning, but ascribing new meanings to old words. It’s just that simple, why are you complicating this discussion Austonesier?
Btw if this space was truly “collaborative” people wouldn’t pull the stuff they do. You would all use your real names, but so many of you have agendas, you don’t want to be found out.
Years ago, I was doing a research paper on Islam and I followed links to a guy that was a major “editor” of all things Islam only to learn that he was a Sikh man who used his editing knowledge to edit articles about Islam to the detriment of Islam; i.e. anti-Muslims editing articles about Islam. He specifically put on his pages that he was looking to say Guru Nanak influenced Islam; never mind that Islam came way before Sikhism and he had an agenda (at the end of the day everyone does on here, please don’t delude yourselves), but the idea that those with institutional knowledge and agendas get to police other people a hierarchy of power that is problematic.
The rules are to keep people in line, not to encourage “collaboration ”, but be a gatekeeper for those with limited, specific institutional power. Wikipedia is an institution, those who have been here for a while police others, it’s that simple. And there in lies the problem. Fatimaniqbal ( talk) 18:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not specialist in editing and even in English language, so you will understand me. On wiki page /info/en/?search=MassResistance i find it very offensive the expression ”MassResistance is a hate group which promotes anti-LGBT”, made without ANY citation. I think you will admit this might very well be a very subjective opinion by the author of the article. The following sentences are correct because they use citations ( ”The group is designated an anti- LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,[4]...”). Because I know very well MassResistence group activities, I tried to corect the first two sentences by changing them with :”MassResistence is a group that opposes LGBT groups activities in schools and promotes socially conservative positions”, which is the absolute truth, from a non partisan position. I was ”undone” twice by the author. Will you please be fair and accept a non biased reformulation of the begining of the article? Because as it is now I actually consider it as an incitement to hatred against a ( large ) group of people who are simply concerned by what their children are taught in schools. I want to mention I am non American citizen living in Europe. Be careful what you promote worldwide. I used to see Wikipedia a serious, reliable, non biased source of information. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cichirmeza ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
So. Mr. Weller,the author of the article /info/en/?search=MassResistance appears enough offended to use the word ”hate”, but I dont have the right to be offended by this word when used by him! Interesting! Mr. Weller, I want to reach a consensus, because I do not agree with the word ”hate” used by the author. I want him to mention the source ( his name ).
I find the expression ”MassResistance is a hate group” in the begining of the article /info/en/?search=MassResistance subjective and offensive. I want to reach a consensus with the author; either he/she deletes the word ”hate” or he/she mention the source ( his/her name ). I want Wiki to be fair and un biased in this case. In my opinion, thhat expression itself incites hatred against o large group of parents concerned about what their children learn in school. Of course, you, Mr. Weller, can block me. That would not mean you are a correct and unbiased Wiki administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cichirmeza ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Bishonen and all her socks! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC).
Merry Christmas, and best wishes for 2022 Doug. I wish I could create something as delightful as that critter above has done but I'm not good at that sort of thing (I guess I'm just not a monster!)!-- RegentsPark ( comment) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
The article Atlantis of the Sands should be retitled "Ubar". The nickname, popularized by the title of a 1992 book Atlantis of the Sands by Ranulph Fiennes, perpetuates a misleading reference to Atlantis that has nothing to do with the history of Ubar. While the actual identify of Ubar is currently debated, with some scholars rejecting its identification with the site of al-Shisr, it is harmful for Wikipedia to perpetuate the misleading nickname by featuring it as the title of an article. At best, "Atlantis of the Sands" should be an alternative titled that redirects to an article titled "Ubar". Thanks! Hoopes ( talk) 17:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hello Doug Weller, I wish you and your family a merry christmas and a healthy and happy new year. Regards -- Serols ( talk) 16:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten to mention the indef for Ivan VA here. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Did you used twinkle to issue the alert [40] because I didn't found such option? Shrike ( talk) 13:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is
WikiIslam. Thank you. —
Snuish (
talk)
12:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, It's not clear to me why are you stating that my edits to the ancient history page aren't neutral? Thank you for sending the style guidelines but I don't see a conflict in them. I am changing from BC/AD for the sake of religious neutrality, which is an important part of neutrality on Wikipedia. EuCJD ( talk) 02:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting again at Zheng He. Could you maybe give it indef semi protection? The edit history suggests it has been repeatedly plagued by this kind of stuff. Aza24 ( talk) 00:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The IP 50.100.221.36 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) that has rambled in Talk:English people and edit warred in several other pages awfully reminds me of User:Sprayitchyo, especially when they're talking about a "biologically distinct human subpopulation". One of Sprayitchyo's socks was User:Human Taxonomist, which says it all. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't need repetitive notices that I've received warnings on my talk page. At this point it's no more than an irritant/harassment. Buffs ( talk) 16:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Buffs: nope, it isn't harassment although it obviously irritated you. I won't post to your talk page again about how many alerts you've had as there's no need, but as you claimed 5, which was clearly wrong, I wanted you to have an accurate count. Just as I told people above they'd undercounted. As an Admin I am entitled to post warnings to your talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I manually checked all of the "new section" edits in edit history for User talk:Buffs back until I reached 2016. The only posting of discretionary sanction notices was for AP2 on 16 September 2019, which remains on page to this day without deletion or archival. Platonk ( talk) 21:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Keeping this in one place... Bishonen, I saw your comment on Buff's talk page and think a clarification is in order as Buff's is misrepresenting things, and has done it several times in various places. They wrote "Valjean is already wikistalking me, (after swearing to leave me alone as part of the condition for the lift of his most recent block...see how unseemly that is?),.."
Here's what I originally wrote in my response to ToBeFree: "Thanks for the clarification. It's healthy to see things through other's eyes. Thanks. I won't be engaging in such behavior again and have already disengaged from dealing with Buffs." ..."have already disengaged from dealing with Buffs." says nothing about future interactions, but of course, I certainly intended, and still do, to be civil and generally try to avoid any unpleasant personalized confrontations with Buffs.
That doesn't mean I cannot continue normal editing and on-topic discussions on talk pages. I haven't touched Buff's talk page since then and have tried to avoid any unnecessary personal comments to them on other talk pages. That does not mean they can own any other pages or articles, or that I can't engage in the normal business of civil editing and discussion on pages where they might be active.
The Daily Wire has been on my huge watchlist (sometimes over 10,000 articles, plus talk pages) for years, and I am not "stalking" or "hounding" Buffs. They have repeated these accusations and personal attacks many times and made comments implying that they found any edits near them or interacting with them as "stalking". That's not true. I have been very careful and very civil. In my response to Buff's last personal attack, which you have called them on, I responded civilly and as carefully as I could: "Are you asserting ownership of this article and talk page? Stop the PA. No one is "stalking" you. WP:FOC." Yes, that's direct, but, under the circumstances, it's very civil.
An analysis of Buff's contributions going back for many years show they have a very consistent pattern of nasty personal attacks, personalizing everything, even in their edit summaries, removing proper warnings and advice with bad faith comments and edit summaries, nasty comments about admins, and always attacking "leftists", thus showing a long history of battlefield and politically-motivated interactions, and that pattern is totally unchanged to this very day in spite of all the blocks and warnings. I'm tired of them targeting "leftists" and "leftist sources". I'm tired of them personalizing everything and making personal attacks against me and other editors. When will this stop? -- Valjean ( talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Now, while I was writing the above, Buff's again assailed Doug calling their proper notification "an irritant/harassment." This shows bad faith, an uncollegial spirit, and improper ownership of their own talk page. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
A token of thanks
Hi Doug Weller! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
![]() |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Disallowed comment: You never wear t-shirts
— what?! What's a humble
t-shirt salesman (←what is this anti-spa/\/\ bs?!) to do, then?
BTW, I've
declined participating myself, but I demand Doug gets t-shirts, even if against his will! Conclusion: Doug
probably a replicant definitely human. Meta sucks.
El_C
14:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
|
![]()
|
You helped me understand the sanctions thing before but you recently put a table on my talk page with sanctions notices for blockchain and cryptocurrencies, post-1978 Iranian politics, Michael Jackson, professional wrestling South Asian social groups, the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, measurement units in the United Kingdom, and the Uyghur genocide is this just like any other sanctions notice? Viktory02 ( talk) 20:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries thanks! Viktory02 ( talk) 20:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I see that 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly has been changed to a redirect after a brief and superficial discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I do not think this should have been done without giving notice on the talk page of the article. It is on my watch list, but I did not get the chance to comment. I do not remember what drew my attention to the article but it was not the 1998 source. There is a reliable source which briefly mentions the event at [47]. I do not want to challenge the redirect in view of my limited access to scientific papers, but I would like to register a protest against fundamental changes to articles without notice on the talk page. Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug, I see you noted that a recent change I made might not have appeared due to "verfiability".
My question/request. Which change? If the message pointed to the change, that would help! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChalmersH ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Im sorry youre right. But a sockpuppet needs to be reverted, not helped editing, am i right? What a savior and genius ( talk) 20:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello.
Could you please take a look at this and see if it needs to be redacted. Thank you. -- DB1729 ( talk) 14:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 08:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Weller,
I am a retired philosophy professor who added 2 references to the abortion debate. One from Judith Jarvis Thomson which is probably the most celebrated article in the field (reprinted in virtually every university philosophy text) and another of my own contributions to a collection of essays about the abortion debate. I then received a warning from you. Can you explain what I'm doing wrong? I'm guessing it has something to do with the conflict of interest issue. So should I have the departmental secretary or someone else add what I think is relevant material?
thank you for all your work at Wikipedia. It is one of the only trusted sources in the world today.
John Messerly PhD Johnmesserly ( talk) 22:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there - messaging you as I noticed you
added a notice regarding
WP:ARBCOVID and
WP:ARBBLP to
Talk:Marty Makary. We are experiencing a similar phenomenon with
Eric Feigl-Ding, where a number of editors keep making edits to the page from a non-neutral point of view due to conflicts over COVID-19 and other issues. I wanted to check that this article falls under the ambit of these arbitration decisions, and if so, whether it's okay for me to add {{Ds/talk notice|covid|long}}
and {{Ds/talk notice|blp|long}}
to
the talk page, as it isn't clear to me whether it is preferred for admins or similarly credentialed users to add such a notice.
GlobeGores (
talk page |
user page)
22:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
After seeing disruption from a likely sock of Mikemikev that was blocked rather rapidly today [48], I examined the contribution history of an editor whose talk page thread this sock was continuing. When I did so, I saw that this editor has a lot of commonality with Mikemikev as well: [49]. See for instance their insistence that Western rejection of race realism is idiosyncratic at Talk:Racism#Etymology, definition and usage, their focus on right-wing hobbyhorses throughout their editing history, and even this opinionated edit on Korean culture: [50] (Mikemikev is known to have lived in South Korea). See also their mocking user page [51], which reflects a Mikemikev pattern (cf. the user page for User:DuskDuck before it was deleted). Could this be a sleepier, long-term sock?
Thanks for all you do, Generalrelative ( talk) 20:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
|
Thanks tons for the welcome and the wealth of Wiki info! Now I have a place to begin learning where to begin! Curious Ip ( talk) 05:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC) |
I - Interrupting , intersessions M - manifold , miracle. P- Passion A- Action association C- Consideration T- Tangeable,teachable , thankfulness
Isaiah
Moses
Peter
Abraham
Cornelius
Timothy — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Matthew ewenyi oroko (
talk •
contribs)
20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I WP:IRS M WP:MEDRS P WP:PARITY A WP:ARL C WP:CITE T WP:TPO
— Paleo Neonate – 05:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Doug Weller:, this user Chadbhakt that you blocked has been abusing Hindi Wikipedia with the same account as well as created new Chadhindu account on English Wikipedia. The user has been vandalising Hindi & English Wikipedia using IP ranges (eg:- 2401:4900:5abc:4156:3b13:7821:e524:ed95 & 106.208.158.42) from few days. They also gave a threat to ruin my image (don't know in which way) for reverting their unconstructive edits. You can check the user being engaged in edit-wars on Hindi-Wiki over here. Please do take a look on their sockpuppetry. I've filed a complaint here. Thanks. HinduKshatrana ( talk) 12:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
What is this page about please? Are you Jewish? You seen to be very interested in Jewish genetics, today you wrote No, there are Jews who are not genetically related what is your interest in Jewish genes if you don't mind. Shandor Newman ( talk) 03:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I like the article. Are you going to move it to mainspace? Jehochman Talk 17:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Einstein_the_Plagiarist. They've posted an almost identical comment to the previous known sock (cf. [53] with [54]) and their user page follows the pattern of being a pastiche of my own (again, cf. DustDuck's deleted user page): [55] versus [56]. Thanks again for all you do, Generalrelative ( talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Morning! ~ Can you tell me why you reverted my ~ caps edit ~ here? By the way nice to meet you! ~mitch~ ( talk) 13:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I just want to thank you for the material you sent me. It's a lot to get my head around and it may be a few days before I can give it the attention it needs. On first glance it looks extremely interesting. asnac ( talk) 05:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I'd like your opinion as to whether Bloodofox has done anything actionable in this thread. Particularly in these edits with comments like:
What's notable about this situation on this page is the aggression coming from you in particular about it[59]
who knows how many hours I've wasted on ridiculous talk page blather from ideology-motivated editors[60]
it's pretty clear to me (and it would seem a couple of editors who have messaged me) that you're on a mission here, and that you appear to be far less interested in improving the article than you are in making a point by way of doing things like emphasizing challenges to the term over its defenders[61]
the fact that this particular matter is so aggressively highlighted in the lead over all else—your preference—is a big read flag.[62]
Bold and italicize all you like, [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Germanic_peoples&type=revision&diff=1065490805&oldid=1065489975 edits like this make clear your preference to emphasize what appears to be your preferred side of the "anti-Germanic" aspect of the controversy]. As you know, before my edits, readers immediately heard aspects of the argument of the "anti-Germanic" wing but they needed to actually go digging into the body to hear from the rest of the field. We see obfuscating behavior like this on fringe articles all the time. Leads are summaries of the article's contents ( WP:LEAD), not a place to promote a preferred stance over all else ( WP:Balance, WP:NPOV). We can discuss the appropriateness of some, sure, that's reasonable, but behavior like that is unacceptable.[63]
It's something we see again and again at, for example, fringe articles when ideological editors—often adherents with single purpose accounts—aim to present material their preferred way.[64]
Besides these comments verging on personal attacks and aspersions, there's also a general refusal to provide sources for their assertions. For context, he's behaved in similar ways in the past, see this discussion from 2019.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Lol, this guy ranting about linguists and going to lengths to try to insert Goffart into every nook and cranny of this article while excluding philologists, the latter producing the vast majority of scholarship in this field. What a bizarre thing to see.here Similar things can also be found in that archive.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I am all too familiar with that call. My first scare was in early 2019. The doctors thought I may have had Leukemia then but did two separate biopsies, the first came back inconclusive, the second showed no signs of cancer. A part of me was relieved but a part of me was concerned as I really had become resolved to the fact I had cancer. I think I had perhaps an early stage of it as two years later it was confirmed. I know our policy of this not being a social site or a forum but you can't be a part of this community, you can't meet such amazing people, without connecting on a deeper level. I love my family and my daughter is my world but I firmly believe I am alive still because of the connections I made with certain individuals on Wikipedia and having this encyclopedia to come to every day that I was in hospital, quarantined from the outside world by cancer, unable to see my family at the height of a pandemic. I hope your biopsy comes back negative, I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, let alone someone I respect and care about as yourself. You have have been through so much dealing with your Parkinson's and I believe you have handled that so well. No matter what I believe you will get through this too. And if you need a community to lean on we will be here. -- ARose Wolf 13:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've tidied up the formatting of your userboxes. If you liked it the other way, I am sorry for messing it up. Jehochman Talk 14:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
PGP top}}
template requires two parameters: url (which is the URL of the keyserver your public key is stored on) and keyid, which is the Key ID.Do you happen to know those two parameter values? Jehochman Talk 15:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 13:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug. It's me again. This is a big deal only to specialists, but since you overruled my poorly entered content under the entry of "Sea Peoples" subdivision "2.3 Ramesses III narrative", in which I added that the archeology of Carchemish did not show the destruction claimed on the Medinet Habu temple of Ramesses III to have been committed by the Sea Peoples, so the claims of the temple must be thrown into doubt. I sent you a note with sources, but when I checked you only directed me here.
Please allow me to repeat. Since Wikipedia rightfully accepts the authority of noted Hittitologists Trevor Bryce and Gary Beckman, I thought my citation would fully justify the changes the I suggested. I first read of the archeology of Carchemish showing no signs of destruction at this time in Manuel Robbins Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the Peoples of the Sea (2001): "Thus, the inscription [at Medinet Habu] says that the Sea Peoples destroyed Kargamish [Carchemish]....Yet archeological investigation shows no such destruction" (p. 180). No other source is offered. But Robbins's source may be Gary Beckman from a year earlier.
Elsewhere in Wikipedia, under the entry for "Carchemish" is the statement, "Although Ramesses III states in an inscription dating to his 8th Year from his Medinet Habu mortuary temple that Carchemish was destroyed by the Sea Peoples, the city evidently survived the onslaught."[31] The "[31]" cites the eminent Gary Beckman: Gary Beckman, "Hittite Chronology", Akkadica, pp. 119–120 (2000), p. 23. Since this citation is not listed only in endnotes and not in the references at bottom, I suspect it may be a fairly recent addition. I'm sure Dr Beckman has cited the precise archeological venture that originally made this discovery.
In any case, I would like my editing amendment under "Sea Peoples" to stand since it has been verified and properly sourced. Could you be of assistance?
Gregory M. Nixon, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docnixon ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I noticed your edit on Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Can you help or direct me to a qualified Admin? I need a review of my suggested revision for Antiochia ad Taurum as I've outlined at Talk:Antiochia_ad_Taurum#Antiochia_ad_Taurum,_Syria_not_Commagene.
No new data or facts, just an edit from the sources on Wikipedia for logical consistency. I'm just starting as a Wikipedia editor so didn't want to jump independently without the supervision of an experienced Admin. Thanks BiblicalArchaeologist ( talk) 22:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Doug,
Aydın memmedov2000 came to my user page asking why two of his articles were deleted. You deleted one, Huseyn Ali Khan (Khan of Quba), based on CSD G5 grounds but the editor is not a blocked sockpuppet. The other, Nacaf Şarifi İrevani, was deleted on CSD A7 grounds, which I can evaluate, but the editor's main complaint is that both were tagged for deletion, for very different reasons, by Kevo327 who has also PROD'd one of their other articles, Azerbaijan old maps. They are feeling targeted.
So, if Aydın memmedov2000 is guilty of ban evasion, can you point me to the SPI case or let me know who the sockmaster is? When I get complaints like this on my user talk page, they are sometimes frivolous but in this case, I'm trying to sort out what happened here. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and does not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.which is why i tagged that article, I don't have any ill-will towards that editor.- Kevo327 ( talk) 17:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. -- Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism (which, even though I sympathize, I have never joined), but do we have anything like a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Fringe Theories? I feel we need something along those lines. Currently, we document fringe ideas, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, misinformation, disinformation, and such like, and that's all good, but we need to actually counteract the effects of such things because RS also do that.
While we don't have literal disclaimers (now that Wikipedia is mature and a dominant voice in the world, I believe we should have them), we should have notifications (BS alerts) where BS is mentioned, sort of like how Facebook and Twitter have been forced to deal with misinformation. We should do the same for the most egregious and dangerous types. It's not enough to just document that BS exists. We don't censor misinformation, but we should "hand out a condom" whenever it's mentioned. I believe we have a duty to do this, and that it can be done in ways that don't violate NPOV. A Wikiproject might be the best place to hammer this out. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I have copied this to User talk:Valjean/Wikipedia sides with facts and RS so we can continue there. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey Doug. I noticed that some DS notifications include the topic area. When you issue this kind of alert, do you use a particular Twinkle option? I have Twinkle installed but am rather unfamiliar with its features. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I saw your feedback, and I'm kind of confused. If you could clarify, the book I linked to was from the International Journal of Research which is a peer reviewed research journal and the pages use Chitralekha Zutshi, a professor of history and TN Madan, a highly accomplished anthropologist and professor as references. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/International_Journal_of_Research_IJR/i4yUBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sikh+empire+opress+muslims&pg=PA12&printsec=frontcover%7Ctitle=International
The google books version says the publisher is lulu.com which is indeed a self published source but it is also found in the IJR site archive https://journals.pen2print.org/index.php/ijr/article/view/34/22 in page 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Update: I've read the entirety of IJR paper, and it does seem that a large section of the paper is poorly written and there probably is reason for doubt on its reliability. Therefore, I will withdraw my request for the paper to be included in the article and will far more thoroughly examine sources I use in the future. My apologies. Kamhiri ( talk) 07:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't notice your reply until just now, Feb. 1st, 2022. I can't know for sure if it was a repeat of a broadcast mentioned very nebulously in the article. The only thing close was the article's reference # 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photojack53 ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a revdel on Special:Diff/1069188798, and that editor's edits to the article page? I think the IP's sincere, but it's very much a BLP violation. I've emailed the IP with advice, hopefully he takes it to heart. Gaelan 💬 ✏️ 16:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
...here's what I had written in response to you:
Since it was buried in all the other responses that tried to compete with each other in dramatic expressions of outrage, I will answer your direct question here: Yes and no.
I knew it would probably be provocative, but I think it is a real issue as well. Inasmuch as we now have some hard evidence of the community's inconsistency on this issue, I believe that in the coming years we will be having to discuss this more seriously.
I note that Bduke's answer above, at the very beginning of this "discussion" was the only one from a user who has personal experience confronting this issue ... and it was a few orders of magnitude more thoughtful than just about every other reply here combined (mine included, I'm afraid). When I saw it I had hopes that the rest of the discussion might continue in that vein, hopes that now, alas, are revealed as naïve.
I answered "exactly" because I do not believe that at this point we must set a hard age. But the larger issue is still out there in the weeds. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
oversight
will be renamed suppress
in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for
technical reasons. You can comment
in Phabricator if you have objections.Hi Doug! I hope you're doing well, all things considered. If you're able, I was hoping you might keep an eye on Xsaxds12. All of their edits have to do with removing the word and/or information about "Arab" and/or "Muslim" from various contexts, see [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], etc. Almost all their edits have been reverted. It strikes me they may be WP:NOTHERE.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
I clearly showed an edit was made without being a "neutral point of view" and you accused me of not treating that editor with "civility and respect". Terratian ( talk) 03:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Boy, i am editing wiki. Skeyerise cast a magic spell to figure it out after his ownership of chaos magic, also ridiculously spelled as chaos magick, was revealed by myself, roxy the cay Raxythecat ( talk) 01:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Editingwiki777 ( talk · contribs) has reappeared as Raxythecat ( talk · contribs). An SPI has been opened. Skyerise ( talk) 13:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
And back again as 107.202.75.102 ( talk · contribs) Skyerise ( talk) 05:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello again Doug. Considering that you were familiar with it already ( 1, 2, 3), I thought I'd initially share it here in case it interests you. I found out yesterday that we have a number of articles that appear to cite it... A few days ago I saw a (questionable) video that stressed strange dates for some native artefacts, arguing often about "academia"'s different conclusions or it not mentioning what they don't want you to know. It then included what appeared to be forged objects, then confirmed my suspicion with things like an out-of-place "10 commandments stone". Finally, it ended as a travel agency advert. The advertized URL's TLD was .co.uk, but it may possibly be related? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
An insource search for the spam link they posted led me to this: User:Jimsorzo/Hank Kunneman — Paleo Neonate – 19:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
![]()
|
Dear Doug, you may have seen that last week at ANI two editors (one of them me) proposed sanctions against MfactDr, after a period of him once more stepping way out of line with his disruptive POV editing. I think that at least I presented a good case that something needed to happen. In the beginning there was a little bit of back and forth between MfactDr and the two OPs, but beyond that nobody else contributed anything to that discussion, until the case died in the archives today. There wasn't even anyone telling me that my case was weak or badly presented or even frivolous - there was just no reaction (and certainly no action) at all. In terms of the matter that may be okay, as I can see that under the impression of being dragged to ANI MfactDr has calmed down significantly, has even taken steps to improve his behavior, such as archiving his talk page now instead of just deleting all the warnings. If he sticks to that for a while I will be quite happy. So my question to you is more what I can learn from this experience.
This was the first time I brought something to ANI, so maybe I'm disappointed about something that is actually quite normal - should I expect things to be ignored at ANI and contact administrators directly, as I have done in the past, sometimes approaching you or Cordless Larry? Whenever I did that, you usually acted swiftly. Presenting a case at ANI certainly took a lot more preparation, and I wasted a lot of time watching the ANI page for something to happen (and got sidetracked that way into another discussion). Or should I instead go directly to AE, because technically MfactDr violated the Horn-of-Africa DS? Or should I rather refrain from any attempts to get sanctions invoked against editors such as him or David S Gondaria, who is in every respect MfactDr's counterpart from a different ethnic perspective? Whatever advice you can give, I will take it to heart. LandLing 06:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See
[2]
♟♙ (
talk)
00:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I saw what was happening they are back using a new Ip [3]. Seems like the page needs to be protected again. Starkid1979 ( talk) 02:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
No more on my talk page thanks. Questions about the scope of
discretionary sanctions might be asked at WP:ARCA. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi Doug, you posted this notice on my talkpage, however I haven't edited (or even thought about editing anything to do with AMerican politics for a long time (not since 2020 perhaps), just wondering what made you post this notice on my talkpage? Aeonx ( talk) 09:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure sure what brought you to read my userpage (casual stalking?), and then interpret that as an interest to post the US Politics DS notification, but regardless it's not an interest, it's an opinion formed by observation. There's clear difference since its widely philipshopically accepted that one can have a disinterested opinion as I do. Aeonx ( talk) 13:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Perhaps it's just an excuse so you can pounce on an editor that doesn't share the Wikipedia administrator club preclusions for unconscious bias against certain aspects like selectively applying rules to those that challenge norms, overlooking WP:5P when it suits best. If it were up to me, every Wikipedia admin should have to undertake annual unconscious bias training and testing, what is there left to provides confidence and assurance otherwise? Perhaps food for the thought. Aeonx ( talk) 13:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
|
When you have time, could you read through User:Kansas Bear/Great Bullion Famine and give me your thoughts regarding flow, information, sectioning, sources, etc. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Help!!!!!!!! My sandbox is not working!!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace ( talk) 10:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, can something be done about Kurgans r us, he's been making personal attacks [9], [10]. That's in addition to making what I take to be questionable edits on genetics related topics and edit-warring about them [11], [12], [13], [14]. Also his first edit [15] appears to be making an unsourced claim that the Ancient Egyptians came from Eurasia?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 23:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Turns out that user:OceanRockLegend is Moody's manger [16]. Still trying to get Hcm2021 ( talk · contribs) to clarify his connection and why he was uploading an image as his own work when it wasn't. Meters ( talk) 19:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Doug! Would you consider taking a look on the 'new' user here, using your tools if appropriate? I've a mind to take them to ANI (harassment [18] [19]; far-right POV-pushing [20] [21] [22]), but maybe you could save us some time? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This template must be substituted. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes ( talk) 17:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Hi Doug, it took me awhile to figure out why I was getting so many alerts from my talk page all at once until I remember the Vandana Shiva article checks off all those boxes. I think for better, I haven't been in a situation until this year where I wasn't already technically WP:AWARE of the GMO DS since we had the first ArbCom case on that. That was a bit of welcome realization. That said, I noticed I was the only one who was getting all those templates, so did something catch your eye there? Thanks. KoA ( talk) 16:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! User 103.25.248.251 performed an edit in which a Facebook profile link was put into the edit summary. Since WP:Spam was entered into the summary, the edit meets the criteria for a RevDelete, correct? I went ahead and reverted the edit and I'm here to request a deletion of the revision. This is my first encounter with vandalism in an edit summary so if my request is out of place or I'm mistaken, please let me know!
Thank you, RFZYNSPY talk 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, if you're not too busy I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the contribution history of the new user Total random nerd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm reaching out to you since you thanked me for a partial walk-back I did to one of their edits: [23] My initial concern had to do with persistent ref spamming of a blog called fascinatingpolitics.com, but the overall purpose seems to be imposing their view of who is and isn't a "conservative", and re-categorizing accordingly, on as broad an array of bios as possible. I left a personalized note on their talk page [24] but was met with hostility [25] and an insistence that WP:IAR overrides all other concerns, including WP:NPA [26]. Not quite at the level of an ANI complaint yet, I think, but more eyes on this user's activities would be helpful. Many thanks for all you do, Generalrelative ( talk) 20:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This looks like a ?blog? Your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you help me to move this article Naga people (Lanka) to Naga people (Sri Lanka) and List of major attacks attributed to the LTTE to List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE Amritsvāraya ( talk) 12:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear administrator Dough Weller,
greetings ! I am sorry for using abusive languages, but I did so when I was attacked by a Pakistani IP address(119.160.65.104 ) calling me a 'Hindu' Vandal. And now IP(203.135.44.86 ) is calling me Hindu extremist ! I consider this a severe act of using discriminatory language -- how this guy know that I am a Hindu ? Is being a Hindu a crime ? Isn't that discriminatory and disturbing ? I do not see provision for conveying grievence, otherwise I would have done so without wasting my time with such people. Please take stern action.
Well I suppose I provided adequate reference to the change I made. Politically speaking Kashmir has been an integral part of India, as the last king of Kashmir his majesty Hari Singh signed to acceed to India -- while Kashmir was experiencing unprecidented attack by Pakistani militia and regular army in 1948 (along with genocide of Hindus). I provided reference to the edit I made, but these guys abused me first.
Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by AsVw3 ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear Doug,
I am a classicist, deeply pained by the current discussions around racism in classics. I read the old "black people in ancient Rome" article and, boy, it was one of the most racist articles I'd read on this site. Several anachronistic misnomers, (ie. "sub-saharan african"), misquoting of sources (including Isaac and Snowden, Jr.), outright false information (re: denying the existence of racism in antiquity, denying the multiplicities of meaning for various terminologies), and deeply misleading (no discussion whatsoever about the complexity and malleability of Blackness as descriptive at that time). Reading the talk page made me choke on my coffee, it was full of aggressive racism in the discussions of craniometry (as if it were a valid divider for "North" vs. "Sub-Saharan" Africans) and the denial of polychromatism in the ancient world. I would like to get the article somehow protected, and although it is still in a limited state at the moment, I do not want it to continue being a source of white nationalist talking points that have so gripped the public understanding of the ancient Mediterranean for so long (which we are just now, in the last 50 years, growing cognizant of). Please advise as to my options in this respect, and how we might ensure that the next generation of classicists (in addition to lay people) will not continue to be misled by outdated racism in an article that (in my opinion) probably shouldn't exist. Instead, we should roll it up in something about "Diversity in ancient Rome" and have a more advanced discussion about the fluidity and complexity of applying modern notions to the past. But if we keep the current article about "Black people" specifically, there should be better writing in it (and frankly, better classics). Thank you for reading.
Best, Ali— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleet Admiral Ali ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi buddy, You recently blocked Godwatch49. But he has now made another account and has again started vandalism on articles. His new ID (sockpuppet account) is Viratyuddh. For proof you can see the edit history of Arjuna and you might also check his contributions. Contributions of both the accounts are exactly same. Regards, WikiEdit talk HiWikiEdit ( talk) 11:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, Thank u so much. BTW u r fast. He edited my motice out but you saw it. Thanks again. WikiEdit talk HiWikiEdit ( talk) 12:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buddy, This time I am here to complain about Yashwantbhoj who is continuously vandalising Wikipedia. He is doing disruptive editing across pages without citing reliable sources. He has received many warnings on his talk page but he continues to ignore them and is not abiding with the rules. Please look into this matter and do what's best for Wikipedia. WikiEdit talk HiWikiEdit ( talk) 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Good day. You left a very unsettling message on my Talk page but provided no details or background regarding the reason you had for leaving it. I take a great deal of pride in my work on Wikipedia and feel that I have been blessed to have a reputation as a hard-working editor who is always unbiased in their edits, and that articles are much improved when I have completed my edits on them. I believe this because of the feedback I have received from other editors. Never, in more than 11 years of editing here, has anyone ever accused me of anything untoward. I attempt in all my actions to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the letter. If you are going to leave embarrassing or provocative comments on a person's user page, you are compelled to give details and sources to support your position. If you leaves such items in your position as administrator and particularly if there is another editor or editors involved, then you are compelled to prove that you have considered all sides equally and have held all editors involved to the same accountability and process. Since I don't know why you posted what you did, my expectations of your behavior might not be covered in my examples, but I think you get the idea. I am sure we can work together to bring whatever issues you have with my editing to an agreeable solution. Please assume good faith, as that is the only way in which I conduct myself here. I do not believe your actions were personally motivated, since we don't know each other and I don't believe our paths have crossed before. I assume you are acting in what you believe to be good faith, but your comments on my page leave far more questions than you probably thought you answered. Even so, I thank you for your time and contributions to Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd ( talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
MarydaleEd ( talk) 01:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I have rewritten the paragraph; however the previous addition could not be a copyright violation as the copyright in the article in a 1937 Australian publication has expired long ago ( Copyright law of Australia), and in any event, the test for copyright infringement in Australia (and other jurisdictions) is the reproduction of a “substantial” amount of the previous work, which is not the same as paraphrasing a portion of the previous work, with a footnote that credits the source. ( MozzazzoM ( talk) 07:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC))
I know my mom's advice, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all", is good, but I don't always follow it, especially when users refuse to drop the stick. Thanks for your comments here, as they were well thought out without being condescending, which my response wouldn't have been! Here's hoping your advice is taken. (But I'm not holding my breath on that one!) BilCat ( talk) 23:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This user, Special:Contributions/178.202.82.89, has vandalized the Femme Fatales (TV series) page twice. Here’s the proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1043298917&oldid=1042808998&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1047329548&oldid=1043730081&diffmode=source
Could you please handle this problem with him and tell him not to vandalize the page a third time? Because if he does, he may start an edit war with me. AdamDeanHall ( talk) 03:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
![]()
|
Hi Doug,
I'm not certain of the correct location to bring this (if there was a registered account involved, I believe it would be SPI, but as there is not, I am unsure) so I thought the best place would be to bring it to the admin who blocked the user.
2A01:598:918A:4B91:1:1:8713:81E4 recently turned up at AUKUS, making some strange arguments that the article should be in French. Out of curiosity, I looked at their contributions, and they had made a few contributions to AUKUS in that direction, and one to a TV show called "Femme Fatales". This contribution continues an edit war involving the banned IP, here and here.
The banned IP was also heavily involved in editing AUKUS, which adds further evidence if it is needed.
BilledMammal ( talk) 12:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I doubt they are the same user, Frankfurt is an important internet hub in Europe, and there are millions of people living in the region. 2A02:908:182:AF40:481B:4E0F:1E1:22D0 ( talk) 16:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Dushan Jugum has just significantly modified the lede of the article R&I, [27] without any discussion at the article talk page or any attempt to seek consensus (cf notices on WP:ARBR&I, FAQs, RfCs, etc). Please could the standard DS notice be posted on Dushan Juqum's user talk page? Thanks in advance, Mathsci ( talk) 06:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
There is an IP, making numerous questionable edits to Philip III of France, a GA article. I have reverted them twice, and one of their edits is clear WP:OR and source misrepresentation. [28]
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
If you have tried to send me an email, I am not successfully receiving email now. Please wait until I say that the problem has been addressed. Thanks. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller:Hello, I am contributing to this talk page and just saw that you added this label. Unless I am mistaken, I have not seen any discussion on gender on this talk page. Is there any specific purpose, or is it only a general purpose, as on any other wikipedia article? Thank you in advance, cheers, -- Emigré55 ( talk) 10:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Some code
|
---|
$.when(mw.loader.using('mediawiki.util'), $.ready).then(function(){ if (mw.config.get('wgCanonicalSpecialPageName') === 'Watchlist'){ mw.util.addPortletLink('p-namespaces', '/wiki/Special:CheckUserLog', 'CU Log', 'ca-culog', 'CheckUser log'); } }); |
-- zzuuzz (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey there, would you be willing to revdelete an edit summary in accordance to revdel criterion 2? Here's the diff. Thanks! RFZYNSPY talk 16:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
why did you warn me on my talk page? i did not make any disruptive edit. i removed a single, unsourced sentence, and said that It would be okay to be in if someone gave it a source. could you not find a source for your personal opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlkha ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I have taken the liberty to message you because I see you as an administrator have had previous dealings with the above editor. This time, they have posted a non-existent article for B Class assessment. Link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#New_requests.
I posted a message on their Talk page rebuking them for vandalism. Given their prior history,you may want to take action. Georgejdorner ( talk) 23:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Dear Doug, I've read the instructions about how to ceate a talk page archive but my brain keeps going into spasm. Since you have had a lot of practice, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to create one for me and put into it all talk posts up to the end of May 2021. My apologies for being so feeble. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 13:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
-- Dylan620 ( talk) 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
Could you read through this and give me your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I just wanted to say thank you for calm and clear explanations both here and on twitter. I am thankful that the focus there seemed to have shifted off me personally to wikipedia more broadly. I'm guessing that might mean more new editing on the article as a result, so hopefully all here can follow your example and stay equally clear and calm in responding. Cheers, Melcous ( talk) 07:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Kinda amazing that nobody caught Hatto's sock, back then. He wasn't actually creative in the name he gave it. GoodDay ( talk) 15:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Doug, what was his name again? Sometimes a nice guy, sometimes completely abusive? Wasn't he in the DC area? Drmies ( talk) 23:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ha, I was thinking of Middayexpress, but it was Hoeater. Maybe they're actually the same anyway. Drmies ( talk) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug, I tried to start an RfC on the Nation of Islam article. So far, you and one other person are the only ones to comment. Is there anything I should do to get more comments to close the RfC? Thanks, Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.
Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
Thank you once again for your valued participation! -- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
i dig what was said oh Doug Weller. We do not want to propagate Hate speech. Nonsense is another description exactly printed in word coming from the criterion chamber three of the book of one won where it was said: quote unquote you are talking foolish nonsense: Linking it to GIBBERISH was about cloaking the murder of Jab11111111116bar the genocide of the whole Arab race including Israel the killing of every man in the world by the 644Bot then dividing the earth into grub and stencils. That was Hiroshima, Nagasaki,the battle of Poitiers, the carol that we sing and made our desks in libraries. Merry Christmas. Pharaohs ascend at that solstice. Pharaoh is in paradise. Jena blessed are those in the fire and around the fire.88 337
Pharaoh worshiping the act at the Bot tomes of tomb city of all of this went to kill every twelfth son of Israel, Every first son 1117 'toI of Egypt killed to say: politely made a fellowship.aeiou: 'to the strongest357. TOYS ARE USSr. :the nutcracker suite. KIDS. Carnations.
Jean: We are always together in spirit and love. Time or space cannot change our everlasting love and relationship. Love always, DAD..6:43 2017.663 mundane . Jean Louise Dell'Aquila ( talk) 15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)JEAN LOUISE DELL'AQUILAe.669
Hey Doug, appreciate the message and instructions. I have now added them back citing the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srihariramadas ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm reaching out because I see that you've advised this user about the I/P discretionary sanctions. If you have a moment, could you review their edits and edit requests on Talk:Yom Kippur War, as well as my talk page, and let me know if I need to go to AE, or of the disruption is enough to take action without going through that. Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Good morning, there is a user who on articles with a geographical topic is changing the region of different geographical entities to " Armenian highlands". I suspect that theirs are POV edits. I have reverted one edit, but I don't want to change more because i don't want to end up with a discretionary sanctions banner on my talk page again. :-) Question: there is a guideline regarding geographical names in this region? Thanks, Alex2006 ( talk) 15:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. Please could the recently registered account Alan B. Samuels have an R&I standard DS notice be posted on their user talk page. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 08:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the meaning 79.117.44.113 ( talk) 16:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I've just tried to help if you are to disturbed by this you've must be mad at the all internet informations from which no one will know what is the true identity of the Minoan Language! 79.117.44.113 ( talk) 17:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This argues are a blasfemy to their adress! 79.117.44.113 ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that spammer! Autarch ( talk) 18:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, you (and User:KrakatoaKatie) recently assisted with a Sockpuppet report: [31] I made recently, I believe there are a large number of other related sockpuppets which have been created which may be related, which you can see from this article's edit history: [32], many have a similar name and have only edited the article Jason Dasey. I actually think it is possible these accounts (including ones previously blocked) may be associated with several journalists working out of the same office. I wanted to ask if this is something you could look into further? or what would be the best approach to deal with this? Should I just open a new sockpuppet report?
Thanks, Aeonx ( talk) 00:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
You keep saying they are Asian origin!! But you know this is not the case!!! Why not tell the truth please. 92.249.155.251 ( talk) 19:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You left a message on my talk page which said this:
“ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Biblical cosmology. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)”
Well the thing is I did give a reason, I said that the verse (Revelation 7:1) was not referring to a flat earth, rather was saying that there was Angles all over the world. (The ‘four corners’ is a idiom).
Please answer me on my talk page.
Thank you
-Teertrevo
Teertrevo (
talk) 21:35, 29 November 2021
331dot ( talk) 08:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thanks for letting me know i was getting used to editing sorry for the inconvenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcaz007 ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey I just want to let you know I am not trying to be enemies with you. I want the same thing with Wikipedia as you do, a free encyclopedia. If you feel like I’m being a bigot please let me know. Teertrevo ( talk) 17:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm contacting you as per WP:IPECPROXY because you are listed as a Checkuser. I use a VPN service to circumvent internet censorship in Russia. Usually, I turn it off to edit Wikipedia, but this is inconvenient, and makes it especially difficult to cite web sources that are blocked in Russia. My account is over a year old and in good standing. Is there any chance of having the block on VPN/proxy-editing removed for my account so that I can edit using a VPN? Many thanks, Akakievich ( talk) 20:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
Not sure if the ongoing Rfc about J. K. Rowling's views on transgender-related topics is on your radar or not. It started 28 November, and is already very long. Being on a controversial topic, it's not surprising that the discussion has become heated in places, and there are already four portions of it that have been collapsed by various editors (not me), for good cause in my opinion, in order to keep the discussion on track.
There is another portion of the discussion that I believe should be collapsed, but as I am involved I don't think I should be the one to do it. It can be found in subsection #Response count. This subsection was initiated 21:52, 3 December 2021, and includes a table of editor names, and how many times each editor has contributed to the Rfc. As a result, one named editor has quit the Rfc, "and the entire topic area", in a huff. The rest of this subsection is about and among editors, and not about the Rfc topic. In my opinion, this subsection, or parts of it, richly deserves collapsing.
Can you have a look at the #Response count subsection of this Rfc, and see if you think any action should be taken? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
I'm wondering if you think this new SPA's behavior looks like a duck for Mikemikev? To my far less experienced eye it seems to be, based not only on the unrelenting racialist POV-pushing but also the pattern of hectoring opposing editors on their user talk pages [33], [34], [35], [36]. Folks are currently spending time responding to this user's demands for attention and it seems to me like a waste. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 01:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is Mikemikev as well: [37]. Their contrib history begins with this comment at ArbCom yesterday: [38]. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 16:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
There's an user canvassing or attempting to canvass editors to an RFC, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Wall Street Journal. The RFC is here.
The problem, as I see it, is the non-neutral message and the selection of audience, notifying only FTN (that problem has been mitigated by others).
The same user is also making personal attacks against other editors in the same FTN discussion. I have trouble deciphering what "ordering milkshakes" means. Is that some kind of physical threat or culinary advice? Cheers, Politrukki ( talk) 12:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
You wrote that did you? I paraphrased that comment (without mentioning you by name or diff) to someone in 2019 or 2020 when I told them that it would be unwise to selectively ping editors to discussions. But I also said that mentioning blocks or topic bans might could be perceived as overreaction. Or something like that. There's already one long ANI thread involving the WSJ article. How many do we need? Please don't ping me. Thank you. Politrukki ( talk) 17:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)This is the sort of thing that can get you blocked or topic banned. Even if this wasn't in an area of discretionary sanctions it could get you blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
When you blocked Penjogjoposioćio as a sockpuppet, you made an error, as the sockpuppeteer has a symbol over the "I", and I'm here to let you know that the sockpuppeteer is "İsmail Kendir", not "Ismail Kendir". Just thought I'd drop by and let you know the red link showed up from the block. DarkMatterMan4500 ( talk) ( contribs) 11:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Styyx: Hi, you questioned the edits of an editor's contributions here. That account looks to be a sockpuppet of the user Ismail Kendir. They engage in the same religious proselytizing, write the same way, continue the edit warring of said sockmaster's previous accounts, and lastly, amongst all their adding religious POV to articles, are also editing meme-related word redirect pages -- here their previous sock account did this, now here is this new account doing the exact same. Pinging the editor who made me aware of this for good measure as well. Eik Corell ( talk) 00:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on Paititi. I'm on it. Hoopes ( talk) 18:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to understand why you have put this notice on my page.I did not vandalize or edit any page. I was talking to a couple of editors civilly and respectfully asking for reasons of why my suggested edit is in violation of wp:blp when an eerily similar statement already present on the Article is'nt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 ( talk) 19:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Io, Saturnalia! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Slatersteven#Delhi_Riots He has used the same racist word in the past and attributed it to his reading habits. He has used the derogatory spelling intentionally in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3A2020_Delhi_riots&type=revision&diff=1028862882&oldid=1028858212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 ( talk) 19:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Jacob Zumba does not sound at all like a newbie. Can you check who they are? tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
You say that I have a history of disruption. If you are referring to my supposed edit warring, I have to point out that some of the administrators on the JFK Assassination Conspiracy page apply a selective interpretation of edit warring. In other words, it seems that only certain editors, mainly administrators, are allowed to revert edits, unquestioningly and without consequence. Any editor outside of the administrator clique who reverts is automatically labeled by these administrators as an edit warrior, worthy of sanctions. Pretty sad. BrandonTRA ( talk) 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday!
Whether you celebrate
Christmas,
Hanukkah,
Kwanzaa,
Hogmanay,
Festivus or your hemisphere's
Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
11:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
It would have been helpful if you explained what a minor edit is and given me grace due to the fact I’ve done this all of 5 times. Believe it or not, I edit documents for a living, to me the “minor” of it was that it had no citation and there was a very similar with appropriate citations in the next section of the article. Putting me on notice officially is punishing me for a innocent mistake w/ no intention to make sure I have the knowledge to not do that again.
Also this is why I don’t give to Wikipedia ever. It is an elitist space. The fact that those who have been on here for such a long time do nothing but antagonize others who are new and just trying to learn is awful. Fatimaniqbal ( talk) 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I am talking about the fact that at Wikipedia you all speak a language that is specific to Wikipedia. Language is hard to learn. While others are learning, people are not interested in helping them, but interested in keeping knowledge and power to themselves. That is the elitism.
Editing articles is a certain type of power. Articles are now cited in Courtrooms as fact. So the person who just deleted my commentary before you, didn’t tell me anything. Didn’t say “that is not how you mark that a citation is needed” and just went on their way. So they reverted the changes w/o addressing the problem.
That person was not you and forgive me, notice is a legal concept and putting someone on notice is a reprimand in the real world. Again, at Wikipedia language does not take the normal meaning of the word, at Wikipedia, notice is something different. Minor is something different.
Here is another way of explaining what I am trying to say: the Edwardians used manners not to be “polite”, but to differentiate themselves from the lower class. ostracizing them when they didn’t understand their manners.
Here is my question to you, where can I learn the basics? Where can I learn the language of Wikipedia editing?
Fatimaniqbal ( talk) 17:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
So having a set of rules is very different from using language in a new way (and there is nothing wrong with that, but this idea is antithetical to the ones you are describing above) Grass and golf both meant something in the 50s; today, depending on who’s speaking, it could mean something else. Same as Kool-aid. It would put one at a disadvantage if they were trying to speak with these people who’ve attributed new meanings to old words to not know their new definitions. They are not changing meaning, but ascribing new meanings to old words. It’s just that simple, why are you complicating this discussion Austonesier?
Btw if this space was truly “collaborative” people wouldn’t pull the stuff they do. You would all use your real names, but so many of you have agendas, you don’t want to be found out.
Years ago, I was doing a research paper on Islam and I followed links to a guy that was a major “editor” of all things Islam only to learn that he was a Sikh man who used his editing knowledge to edit articles about Islam to the detriment of Islam; i.e. anti-Muslims editing articles about Islam. He specifically put on his pages that he was looking to say Guru Nanak influenced Islam; never mind that Islam came way before Sikhism and he had an agenda (at the end of the day everyone does on here, please don’t delude yourselves), but the idea that those with institutional knowledge and agendas get to police other people a hierarchy of power that is problematic.
The rules are to keep people in line, not to encourage “collaboration ”, but be a gatekeeper for those with limited, specific institutional power. Wikipedia is an institution, those who have been here for a while police others, it’s that simple. And there in lies the problem. Fatimaniqbal ( talk) 18:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not specialist in editing and even in English language, so you will understand me. On wiki page /info/en/?search=MassResistance i find it very offensive the expression ”MassResistance is a hate group which promotes anti-LGBT”, made without ANY citation. I think you will admit this might very well be a very subjective opinion by the author of the article. The following sentences are correct because they use citations ( ”The group is designated an anti- LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,[4]...”). Because I know very well MassResistence group activities, I tried to corect the first two sentences by changing them with :”MassResistence is a group that opposes LGBT groups activities in schools and promotes socially conservative positions”, which is the absolute truth, from a non partisan position. I was ”undone” twice by the author. Will you please be fair and accept a non biased reformulation of the begining of the article? Because as it is now I actually consider it as an incitement to hatred against a ( large ) group of people who are simply concerned by what their children are taught in schools. I want to mention I am non American citizen living in Europe. Be careful what you promote worldwide. I used to see Wikipedia a serious, reliable, non biased source of information. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cichirmeza ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
So. Mr. Weller,the author of the article /info/en/?search=MassResistance appears enough offended to use the word ”hate”, but I dont have the right to be offended by this word when used by him! Interesting! Mr. Weller, I want to reach a consensus, because I do not agree with the word ”hate” used by the author. I want him to mention the source ( his name ).
I find the expression ”MassResistance is a hate group” in the begining of the article /info/en/?search=MassResistance subjective and offensive. I want to reach a consensus with the author; either he/she deletes the word ”hate” or he/she mention the source ( his/her name ). I want Wiki to be fair and un biased in this case. In my opinion, thhat expression itself incites hatred against o large group of parents concerned about what their children learn in school. Of course, you, Mr. Weller, can block me. That would not mean you are a correct and unbiased Wiki administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cichirmeza ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Bishonen and all her socks! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC).
Merry Christmas, and best wishes for 2022 Doug. I wish I could create something as delightful as that critter above has done but I'm not good at that sort of thing (I guess I'm just not a monster!)!-- RegentsPark ( comment) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
The article Atlantis of the Sands should be retitled "Ubar". The nickname, popularized by the title of a 1992 book Atlantis of the Sands by Ranulph Fiennes, perpetuates a misleading reference to Atlantis that has nothing to do with the history of Ubar. While the actual identify of Ubar is currently debated, with some scholars rejecting its identification with the site of al-Shisr, it is harmful for Wikipedia to perpetuate the misleading nickname by featuring it as the title of an article. At best, "Atlantis of the Sands" should be an alternative titled that redirects to an article titled "Ubar". Thanks! Hoopes ( talk) 17:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hello Doug Weller, I wish you and your family a merry christmas and a healthy and happy new year. Regards -- Serols ( talk) 16:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten to mention the indef for Ivan VA here. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Did you used twinkle to issue the alert [40] because I didn't found such option? Shrike ( talk) 13:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is
WikiIslam. Thank you. —
Snuish (
talk)
12:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, It's not clear to me why are you stating that my edits to the ancient history page aren't neutral? Thank you for sending the style guidelines but I don't see a conflict in them. I am changing from BC/AD for the sake of religious neutrality, which is an important part of neutrality on Wikipedia. EuCJD ( talk) 02:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting again at Zheng He. Could you maybe give it indef semi protection? The edit history suggests it has been repeatedly plagued by this kind of stuff. Aza24 ( talk) 00:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The IP 50.100.221.36 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) that has rambled in Talk:English people and edit warred in several other pages awfully reminds me of User:Sprayitchyo, especially when they're talking about a "biologically distinct human subpopulation". One of Sprayitchyo's socks was User:Human Taxonomist, which says it all. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't need repetitive notices that I've received warnings on my talk page. At this point it's no more than an irritant/harassment. Buffs ( talk) 16:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Buffs: nope, it isn't harassment although it obviously irritated you. I won't post to your talk page again about how many alerts you've had as there's no need, but as you claimed 5, which was clearly wrong, I wanted you to have an accurate count. Just as I told people above they'd undercounted. As an Admin I am entitled to post warnings to your talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I manually checked all of the "new section" edits in edit history for User talk:Buffs back until I reached 2016. The only posting of discretionary sanction notices was for AP2 on 16 September 2019, which remains on page to this day without deletion or archival. Platonk ( talk) 21:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Keeping this in one place... Bishonen, I saw your comment on Buff's talk page and think a clarification is in order as Buff's is misrepresenting things, and has done it several times in various places. They wrote "Valjean is already wikistalking me, (after swearing to leave me alone as part of the condition for the lift of his most recent block...see how unseemly that is?),.."
Here's what I originally wrote in my response to ToBeFree: "Thanks for the clarification. It's healthy to see things through other's eyes. Thanks. I won't be engaging in such behavior again and have already disengaged from dealing with Buffs." ..."have already disengaged from dealing with Buffs." says nothing about future interactions, but of course, I certainly intended, and still do, to be civil and generally try to avoid any unpleasant personalized confrontations with Buffs.
That doesn't mean I cannot continue normal editing and on-topic discussions on talk pages. I haven't touched Buff's talk page since then and have tried to avoid any unnecessary personal comments to them on other talk pages. That does not mean they can own any other pages or articles, or that I can't engage in the normal business of civil editing and discussion on pages where they might be active.
The Daily Wire has been on my huge watchlist (sometimes over 10,000 articles, plus talk pages) for years, and I am not "stalking" or "hounding" Buffs. They have repeated these accusations and personal attacks many times and made comments implying that they found any edits near them or interacting with them as "stalking". That's not true. I have been very careful and very civil. In my response to Buff's last personal attack, which you have called them on, I responded civilly and as carefully as I could: "Are you asserting ownership of this article and talk page? Stop the PA. No one is "stalking" you. WP:FOC." Yes, that's direct, but, under the circumstances, it's very civil.
An analysis of Buff's contributions going back for many years show they have a very consistent pattern of nasty personal attacks, personalizing everything, even in their edit summaries, removing proper warnings and advice with bad faith comments and edit summaries, nasty comments about admins, and always attacking "leftists", thus showing a long history of battlefield and politically-motivated interactions, and that pattern is totally unchanged to this very day in spite of all the blocks and warnings. I'm tired of them targeting "leftists" and "leftist sources". I'm tired of them personalizing everything and making personal attacks against me and other editors. When will this stop? -- Valjean ( talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Now, while I was writing the above, Buff's again assailed Doug calling their proper notification "an irritant/harassment." This shows bad faith, an uncollegial spirit, and improper ownership of their own talk page. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
A token of thanks
Hi Doug Weller! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
![]() |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Disallowed comment: You never wear t-shirts
— what?! What's a humble
t-shirt salesman (←what is this anti-spa/\/\ bs?!) to do, then?
BTW, I've
declined participating myself, but I demand Doug gets t-shirts, even if against his will! Conclusion: Doug
probably a replicant definitely human. Meta sucks.
El_C
14:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
|
![]()
|
You helped me understand the sanctions thing before but you recently put a table on my talk page with sanctions notices for blockchain and cryptocurrencies, post-1978 Iranian politics, Michael Jackson, professional wrestling South Asian social groups, the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, measurement units in the United Kingdom, and the Uyghur genocide is this just like any other sanctions notice? Viktory02 ( talk) 20:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries thanks! Viktory02 ( talk) 20:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I see that 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly has been changed to a redirect after a brief and superficial discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I do not think this should have been done without giving notice on the talk page of the article. It is on my watch list, but I did not get the chance to comment. I do not remember what drew my attention to the article but it was not the 1998 source. There is a reliable source which briefly mentions the event at [47]. I do not want to challenge the redirect in view of my limited access to scientific papers, but I would like to register a protest against fundamental changes to articles without notice on the talk page. Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug, I see you noted that a recent change I made might not have appeared due to "verfiability".
My question/request. Which change? If the message pointed to the change, that would help! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChalmersH ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Im sorry youre right. But a sockpuppet needs to be reverted, not helped editing, am i right? What a savior and genius ( talk) 20:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello.
Could you please take a look at this and see if it needs to be redacted. Thank you. -- DB1729 ( talk) 14:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 08:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Weller,
I am a retired philosophy professor who added 2 references to the abortion debate. One from Judith Jarvis Thomson which is probably the most celebrated article in the field (reprinted in virtually every university philosophy text) and another of my own contributions to a collection of essays about the abortion debate. I then received a warning from you. Can you explain what I'm doing wrong? I'm guessing it has something to do with the conflict of interest issue. So should I have the departmental secretary or someone else add what I think is relevant material?
thank you for all your work at Wikipedia. It is one of the only trusted sources in the world today.
John Messerly PhD Johnmesserly ( talk) 22:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there - messaging you as I noticed you
added a notice regarding
WP:ARBCOVID and
WP:ARBBLP to
Talk:Marty Makary. We are experiencing a similar phenomenon with
Eric Feigl-Ding, where a number of editors keep making edits to the page from a non-neutral point of view due to conflicts over COVID-19 and other issues. I wanted to check that this article falls under the ambit of these arbitration decisions, and if so, whether it's okay for me to add {{Ds/talk notice|covid|long}}
and {{Ds/talk notice|blp|long}}
to
the talk page, as it isn't clear to me whether it is preferred for admins or similarly credentialed users to add such a notice.
GlobeGores (
talk page |
user page)
22:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
After seeing disruption from a likely sock of Mikemikev that was blocked rather rapidly today [48], I examined the contribution history of an editor whose talk page thread this sock was continuing. When I did so, I saw that this editor has a lot of commonality with Mikemikev as well: [49]. See for instance their insistence that Western rejection of race realism is idiosyncratic at Talk:Racism#Etymology, definition and usage, their focus on right-wing hobbyhorses throughout their editing history, and even this opinionated edit on Korean culture: [50] (Mikemikev is known to have lived in South Korea). See also their mocking user page [51], which reflects a Mikemikev pattern (cf. the user page for User:DuskDuck before it was deleted). Could this be a sleepier, long-term sock?
Thanks for all you do, Generalrelative ( talk) 20:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
|
Thanks tons for the welcome and the wealth of Wiki info! Now I have a place to begin learning where to begin! Curious Ip ( talk) 05:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC) |
I - Interrupting , intersessions M - manifold , miracle. P- Passion A- Action association C- Consideration T- Tangeable,teachable , thankfulness
Isaiah
Moses
Peter
Abraham
Cornelius
Timothy — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Matthew ewenyi oroko (
talk •
contribs)
20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I WP:IRS M WP:MEDRS P WP:PARITY A WP:ARL C WP:CITE T WP:TPO
— Paleo Neonate – 05:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Doug Weller:, this user Chadbhakt that you blocked has been abusing Hindi Wikipedia with the same account as well as created new Chadhindu account on English Wikipedia. The user has been vandalising Hindi & English Wikipedia using IP ranges (eg:- 2401:4900:5abc:4156:3b13:7821:e524:ed95 & 106.208.158.42) from few days. They also gave a threat to ruin my image (don't know in which way) for reverting their unconstructive edits. You can check the user being engaged in edit-wars on Hindi-Wiki over here. Please do take a look on their sockpuppetry. I've filed a complaint here. Thanks. HinduKshatrana ( talk) 12:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
What is this page about please? Are you Jewish? You seen to be very interested in Jewish genetics, today you wrote No, there are Jews who are not genetically related what is your interest in Jewish genes if you don't mind. Shandor Newman ( talk) 03:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I like the article. Are you going to move it to mainspace? Jehochman Talk 17:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Einstein_the_Plagiarist. They've posted an almost identical comment to the previous known sock (cf. [53] with [54]) and their user page follows the pattern of being a pastiche of my own (again, cf. DustDuck's deleted user page): [55] versus [56]. Thanks again for all you do, Generalrelative ( talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Morning! ~ Can you tell me why you reverted my ~ caps edit ~ here? By the way nice to meet you! ~mitch~ ( talk) 13:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I just want to thank you for the material you sent me. It's a lot to get my head around and it may be a few days before I can give it the attention it needs. On first glance it looks extremely interesting. asnac ( talk) 05:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I'd like your opinion as to whether Bloodofox has done anything actionable in this thread. Particularly in these edits with comments like:
What's notable about this situation on this page is the aggression coming from you in particular about it[59]
who knows how many hours I've wasted on ridiculous talk page blather from ideology-motivated editors[60]
it's pretty clear to me (and it would seem a couple of editors who have messaged me) that you're on a mission here, and that you appear to be far less interested in improving the article than you are in making a point by way of doing things like emphasizing challenges to the term over its defenders[61]
the fact that this particular matter is so aggressively highlighted in the lead over all else—your preference—is a big read flag.[62]
Bold and italicize all you like, [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Germanic_peoples&type=revision&diff=1065490805&oldid=1065489975 edits like this make clear your preference to emphasize what appears to be your preferred side of the "anti-Germanic" aspect of the controversy]. As you know, before my edits, readers immediately heard aspects of the argument of the "anti-Germanic" wing but they needed to actually go digging into the body to hear from the rest of the field. We see obfuscating behavior like this on fringe articles all the time. Leads are summaries of the article's contents ( WP:LEAD), not a place to promote a preferred stance over all else ( WP:Balance, WP:NPOV). We can discuss the appropriateness of some, sure, that's reasonable, but behavior like that is unacceptable.[63]
It's something we see again and again at, for example, fringe articles when ideological editors—often adherents with single purpose accounts—aim to present material their preferred way.[64]
Besides these comments verging on personal attacks and aspersions, there's also a general refusal to provide sources for their assertions. For context, he's behaved in similar ways in the past, see this discussion from 2019.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Lol, this guy ranting about linguists and going to lengths to try to insert Goffart into every nook and cranny of this article while excluding philologists, the latter producing the vast majority of scholarship in this field. What a bizarre thing to see.here Similar things can also be found in that archive.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I am all too familiar with that call. My first scare was in early 2019. The doctors thought I may have had Leukemia then but did two separate biopsies, the first came back inconclusive, the second showed no signs of cancer. A part of me was relieved but a part of me was concerned as I really had become resolved to the fact I had cancer. I think I had perhaps an early stage of it as two years later it was confirmed. I know our policy of this not being a social site or a forum but you can't be a part of this community, you can't meet such amazing people, without connecting on a deeper level. I love my family and my daughter is my world but I firmly believe I am alive still because of the connections I made with certain individuals on Wikipedia and having this encyclopedia to come to every day that I was in hospital, quarantined from the outside world by cancer, unable to see my family at the height of a pandemic. I hope your biopsy comes back negative, I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, let alone someone I respect and care about as yourself. You have have been through so much dealing with your Parkinson's and I believe you have handled that so well. No matter what I believe you will get through this too. And if you need a community to lean on we will be here. -- ARose Wolf 13:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've tidied up the formatting of your userboxes. If you liked it the other way, I am sorry for messing it up. Jehochman Talk 14:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
PGP top}}
template requires two parameters: url (which is the URL of the keyserver your public key is stored on) and keyid, which is the Key ID.Do you happen to know those two parameter values? Jehochman Talk 15:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 13:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug. It's me again. This is a big deal only to specialists, but since you overruled my poorly entered content under the entry of "Sea Peoples" subdivision "2.3 Ramesses III narrative", in which I added that the archeology of Carchemish did not show the destruction claimed on the Medinet Habu temple of Ramesses III to have been committed by the Sea Peoples, so the claims of the temple must be thrown into doubt. I sent you a note with sources, but when I checked you only directed me here.
Please allow me to repeat. Since Wikipedia rightfully accepts the authority of noted Hittitologists Trevor Bryce and Gary Beckman, I thought my citation would fully justify the changes the I suggested. I first read of the archeology of Carchemish showing no signs of destruction at this time in Manuel Robbins Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the Peoples of the Sea (2001): "Thus, the inscription [at Medinet Habu] says that the Sea Peoples destroyed Kargamish [Carchemish]....Yet archeological investigation shows no such destruction" (p. 180). No other source is offered. But Robbins's source may be Gary Beckman from a year earlier.
Elsewhere in Wikipedia, under the entry for "Carchemish" is the statement, "Although Ramesses III states in an inscription dating to his 8th Year from his Medinet Habu mortuary temple that Carchemish was destroyed by the Sea Peoples, the city evidently survived the onslaught."[31] The "[31]" cites the eminent Gary Beckman: Gary Beckman, "Hittite Chronology", Akkadica, pp. 119–120 (2000), p. 23. Since this citation is not listed only in endnotes and not in the references at bottom, I suspect it may be a fairly recent addition. I'm sure Dr Beckman has cited the precise archeological venture that originally made this discovery.
In any case, I would like my editing amendment under "Sea Peoples" to stand since it has been verified and properly sourced. Could you be of assistance?
Gregory M. Nixon, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docnixon ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I noticed your edit on Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Can you help or direct me to a qualified Admin? I need a review of my suggested revision for Antiochia ad Taurum as I've outlined at Talk:Antiochia_ad_Taurum#Antiochia_ad_Taurum,_Syria_not_Commagene.
No new data or facts, just an edit from the sources on Wikipedia for logical consistency. I'm just starting as a Wikipedia editor so didn't want to jump independently without the supervision of an experienced Admin. Thanks BiblicalArchaeologist ( talk) 22:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Doug,
Aydın memmedov2000 came to my user page asking why two of his articles were deleted. You deleted one, Huseyn Ali Khan (Khan of Quba), based on CSD G5 grounds but the editor is not a blocked sockpuppet. The other, Nacaf Şarifi İrevani, was deleted on CSD A7 grounds, which I can evaluate, but the editor's main complaint is that both were tagged for deletion, for very different reasons, by Kevo327 who has also PROD'd one of their other articles, Azerbaijan old maps. They are feeling targeted.
So, if Aydın memmedov2000 is guilty of ban evasion, can you point me to the SPI case or let me know who the sockmaster is? When I get complaints like this on my user talk page, they are sometimes frivolous but in this case, I'm trying to sort out what happened here. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and does not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.which is why i tagged that article, I don't have any ill-will towards that editor.- Kevo327 ( talk) 17:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. -- Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Doug. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism (which, even though I sympathize, I have never joined), but do we have anything like a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Fringe Theories? I feel we need something along those lines. Currently, we document fringe ideas, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, misinformation, disinformation, and such like, and that's all good, but we need to actually counteract the effects of such things because RS also do that.
While we don't have literal disclaimers (now that Wikipedia is mature and a dominant voice in the world, I believe we should have them), we should have notifications (BS alerts) where BS is mentioned, sort of like how Facebook and Twitter have been forced to deal with misinformation. We should do the same for the most egregious and dangerous types. It's not enough to just document that BS exists. We don't censor misinformation, but we should "hand out a condom" whenever it's mentioned. I believe we have a duty to do this, and that it can be done in ways that don't violate NPOV. A Wikiproject might be the best place to hammer this out. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I have copied this to User talk:Valjean/Wikipedia sides with facts and RS so we can continue there. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey Doug. I noticed that some DS notifications include the topic area. When you issue this kind of alert, do you use a particular Twinkle option? I have Twinkle installed but am rather unfamiliar with its features. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I saw your feedback, and I'm kind of confused. If you could clarify, the book I linked to was from the International Journal of Research which is a peer reviewed research journal and the pages use Chitralekha Zutshi, a professor of history and TN Madan, a highly accomplished anthropologist and professor as references. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/International_Journal_of_Research_IJR/i4yUBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sikh+empire+opress+muslims&pg=PA12&printsec=frontcover%7Ctitle=International
The google books version says the publisher is lulu.com which is indeed a self published source but it is also found in the IJR site archive https://journals.pen2print.org/index.php/ijr/article/view/34/22 in page 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Update: I've read the entirety of IJR paper, and it does seem that a large section of the paper is poorly written and there probably is reason for doubt on its reliability. Therefore, I will withdraw my request for the paper to be included in the article and will far more thoroughly examine sources I use in the future. My apologies. Kamhiri ( talk) 07:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't notice your reply until just now, Feb. 1st, 2022. I can't know for sure if it was a repeat of a broadcast mentioned very nebulously in the article. The only thing close was the article's reference # 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photojack53 ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a revdel on Special:Diff/1069188798, and that editor's edits to the article page? I think the IP's sincere, but it's very much a BLP violation. I've emailed the IP with advice, hopefully he takes it to heart. Gaelan 💬 ✏️ 16:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
...here's what I had written in response to you:
Since it was buried in all the other responses that tried to compete with each other in dramatic expressions of outrage, I will answer your direct question here: Yes and no.
I knew it would probably be provocative, but I think it is a real issue as well. Inasmuch as we now have some hard evidence of the community's inconsistency on this issue, I believe that in the coming years we will be having to discuss this more seriously.
I note that Bduke's answer above, at the very beginning of this "discussion" was the only one from a user who has personal experience confronting this issue ... and it was a few orders of magnitude more thoughtful than just about every other reply here combined (mine included, I'm afraid). When I saw it I had hopes that the rest of the discussion might continue in that vein, hopes that now, alas, are revealed as naïve.
I answered "exactly" because I do not believe that at this point we must set a hard age. But the larger issue is still out there in the weeds. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
oversight
will be renamed suppress
in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for
technical reasons. You can comment
in Phabricator if you have objections.Hi Doug! I hope you're doing well, all things considered. If you're able, I was hoping you might keep an eye on Xsaxds12. All of their edits have to do with removing the word and/or information about "Arab" and/or "Muslim" from various contexts, see [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], etc. Almost all their edits have been reverted. It strikes me they may be WP:NOTHERE.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)