User talk:Doug Weller
The current date and time is 21 August 2019 T 15:49 UTC.
|This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area(s):
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|
New sockpuppet restored their changesEdit
A new star!Edit
What's with the threat of banning?Edit
If you review my ENTIRE Wikipedia history, you would notice that MOST of my sources are verifiable and legitimate, however, I admit I am very prone to using non-mainstream sources because I have alot of friends in Facebook who suggest new content for me to introduce here and it is they who usually edge me on to do this. (You can add me in Facebook if you like my Username here is the same there, I am pretty much an open book, I don't hide in aliases) Anyway, if you notice, once I see that I am wrong (Which only happens in a minority of my edits) I usually don't go about it and i just accept correction. You can ask users like Stricnina who I had a long argument with but eventually accepted the erasure of 2 of my articles because I simply acknowledged that they were wrong. Mentioning the possibility of my banning is uncalled for especially considering that the vast majority of my edits are true to form and only a minority are in need of correction. You don't judge a person by his small mistakes but what he does habbitually. Although I respect you as an Administrator, that mentioning of banning is just uncalled for, especially considering that I have been editing Wikipedia for at least 11 years and except for a few mismatches have been adding content faithfully, that is all.
Is it ok that I restore my content in the Nagarakretagama? The primary contention of Lourdes Rausa-Gomez was that there was no archeological evidence that the Philippines was part of Majapahit by the time she wrote that piece however, during the late 1980s AFTER that piece was written, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was found which said that the Lord of Tondo reported to an administrator from Medang (Indonesia). She herself wrote that if archeological evidence were discovered, then we should dismiss her propositions. I just used that source since that's what was given to me by another person.
I can't restore my edit because you erased my edition in the history section of Nagarakretagama. Why did you do this? This irks me, I already proved to you that the author herself said that we should reject her dismissal of connections between Majapahit and Srivjaya if archeological proof arose (Which it did in the Laguna Copperplate Inscription). I was right since square one in that regard, now why do you have to punish me by making me do the extra effort of re-researching and retyping from that source because you lacked discretion and just deleted it even the history section point blank? You are not supposed to erase the contents in the edit history so that abitrators can use it in consensus building or conflict resolution. I still respect you as a mod, but that action is again uncalled for. I am screenshotting my history and editions from now on since you have a propensity to delete them unilaterally.
- I found a public internet archive with a copy of that article here...
- As you can see from the year it was published it's pretty dated, it is from the year 1967.
- Here'es the portion where she said we should update our paradigms once new archeological discoveries are unearthed pertaining to this (Which came after the article was published when the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was found 1989.)
- As you can see, the assertion that she previously put forth has been refuted and that there is indeed evidence that the Philippines was under Majapahit. ::So which means that the books she refuted are now under a different light and that archeological evidence has proven it in favor of these.
- Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't mind I will restore my edits on Nagarakretagama and add a citation of that book since that was your bone of contention, so I would acede to that. Is that acceptable to you?
Genetic studies on Filipinos and Latin Americans in the PhilippinesEdit
You say that I shouldn't use Y-DNA study from Applied Biosystems and the 1870 census by Fedor Jagor. To prove that there is Latin American descent among Filipinos. Ok then how about I add, a genetic study from National Geographic? The Genographic Project of National Geographic says that most Filipinos have residual Native American descent and there is also another genetic study from the Institute of Human Genetics in California that of the East Asians they analyzed only the Filipinos hold a significant amount of European and Native American descent.
National Geographic Study: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/ California Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26092716
Don't tell me that the California Institute of Human Genetics and the National Geographic are unreliable sources because that's just pushing it. Anyway, if you won't mind I will restore the edits you reverted and even cite stronger evidence from these two institutions. You honestly are willing to sacrifice form over essence. The Philippines has been ruled by Mexico for 300 years yet you want to erase a mention of a Latin American population in the Philippines having Mexican descent because it does not conform to your standards, whereas you tolerate the mentioning of miniscule Latin American descent in Finland or Australia for example. You prioritize what looks good over what is essential
- If you don't mind, I'll restore the mention of Latin Americans in the Philippines while using the National Geographic study and the Institute of Human Genetics findings as evidences for it.
I forgive you thoughEdit
Even though you made me suffer by mentioning banning and proposing that I don't know how to cite valid sources, and even deleting content in the edit history (Which could be used as evidence), I forgive you since you like me are only human and we are both prone to mistakes and that I choose to judge you by most of your work which is valid and good over the small mistakes you commited against me. I just am hurt that you insinuated that I'm not a good citer of sources when in fact MOST of my sources are verfiable and only a tiny minority are not, and even then I accept most correction.
M Night Shyamalan twist!Edit
- I just came to look at this and noticed a script I used had struck through his name, meaning he's been blocked. So I checked - he's blocked for a month and his 2nd unblock appeal is, wait for it, "I believe Wikipedia admins are nerds that live in denial and deny factual true conspiracies like the Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Mockingbird. MisterJay123 (talk) 5:30 pm, Today (UTC+1)" Doug Weller talk 16:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Humorous1234: there is, see MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. A draft may be great, but it may drastically fail all our policies and guidelines. So you h ave to wait until and if it becomes an article. I can't see Conch Republic Navy having its own article, by the way as it's already mentioned in the main article. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Your edit to "Manual of Style"Edit
In this edit you indicated you were restoring old wording. Something must have gone wrong; your addition is ungrammatical and has poor punctuation. The edit summary did not indicate the source of the wording. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
How is it contradicted in the main article? Look at the info box. It says Gihon Settlement (which was the first habitation of the area by man) 3000-2800 BC!!!!!!
Three edit ruleEdit
Help!!!!!! I know that I am putting in the correct username and password, but I cannot access my Wikipedia account!!!!!! Do accounts get deleted if you don't access them after a certain period of time?????? 2605:A000:121E:E246:2D79:D815:2629:4F8F (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
In regards to the tommy robinson postEdit
I was just wondering if you'd consider leaving the bit about using sites like the pew research center to determine someone's political leaning? I truly do believe it could serve as a neutral/fair alternative method of accurately identifying someone's ideals, rather than using what is effectively opinion pieces. (Both primary n secondary sources in this regard would be at best well informed opinions.) The rest was nonconstructive, and I understand it's removal, regardless of validity, as it's primary purpose was to dissuade individuals from continuing a fruitless debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I gather from Huldra's page that you are pressed for time (and I hope in real life this finds you well). But I wonder if you could glance at the Eran Elhaik additions by a newbie SPI. I did some reverts because of obvious violations, this is a BLP page, and that info is all WP:OR. He takes as definitive a critique of Elhaik et al's work, ignoring that the critique in question was given a point by point rebuttal (Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, Eran Elhaik, Responding to an enquiry concerning the geographic population structure (GPS) approach and the origin of Ashkenazic Jews - a reply to Flegontov et al 17 Aug 2016) It is not a question of the merits of either position. This is simply an ongoing debate of a highly technical character, and the intruder is using wiki and Elhaik's page to take sides. Further, he doesn't engage on his talk page, but simply repeats the text he stitched up. Sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
When I asked about the three revert rule, I was not referring to you. I wanted to be sure that I was not in violation of the three revert rule!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)