User talk:Doug Weller
The current date and time is 26 June 2019 T 03:57 UTC. You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.
|This user talk page might be talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.by friendly|
|Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. |
If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55|
My Dear Sir, i am praying you the God of the Deo Sun Temple article Write and update articles because I do not know much English. So please update on Wikipedia Deo Sun Temple By updating article by yourself, which will make us very happy. please i am personally requesting you please it is my really really Best sun temple and famous temple in world.
TOO publishes something you deletedEdit
- Mikemikev is pathetic - how can you get banned from Metapedia for being too extreme a hater? The funny thing is that I have rarely edited the article and wasn't involved with the IP until I reverted their talk page post saying that it was "Basically a rant and attack on other editors by an IP now blocked twice for editwarring" - of course Mikemikev didn't mention that. I see that the person behind the IP is pretty much a kook. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Unsure as to the disposition of your messages on my talk page, but I've gone ahead and deleted them. In the future, if there is an issue, please let me know versus leaving a vague spam message, thank you for your understanding in this matterRTShadow (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Discretionary sanctions alerts are anything but "vague spam messages", they are vital information about sanctions regimes set by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee in topic areas where the community has been unable to deal with disruptive editing. Because many editors will not be aware of these sanctions the Committee decided that editors would not be liable to sanctions unless they have received an alert. Now that you have received an alert you should have enough information to avoid being blocked, topic banned or completely banned for breaking them. Deleting them is fine, it means that you have read them and of course they still appear in your talk page history. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- While I appreciate at least the effort, the problem is that it appears all three of the "discretionary sanctions alerts" are based on one page, and if that is the case, why are three of them needed? And based on what, the "talk" page? The reason I see them as little more than spam is that they don't directly reflect even the page that is being discussed, unless I'm missing something there? I don't spend a lot of time here, my work is mostly within automobiles, so you'll have to forgive my naivety on certain things I see. If your alerts on my page in any way indicate some sort of need to sanction me, in any way, I'd like to know what for. I've always felt the talk pages were a place to bring up constructive discussion to present a position, I didn't change any page, but I most certainly did show a glaring double standard. Because that double standard goes against the political viewpoints of a lot of the editors, that puts a big target on my back apparently. That's also a double standard. I'd love to believe your efforts are unbiased, but given the last 12 months and what I'm seeing is happening on Wikipedia, that's a tough one to believe. Perhaps you can convince me differently.RTShadow (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs) seems to be making edits to Template:Infobox unit/doc, contrary to consensus, and has only reverted those parts of his edit which I have shown specifically violate consensus, but is continuing to make edits which are just wrong, but not contrary to consensus because the page isn't watched very well. If you agree, I think a warning from an admin might help. He seems to be ignoring 3 separate level-2 warnings I've posted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Confused by your edit here where you added "ap" into the text? Previous AD to CE change in edit just before yours was editor fixing their own error in their own edit just before that.
Also, glad to know I'm "forgiven" for suggesting an editor research the subject of an article before they edit it willy nilly, and then edit war over their erroneous assumptions. I saw your posts and decided not interacting with them, as long as they were no longer editing the article, was probably a better idea than trying to engage them further. I pointed them to a paper discussing the subject by a well known archaeologist in the field, but with it being summarily dismissed as "fake news" I didn't see much of a point with me arguing with them. Especially considering their edit summaries when reverting on the article, lol. Hope you're well, Heiro 16:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've no idea why I did that or misread the edit, but I'm struggling to come to terms that it's probably the end of the line with my 16 1/2 year old miniature poodle. Kidney failure and dementia, I'm being told by my family it's time. Good call ignoring that editor. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- I figured it might be a momentary lapse, but wasn't sure if the "ap" was supposed to be part of a bigger code snippet that had gotten lost and I didn't want to revert you without figuring out if I was missing something first. Sorry to hear about your poodle :-( Heiro 19:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry to read about that too. My current pet is now a 12 years old cat and still okay, but I've lost a few animals before him. I of course still remember and miss them from time to time... —PaleoNeonate – 00:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Nazi gun control debateEdit
You have yet to discredit the article of which I put on the Nazi gun control page, no one has discredit it, only removed it. They have faced no repercussions. I thought there was a system to go along with Wikipedia not just a I’m more powerful than you so I do what I want system. But I guess I was wrong for thinking that this was a better site than what it actually is. The national review article is out there and no one has discredited yet so I don’t know why it can’t be used other than for political reasons, but whatever silence those who disagree with you like the big man you are. (Compliment ;) ) Hopscootchica (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Sudarshan Kriya section on Ravi Shankar's articleEdit
I found a couple of links during a quick google search which mention that Ravi Shankar designed/came up with it.
Seems like a fact that it's a core part of his Art of Living program. Do you think these can be used on the article?
I don't think so. I can't see an author for the Yogapedia article, and the website doesn't seem independent on him. But you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics as editors there are more likely to know about these sources. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Persian Language PageEdit
I checked out of curiosity from your comments on that page having POV issues and seriously? They cite Radio Free America? As if that's any way relevant? WTF?!? 15:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I would hope you gave the same warning to the people that were deleting my edit, especially since they were deleting it without debunking it (they can not) and without talking about it at all. Hopscootchica (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Modern Gold DinarEdit
I see that you have (once again) reverted my edit on the Modern gold dinar page. The source I provided for my edit was arguably "unreliable" by set standards, however, that was the single most reliable source that was available which included a New Straits Times article that explicitly mentioned that the Kelantanese dinar is illegal, therefore I am here to argue that for that reason, an exception ought to be made. Other sources used on the Kelantanese dinar page are either permanently dead (from the same newspaper) or are from Web Archive which I can't access. Sisuvia (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Arguments for why something which has been challenged should be included in an article need to be made on the talk page of the article to see if there is a consensus to do so. - Donald Albury 13:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)