Open main menu

User talk:Doug Weller

Active discussions

The current date and time is 11 December 2019 T 15:38 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.

D O U G W E L L E R
Witch cutout.png
             
User-invisible.svg
             
Nek-o-lantern.svg
       
Cat silhouette.svg
               
Skull & crossbones.svg
               
The death.svg
             
Spider.svg
Home               Talk Page               Contributions         My Stats                 Archives                 Subpages               Email
Happy Halloween!

User:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home

Talk Page

Workshop

Site Map

Userboxes

Edits

Email

Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...
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 here to start a new topic.
If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place.



Edits RevertedEdit

Hi there Doug,

I made some changes to writer and director, Dianne Houston's page yesterday. It seems that you have reverted the page back to its original form. I see that I forgot to provide my reasoning for the edits. My apologies. I am a student of African American film and television and the information on her page was very much outdated and some of it was outright wrong. I just wanted to update it to reflect her most recent work as well as correct some discrepancies. I also added two new sources to the bottom and removed one that provided false information. Let me know how I go about having the changes I made reflected on the page. Thanks for all you do.

Question about the notice you placedEdit

Hi, I'm just wondering why you placed the Discretionary Sanctions Notice on my talk page and not on Snooganssnoogans' page as well? Have I done anything that is not within policy? Thank you for the clarification. UberVegan🌾 23:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I'm equally perplexed as to why you didn't give the same warning to SharabSalam who seems to be edit-warring, especially since his edit had been reverted and there is a talk discussion occurring. UberVegan🌾 00:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
"seems to be editwarring"
I have literally made one revert. your "talk discussion" is a waste of time because all of your talking points are your opinions. No one is going to waste time reading your opinions about how reliable sources are "extermly biased". If you have any objective argument say it in the talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
All talk discussions are opinons... an opinion that this is WP:VANDALISM, or that this editor is WP:EDITWARRING, or they are WP:CIVIL. I believe there's enough substance based on policies that it should be a discussion and not have you unilaterally revert when a thread has been started. If every editor acted as you, Wikipedia would become a battleground. Oh, wait... UberVegan🌾 18:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
UberVegan, your opinion about solid reliable sources being "extremely biased" is a waste of time. If you want to discuss the reliability of for example of VOX which is considered generally reliable source you can go to WP:RSN not in the article. Currently, almost all reliable sources agree that Gatestone institute is a "far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim agitprop". --SharabSalam (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, anyone can alert anyone. I think I have been notified about the discretionary sanctions before so there is no need for a new notification.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Please read the notice. It states: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It is simply a notification that certain articles are controversial and have stricter enforcement of guidelines. You can only get one of these notices a year for any particular area. I posted one on SharabSalam'a page last month. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I just found it odd that I received a notice but not Snooganssnoogans, as far as I could see. UberVegan🌾 19:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@UberVegan: policy forbids giving alerts more than once a year. Also see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. I'd have broken policy, policy I helped set as a member of the Arbitration Committee, if I'd given either editor an alert. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, wow! Thank you, Doug, for clarifying! UberVegan🌾 20:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
UberVegan,
Very odd that you only got it now. I have said I have been notified about the discretionary sanctions before so there is no need for a new notification. and Objective3000 have said You can only get one of these notices a year for any particular area. I posted one on SharabSalam'a page last month. This just shows that you skip reading our comments. Another reason why I said waste of time.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I was speaking to Doug's comment about helping to set the policy on ARBCOM. This just shows that you lack understanding. I won't respond to any more of your drivle. UberVegan🌾 21:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines and avoid characterizations like drivel. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You may be interested in this[1], Doug? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editorEdit

Hey Doug,

The editor Mikola22 is pov pushing ([2]), edit warring with multiple editors and removing referenced content ([3]), edit warring with multiple editors and adding poorly referenced content ([4], [5]), adding poorly referenced content ([6]), WP:FORUM (Talk:Serbs of Croatia), etc. Can you take a look at this discussion? He's Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. He's in some mission to push his nationalist agenda. And I'm suspecting he have some relationship with the disruptive editor User:Ceha ([7], [8]) Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

ping editors who interacted with him: @Slatersteven:, @Sadko:, @TU-nor:, @Santasa99:, @Nicoljaus: -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Do i need to answer? For the Uskoks I put a book of historian Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011), as an additional source. For Stohkavian dialect there are no books or historians which talking about migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia and Bosnia(see talk page [9]). As far as Vlachs is concerned, historians and books of historians mentione Vlachs not me and we must put that information from the book on wikipedia. As for Telli Hasan Pasha I put information of Radoslav_Lopasić. Regarding Zachlumia I put information from book of Serbian academic and historian about arrival of the Serbs to Zachlumia Sima M. Ćirković, Srbi među europskim narodima,(Serbs) 2008. Everything can be checked and there will be no problems. Otherwise if there are any problems there is talk page. thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Do i need to answer? Yes you need to answer.
"I put a book of historian Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011), as an additional source." Actually, No! Jesuislafete removed your poorly sourced redundant paragraph then immidiatly you reverted his edit. Yes, there is a discussion in the talk page (Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documents). What the fuck is this? So you opened a discussion in "30 October" in the talk page with a title "Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documents". What are these "original historical documents"? Are these some historical documents you have that we can't access? And you added the historical facts you have in 31 October. What are those facts, two "Završni rad" (bachelor's thesis) ([10], [11])! Are you working with these universities and promoting their student's works? When Jesuislafete reverted you claimed in the edit commentary that "I return part of artical concerning the specific origin of Uskoks from Senj area which is extremely important and necessary" So now the two bachelor theses you added are important or what? Do you know something called WP:SCHOLARSHIP? And here again in 13 November 2019 you introduced another bachelor's thesis ([12]) You didn't "put a book of historian Catherine Wendy Bracewell" until I reverted you in 3 December 2019‎ and you re-reverted my revert in 6 December 2019.
"For Stohkavian dialect there are no books or historians which talking about migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia and Bosnia" The content you removed here is referenced, but you didn't care to check the two references by Miloš Okuka. Why you removed these two references? You're claiming that "there are no books or historians which talking about migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia and Bosnia" but the text is referenced! see talk page The talk page is a mess and again you're using as a title "Deleting parts of the article that have no evidence in the original historical records" My question again is what original historical records? Is "original historical records" == Your point of view ?
"As far as Vlachs is concerned, historians and books of historians mentione Vlachs not me and we must put that information from the book on wikipedia." Stop pushing your pov and using your "original historical records" as an evidence.
"As for Telli Hasan Pasha I put information of Radoslav_Lopasić." You actually used an outdated 1890 source by Radoslav Lopašić.
"Regarding Zachlumia I put information from book of Serbian academic and historian about arrival of the Serbs to Zachlumia Sima M. Ćirković, Srbi među europskim narodima,(Serbs) 2008" You actually used the Croatian translation of his 2004 book The Serbs
You're removing whatever goes against your agenda even if it's referenced by reliable sources, and adding poor content using poor sources (bachelor theses, outdated sources) just to push your pov. Sorry, but you're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, No! Jesuislafete removed your poorly sourced redundant paragraph then immidiatly you reverted his edit. Yes, there is a discussion in the talk page (Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documents). All three sources(master's thesis) i.e."poorly sourced redundant paragraph" have a source in the book of Uskok(Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011) and I put that book as extra evidence and the pages where this information are in the book. What the fuck is this? So you opened a discussion in "30 October" in the talk page with a title "Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documents". What are these "original historical documents"? Are these some historical documents you have that we can't access? And you added the And you added the historical facts you have in 31 October. What are those facts, two "Završni rad" (bachelor's thesis) ([12], [13])! Are you working with these universities and promoting their student's works? I answered earlier, all three "(bachelor's thesis)" have a source of quoted data in the book of Uskok(Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011) and this is now added as extra evidence. So now the two bachelor theses you added are important or what? Do you know something called WP:SCHOLARSHIP? And here again in 13 November 2019 you introduced another bachelor's thesis ([14]) You didn't "put a book of historian Catherine Wendy Bracewell" until I reverted you in 3 December 2019‎ and you re-reverted my revert in 6 December 2019 I thought it was enough because those sources mention book and pages of book Uskoks (Catherine Wendy Bracewell (The Uskoks of Senj 2011) and now that information has been added because it was requested, this is wikipedia and we are working together. The content you removed here is referenced, but you didn't care to check the two references by Miloš Okuka. Why you removed these two references? You're claiming that "there are no books or historians which talking about migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia and Bosnia" but the text is referenced! see talk page The talk page is a mess and again you're using as a title "Deleting parts of the article that have no evidence in the original historical records" My question again is what original historical records? Is "original historical records" == Your point of view ?We have a talk page, if I said that there is no historians and books that talking about migrations of someone from eastern Herzegovina to 60-70% of Croatia and most of Bosnia then you find information in books that say otherwise, but you didn't do it or anyone else. Croats are also stokhavians but they do not come from eastern Herzegovina, Bosniaks also. And for that reason that part of the citation cannot be an integral part of the article because it's simply not true. "As far as Vlachs is concerned, historians and books of historians mentione Vlachs not me and we must put that information from the book on wikipedia." Stop pushing your pov and using your "original historical records" as an evidence. This is information from the books of Croatian historians and if is there any problem with sources you can freely discuss on talk page in good faith. "As for Telli Hasan Pasha I put information of Radoslav_Lopasić." You actually used an outdated 1890 source by Radoslav Lopašić But i did not do it bad faith, this information is older but speaks about Telli Hasan Pasha Regarding Zachlumia you actually used the Croatian translation of his 2004 book The Serbs Whether in the English version of the book writes differently? Certainly not. Sorry, but You're not here to build a encyclopedia! Try to understand that this is wikipedia and we all need to work together. Bring any problem on talk page and we will discuss it together. Mikola22 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, since I was mentioned, I will say that I agree, Micola22 is definitely WP:NOTHERE.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I will not clutter up a users talk page (even an admins, damn em), take this to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User adding fringe materialEdit

Hi Doug,

User Kapeter77 has been adding material to pages about Hungarian history from a theory that Hungarian Wikipedia describes thusly:

The Arvisuras are the eponymous name of an eclectic [1] [2] myth system recorded by the metallurgist Zoltán Paál and the beliefs contained within it. According to Paul, the work, whose content came partly through the narration of Soviet paratroopers Salalar Tura [3] and through the "thought-vibration process" [4], covers the thousands of years of history and worldview of the Hun-Hungarian tribes. Its credibility is disputed.

I've already tried to talk to him about it [13], [14], but to no avail. Would you be able to do something about it? Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: sorry, too late, they're indefinitely blocked! Doug Weller talk 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks anyway Doug!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopenedEdit

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

New editorEdit

Thanks. I was just about to ask if you would take a look at their talk, actually ECed with you, but you left basically what I was about to leave them. Heiro 19:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

datesEdit

Re unlinking centuries, etc. In the MOS, it would very helpful if the MOS guidance on centuries, etc., could be explicit about not linking them. Otherwise, editors get accused of disruptive edits and told to revert their work, like me on my talk page. Hmains (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hmains: I couldn't agree more. So, boldly edit the guidance or use the talk page? Or pages, it seems that WP:DATELINK and MOS:UNLINKDATES would need changing. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and living or recently deceased peopleEdit

Hi, I note that you consider some, but not all editors of the white privilege page to fall under Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and living or recently deceased people. I wonder whether it would more efficient to place the page itself on the Discretionary sanctions list? This way all the editors of that page will be under notice. Keith Johnston (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. We put articles under sanctions, editors get alerts. Ssee Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. No one responsible for alerting everyone who edits a page, on some pages that would be an intolerable burden anyway. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand thank you. Does that mean the white privilege page is under sanction? Keith Johnston (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election‎Edit

I eliminated the word "falsely" from the sentence that listed POTUS' objections to the report. During my initial attempt to edit, Wikipedia cut me off in mid-keystroke on my reason, and abruptly returned me to the article itself. I re-entered the edit function and gave my reason, which I still stand by. "Falsely" is an opinion at this stage, and Wikipedia should limit itself to just reporting what POTUS said, not make a judgement (which judgement may be described as "false"!). Unless in your wisdom you know something the rest of us in the peanut gallery do not?Gustapus (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gustapus: we go by what sources meeting WP:RS say. Trump is a reliable source for his own words, but not anything else. But the place to argue this is on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Be as that may, the truth or falsity of POTUS' words will be decided elsewhere - for truth in reporting, I still feel that your leaving the word "falsely" in the article is revealing of your personal political leanings, not a fair and balanced statement of what was said and/or done. Another "editor" replied (in fractured grammar and pied spelling) that your fact-checking source was the LA Times, which has lost any pretense to objectivity going back say 10 years or more. If you are happy with that, fine - we'll leave it lie.Gustapus (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I was goIng by the source and there are certainly other, perhaps even better ones that say the same thing. Following policy doesn't sow a political position, and you clearly don't understand our policies yet, which is no surprise as you are clearly inexperienced. Your opinion or mine should be irrelevant. Note that we also ask editors to assume good faith and I'd appreciate it if you would do that rather than jumping to conclusions. Doug Weller talk 22:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Doug Weller".