Wikipedia

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 40

< User talk:Doug Weller
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Legobot in topic Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 → Archive 45

Wikidata weekly summary #200

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #186

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 12:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Richard Amerike

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for the WOP warning. I was aware that I couldn't include unpublished research. There's some good and well-evidenced stories about Amerike that aren't in the public domain, but I've respected rules and left them out. Documentation for Amerike's public offices will be in the public domain in the next couple of months in a user friendly form; and as a new user with 'L' plates I'm still working my way through inserting some of the footnotes to give both references and on-line pdfs as far as possible. Because of some of the unsubstantiated theories around Amerike and Cabot that have had considerable currency in the past twenty years there's a few sentences on Cabot to give context. Perhaps I should be more explicit? Caracticus Saxon (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Caracticus Saxon: This should probably move now to the article talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by not in the public domain, but this all seems interesting. Material doesn't of course have to be online, just accessible, eg inter-library loan, etc. Could you start over at the article talk page and be a bit more specific? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doug, Thank you for the information on terminology. I've got a lot to learn!Caracticus Saxon (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a teensy bit stuck...

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi again, Doug. Just a quick one, I came across this article ITV Sport and had a little clear-out of the strange tone of the passages of text. The article is tagged as "needs citations" and has been so since 2013. Whilst I had no issue with cleanup of the text, I realise that the lists that are currently there are generally quite accurate (to the best of my knowledge) and there must be verifiable sources around somewhere. So my question is: in this situation, do we clear out an article that someone has clearly spent a lot of time writing, based on the fact that there are minimal references. It seems harsh and I've tried to add some references but I really don't have the means to do them all. Any advice? Hoping your well :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@GiggsIsLegend: Sorry to take so long to respond, I knew what I was going to say but just forgot. I'm fine, hope you are. Unless there's something contentious I'd just leave it. What does bother me a bit is the list of personnel, as I don't think that we should have such complete lists of staff. I'd only include those with their own articles. Others would disagree, but that's what company websites are for. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 March

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rasputin

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Doug Weller, your input would be highly valuable here Thanks for your time. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Diputación de la Grandeza

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hola Dougweller

I saw your request, placed on Wikipedia in 2012, as to whether www.diputaciondelagrandeza.es may be considered a "reliable source"? Should this public enquiry not yet be closed, I suggest that the said website (www.diputaciondelagrandeza.es), whilst not being an empirical (ie. governmental) source of evidence (such as www.boe.es), could be deemed to be a more than reliable source by Wikipedia given that its express purpose is to maintain the dignity of Grandee of Spain; its Deacon, the Duque de Híjar, and other governing officers all happen to be Grandees too.

You may have noticed that I have recently been engaged in trying to improve the accuracy of information in Wikipedia about the Grandes de España? It may be worthwhile highlighting here that any updates in Spanish somehow get translated in (sometimes bad) English within a very short space of time - I can only presume this is an automated facility?

Nonetheless, I trust that Wikipedia having an accurate and well-explained update about the Grandees of Spain is, in general, a good idea so any assistance/guidance/help would be much appreciated.

Many thanks.

L'honorable (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, L'honorable but I have no time now to look at this. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Can you give Murder of Kylie Maybury a look-over to see if there's any changes, edits or things which have been overlooked? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: - looks ok except you need to source the text about Lowe. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I've seen the amount of vandals that you have eliminated on here. Thank you for your hard work. Deliciouspieceoftoast (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Images using NASA material

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would you mind taking a look at this, and maybe resolve it? Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2016_February_21#File:NC_Egypt_Levant_sites.jpg Cheers, ♆ CUSH ♆ 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC) @Cush: Sorry, I've looked at it twice and decided I really don't have the experience for it. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #201

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 11:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

About the images being removed

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I understand why a couple of images got removed, but why did every image i uploaded since august get removed? Some were serious.Thursby16 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Thursby16 I don't know, it was done by an Admin at Commons. I guess you aren't trusted now, Doug Weller talk 18:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 23:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know how much you love mail, so I sent you some. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The links to brief introductions to biblical books go to links listed on http://www.vts.edu/biblebriefs. VTS is the Virginia Theological Seminary of which I am a professor emeritus. VTS has joined with Forward Movement publications to make these introductions known and available to the public for downloading and printing. I am helping with this project by adding the links to appropriate Wikipedia articles. Thus, I cannot see that the copyright infringement is an issue in this case. I am aware that it can be because I recently edited an article that had been largely lifted from a copyrighted source without any citation. Please let me know whether this allays your concern Vejlefjord (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vejlefjord: Not completely, but asking at Wikipedia:Copyright problems should give you a better answer. Sorry to be tardy in replying. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Doug. Can you take a look at Beverley Brook. An IP has three times deleted referenced content without explanation, and I have twice reverted. I do not have access to the source, but I do not see any reason to delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I think that if that were the case it would be possible to find it in another source. Did you read[1] where the IP says "The Beverley Brook does NOT feed the London Wetland Centre. Intake to the Centre is pumped in from the Thames Water ring main." I've searched for a source but can't help. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that an anonymous IP should be allowed to edit war removing referenced content based on their unsupported claim that it is incorrect. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: We should normally treat IPs just as we do accounts. I'm in touch with the LWC and will do something when I get an answer. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wootz steel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • South India] Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 5(1994) 49-59</ref><ref>Herbert Henery Coghlan. (1977).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

History of Balochistan

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Doug good day to you. I am approaching you with this having seen your work on History/Archaeology related articles. I would like to make mention of that this article contains a template titled "History of Pakistan". I tried replacing that with "History of South Asia" instead and a user User:LouisAragon has reverted it twice. There are in my understanding a few things to be looked at here. As per the title it has more to do with the "historical" context than the currently political one. Through their recorded history regardless of whether Balochistan was "independent" or not it was a part of the subcontinent and of South Asia. It was only in 1948 that Pakistan walked into the state and occupied it. No doubt the article on Balochistan calls it a province of Pakistan. But can its "history" be called a part of Pakistan's history?

I have been to pages related to the IVC and have seen the discussions on calling it South Asia's civilization rather than India's and renaming pages as inventions/discoveries in South Asia rather than India etc. On those pages expectedly there was a brit along with pakistanis on the other side but I did see a few other yourself included speaking of the "historical" India (a context in which "Pakistan" does not exist independently). If the "history" of IVC cannot be appropriated to India can the history of Balochistan be to Pakistan? Even from a political perspective if a so-called plebiscite were to be conducted in Balochistan today probably 90% would vote for independence so that it might be considered more of a territory under occupation (like Tibet or Uyghuristan) rather than a state. My point being even the political narrative feels a bit weak.

FWIW the user that reverted my edits claims to be of Russian AS WELL as Iranian descent. By the look of it one of those Iranians that probably uses a ton of cosmetics to look more "white" than the swarthy "brown" they tend to be always. Anyway this Balochistan's history starts only in 1948 with invasion and occupation by Pakistan. This is actually the eastern half of the actual traditional region of Balochistan (the western part being in Iran and a small portion in Afghanistan as well). The part that is in Iran has been renamed as Sistan-Baluchestan. Many there also consider themselves under occupation though not to anywhere near the degree of Pak Balochistan. Kindly look in it. 59.92.145.253 (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug, it was not because I knew you (I don't obviously) that I approached you on this. But on account of what I perceived - that you are interested in this topic. All the conventional history articles/books/literature equate the beginning of the "Indian Civilization" with the start of the I.V.C. And I am speaking of the "West" and not India. With the colonization of the country and the subsequent division just because more than half of the I.V.C went to pakistan there seems to have been a concerted effort on the part of a certain group of editors to equate the I.V.C with the "Subcontinent" or "South Asia". So "Political" correctness precedes "historical" correctness maybe. So much so that "ancient pakistan" is a term I have come across almost exclusively on WIKI or on some Pakistan based govt/private sites. If that logic were applied here then certainly my argument stands voided. But I would like to know what you think. Rather than ignore it totally you could reply what you want. I am not a crank just trying to make some noise and get noticed. This region BTW is under occupation as per most of the natives there. There is a good chance that the struggle might explode into a war for independence. Regardless of what happens or does not, hypothetically, if this region was to declare independence would you still be having the tag then? Does the present/future appropriate the past? I would like a reply this time no matter what you think. 59.90.53.249 (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Lmao. Another WP:TROLL. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Need your insight

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An editor has restored their addition using a source that appears to have been copied from another Wikipedia article. Specifically:

  • R Islam (1997), A Note on the Position of the non-Muslim Subjects in the Sultanate of Delhi under the Khaljis and the Tughluqs, Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, 45, pp. 215–229.

When this article is searched for on Wikipedia you will find:

Neither of which states, "Khilji has controversy of converting many Hindus and buddhists forcefully to Islam in Bengal and North India."

Which leads me to believe user:Sanjoydey33 simply copied and pasted the reference to support their addition.

My attempts at finding this article on BRILL and Jstor have been fruitless. A google search brings up the Proquest site, which I do not have access to. Do you happen to have access to this article? Do you find this editor's use of this source oddly coincidental, considering it exactly mirrors how it is written on two other articles? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Kansas Bear I don't either, but the requests page might get it from you. Meanwhile I asked the editor to put a quote on the talk page. Sorry to take so long. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. No worries about time. Been busy watching my sons build my new computer. As for resource request, no luck. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour of SundayClose

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Happy Easter, Doug. You are currently arbitrating on the Moses Talk page regarding the DNA research on Moses' brother Aaron's presumed patrilineal descendants, the Cohanim. As you will see, I hope I have now met your requirements. In particular, the Thomas et al. 1998 Nature paper is explicit about Moses and the genetic support for a 3000-year time depth. But we should still cite the key Skorecki et al. 1997 Nature paper which set the ball rolling. I would be grateful if you could implement my new section into the Moses article.

The main reason I am writing here however is the behaviour of SundayClose. When I made the edit proposal on Moses yesterday, SundayClose, I suspect, traced my IP to the Chronology of Jesus page and reverted, without any justification, edits that I had made there. My Jesus edits were minor (they consisted in adding coin evidence for the start of the reign of Emperor Tiberius in AD 14, and I also moved several references from the lead to the main text, where some of those references were missing). I had carefully annotated my edits and had not deleted any reference or information, as you can easily see from the editing history.

I therefore suspect that SundayClose's wholescale and uncommented reversions of my careful edits was meant to be a "punishment" for daring to propose inclusion of the Y chromosomal research on Aaron (and hence Moses). I am relatively new to Wikipedia - can you advise me how to address SundayClose's behaviour? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.143 (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I like edit summaries myself. User:Sundayclose isn't exactly tracking your IP, he's looking at your contributions which is simple to do by clicking on 'user contributiosn'. It isn't uncommon. What I suggest you do is start a discussion on the talk page.
I'm an Arbitrator but I'm not arbitrating the Moses article (and in any case the WP:Arbitration Committee deals with serious long-term issues to do with editors, not content). Doug Weller talk 12:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug, Sorry to be a nuisance again, but I do not understand your first sentence - I suspect you mean "editing" rather than edit? Secondly, if you are not an arbitrator for Moses, what brings you to the Moses Talk page? Professional interest? (I notice you are also an archaeologist). I had requested IsambardKingdom to nominate a mediator, hence I thought that mediator was you. And if you are not the mediator, how do I go about recruiting one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.143 (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:Edit summaries for an answer to your first question. Moses is on my WP:WATCHLIST - not sure when I added it, I've been around 10 years next month and I can't remember why I added it in the first place. I'm an amateur or avocational archaeolgist with some formal training but no qualifications. There's a "third opinion" option but of course there are no longer only 2 people. There are several basic issues here. One, is Nature a reliable source for the edit you wish to make. Secondly, is it covered enough in reliable sources to be significant, see WP:UNDUE. We have noticeboards to discuss such issues, WP:RSN for the first, WP:NPOVN for the second but you don't seem to have enough sources yet for that. I've said sources need to discuss the subject, just reminding you. Then there's the WP:RFC process. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Muchas gracias. One more thing: "Nature", as you probably know, is the Rolls-Royce among scientific journals worldwide. So what do you mean by saying that it is "unreliable" for the edit? For your convenience, here is the Thomas et al. 1998 Nature summary (and we should probably transfer this part of the discussion to the Moses page, so the others see it):

"Origins of Old Testament priests Mark G. Thomas, Karl Skoreckiad Haim Ben-Amid, Tudor Parfitt, Neil Bradman & David B. Goldstein Abstract According to Jewish tradition, following the Exodus from Egypt, males of the tribe of Levi, of which Moses was a member, were assigned special religious responsibilities, and male descendants of Aaron, his brother, were selected to serve as Priests (Cohanim). To the extent that patrilineal inheritance has been followed since sometime around the Temple period (roughly 3,000-2,000 years before present), Y chromosomes of present-day Cohanim and Levites should not only be distinguishable from those of other Jews, but — given the dispersion of the priesthood following the Temple's destruction — they should derive from a common ancestral type no more recently than the Temple period. Here we show that although Levite Y chromosomes are diverse, Cohen chromosomes are homogeneous. We trace the origin of Cohen chromosomes to about 3,000 years before present, early during the Temple period." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.143 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"For the edit", ie does the source unequivocally back the edit. Yes, transfer it there. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #202

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Family tree of Muhammad

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An article that you have been involved in editing—Family tree of Muhammad —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 89.240.87.162 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Crimson Zoom

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Crimson Zoom (talk · contribs) just has to be another Buddhakahika sock. I'm not in the mood to jump through the hoops of SPI but perhaps you can do the necessary? - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Euryalus has spotted it and CU blocked. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sitush: Great, I was at hospital for a couple of appointments. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I know that hospital feeling all too well! Hope things went ok. You may be interested in Talk:Adivasi Hindu saints. I don't think it is another sock but I can't recall the last time I saw someone challenging CSD G5 for one of Buddhakahika's recreations. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Stalky socks

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

And here's another. Ooer... a nation-block's in order? Haploidavey (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Overflow at your admintools page

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear User:Doug Weller. Your page User:Doug Weller/Admin Dashboard has appeared at Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded. You could help us to empty this maintenance category by replacing everything with {{admin dashboard/light}} that provides the same functionality, but is far less prone to overflow. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Done, thanks for letting me know. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
And when that is done, I can hopefully add it back to my userpage. :D—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

You mentioned a request that was made for me to comment on the arbitration request. I wanted to point out, in case it was overlooked, that I had already commented (in fact, I was named as a party), and I think the later request was just asking me if I wanted to follow up on my previous post. I have not decided to do that at this point, but I think the request was innocuous, without commenting on any other aspects of the discussion since I left my original comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:CBM Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't bothered anyway as the good professor is really pretty unaware of a lot of how we work, so no foul. I'm really more concerned about his lack of response. 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

CPAP

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Didn't know what a CPAP mask was. Got me worried there, Doug. If it's sleep apnea, my wife suffers from that. Our solution fits my lifestyle, I retire late and read in bed for a further 2/3 hours, till she's had at least 5/6 hours of sleep, just to keep an eye on her breathing as well. Anyway, keep well.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Yes, sleep apnea. The masks are a nuisance as they blow air around. I've started having trouble after many years for some reason. Trying various solutions. Lucky I've got the NHS! You probably missed the fact that Knowledgebattle deleted a whole thread at Talk:Jew Watch. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
All the more reason for decent people to rally in defense of that imperiled NHS. Didn't notice the erasure. Fixed. I'm inclined to think we have a frogs-and-butter case here. Best wishes, Doug.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Mouse!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Mouse!. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Point Rosee

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

New article ...needs some real sources. What do you think? My opinion we are years away from any conclusions.. --Moxy (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: created by a very respected editor who has been continually improving it. I'm not worried. Doug Weller talk 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
..not saying anything wrong.....subject just needs more time for good sources and any conclusions--Moxy (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC).

Move a sysop protected article

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Doug Weller: The article Apastamba is sysop protected for moves. The article should be moved and retitled Apastamba Dharmasutra, because that is what this article has been before I edited it, still is. We know nothing about sage Apastamba, we do have the complete manuscript of the Dharmasutra, English translations, and secondary WP:RS on this notable ancient text. FWIW, Apastamba Dharmasutra is part of the Apastamba Kalpasutra, which also has Apastamba Shrautasutra and Apastamba Shulbasutra, the latter with very interesting geometry and math in it; hopefully, one day we will have wiki articles on the other parts too. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Done. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Esc2003 & Kmoksy

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

here Esc2003 & Kmoksy, two wikipedists originally from turkey, are in co-work reverting and devalueting my contributions tandemly and stakingly w/o any summary or by not using discussion pages. Could you please warn these people because I am almost done? Many thanks Manaviko (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


Esc2003

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I am disapponted after I saw one more revert from this user. If you have time, could you help to fix it? Thanks Manaviko (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Manaviko I'm sorry, I've been looking but don't know enough about the subject matter. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
There instead of answering or self improve, so quickly as possible reverting like here, and this person promotes others to write in other languages than English, for example with @Parishan: as I know this goes against our community standarts. I have seen the same problem on Nedim Ardoğa's talk page too under headline "şovenizm" talking on behalf of nationalism and place name renaming lobbying. Thanks for your time. Manaviko (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of Britain

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_%28place_name%29 Hallo Doug, fair enough that you deleted my contribution, but thanks to this, the world will probably never finds out what Britain actually means. There is in fact no source- apart of a pet project that I currently work on (here is demo version in quirky english, slovak version here). I am an amateur linguist based in Slovakia who is totally amazed how western-european linguists could ignore contributions to english from the Eastern Europe for so many centuries(except from people like Grover S. Kranz, for example). This is not only about Britain, basic english words such as look, write, forest, follow etc., which linguists struggle to explain, have their counterparts in Eastern Europe. Do you know, for exaple, what look originally meant? You do not. I know. It meant "turn around!" You never learn it from any etymology book in the world.

I could go further- nia in Britania (as well as Hispania, Iberia etc.) means land, and also inflame, burn (in slovak, czech roznietit means to set ablaze). Again, this may sound nonsensical, but for millenia, new land was acquired by burning forest. But I omitted this.

Do you know more truthful theory about origins of the term Britain then mine? Let me know. If you fail, could you please restore my contribution? You are gatekeeper at the Palace of Wisdom, dont forget. When the Truth knock on your door, you must let it in.

--Janklasovity (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Janklasovity I'm more of a janitor than a gatekeeper, but in this case I'm just telling you what policy is. Wikipedia is not, I'm afraid, a venue for new ideas or original thinking, see WP:NOTESSAY. Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #203

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

T.E.

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Doug, I don't have proofs, but after spotting a slightly polemic edit on Wahkare Khety by User:‎71.127.132.163 and checking his other contributions, I suspect that this IP is the pluri-banned User:Til Eulenspiegel. Khruner (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously. :-) Blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Karabakh War

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Due to the renewed conflict there has been a lot of edit warring going on on articles related to Karabakh. One such article is Madagiz. Is there some way to instill a protection for such articles as i do not see this edit warring calming down anytime soon. Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ninetoyadome I've semi-protected the page. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ok, ok, ok... but Do not block my this account ~~Gadri1~~. Ok. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~~Gadri1~~ (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sock blocked for 31 hours

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You say on User talk:1Tolasona that you've CU-blocked them indefinitely, which makes sense, but the block log only says 31 hours. Fat finger? Bishonen | talk 15:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen Thanks. Fixed it. I despair about this user. Basically clueless and determined. Better though than the mess at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2Samuel where we have multiple socks plus maybe some meatpuppets on 3 articles over several months. That's much harder to handle. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Tharros

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added some sources. Unfortunately, nothing in english.--L2212 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page harassment

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In your opinion would this continued edit warring on MBlaze Lightning's talk page by SheriffIsInTown be considered harassment? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

((ping|Kansas Bear}}Seems to have been handled now by Regents Park. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It was. Sorry to bother you Doug, but I was not sure of the rights of a blocked user concerning their talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

3.8 Allegations of violence

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Despite apparent severe censorship, some texts have remained that accuse Christ and his disciples of having conducted a campaign of violence against the Jews. The most direct accusation comes from Hierocles, who claims that


“Christ Himself was put to flight by the Jews, and having collected a band of nine hundred men, committed robberies.”[1]


Irenaeus indignantly records,


“Marcion of Pontus … He advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself”[2]


Christ himself controversially promised that he would not bring peace to the world, but rather the sword[3] and fire[4] and in The Gospel of Thomas[5] he states that he has already set the world alight and curiously makes a reference to looting,


“I have thrown fire upon the world, and look, I am watching till it blazes. … You cannot enter house of the strong and take it by force without binding the owner’s hands. Then you can loot the house. … Whoever is near me, is near fire."


James and John inexplicably requested Christ’s permission to summarily burn Samaria with the fire from heaven [6], usually explained away as a display of their “zeal” for Christ [7], but in several apocryphal documents the apostles not only threatened to but indeed “called down fire from heaven” to destroy the cities of the wicked (The History of the Contending of Saint Paul: Paul in Accho, The Martyrdom of Saint Andrew in Scythia,[8], The Acts of Philip[9]). In The History of the Contending of Saint Paul: Paul in Iconium,[10] the apostles are accused by the ruler of a city-state,


"For they are sorcerers, and they have subverted my rule, and have wrought deeds of shame among my women, and scattered abroad my officers and soldiers, and overthrown my house, and plundered my city, and stolen my possessions, and blotted out my hope, and done away my goods, and destroyed my pasture, and they have made accusations against each other, and they have carried off my handmaiden."


Christ also encouraged his followers to arm themselves”[11],


“If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. And it is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ [the wicked]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me."


Christ apparently deemed the two swords presented to him by his disciples as ‘enough’ to deliberately fulfil Isaiah’s Messianic prophecy[12][13]. Simon Peter did, in fact, carry a sword[14]. The Toledot Yeshu, a medieval text with roots possibly dating back to the formation of the canonical narratives themselves[15], reports that during the Cleansing of the Temple incident, Christ had stormed the Temple with 310 of his followers, and that both he and his followers had entered the Holy of Holies, from which they stole the ‘secret deposit’ of Solomon.[16]. If true, the Cleansing of the Temple would certainly have been viewed by the Jews as a severe act of aggression and violence.

@Saddeleur: I don't want to get involved as I have no time at all for anything but a quick response, I'm busy this week. You'd need independent sources discussing violence, not just biblical quotes. Budge probably fails WP:RS by the way. I'd suggest discussing it on the article's talk page cutting out anything that doesn't have a good source discussing violence. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lactantius, The Divine Institutes V.3.
  2. ^ Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies,’ I. XXVII.2.
  3. ^ Matthew 10:34–36.
  4. ^ Luke 12: 49, 51.
  5. ^ ‘The Gospel of Thomas,’ in Barnstone, Willis, and Marvin Meyer. The Gnostic Bible. Boston, MA: New Seeds Books, 2003, pp. 44–69.
  6. ^ Luke 9:54
  7. ^ biblehub.com
  8. ^ Budge, E. A. Wallis, The Contendings of the Twelve Apostles: Being the Histories and the Lives and Martyrdoms and Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and Evangelists. Vol. 2 (English Translation). London: Henry Frowde, 1901, pp. 567–575, 215–221
  9. ^ James, ‘The Acts of Philip' II.6–29, IX.107–138, in James, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.
  10. ^ Budge, The History of the Contending, pp. 616–656.
  11. ^ Luke 22: 36–37.
  12. ^ Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre (2010). Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. Exeter: Imprint Academic. pp. 109–110
  13. ^ Isaiah 53:9-12.
  14. ^ John 18:10
  15. ^ Alexander, P. ‘Jesus and his Mother in the Jewish Anti-Gospel (the Toledot Yeshu)’, in eds. C. Clivaz et al., Infancy Gospels, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, 2011, pp. 588-616.
  16. ^ The Catholic Encylopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0813.htm, Narrative of Joseph of Arimathæa, 1.

My apologies

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

for this. My watchlist has been slow to load lately, and I hit rollback accidentally. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 No problem at all, indeed it encouraged me to notice it was copyvio as were some other edits and an entire article from the same editor. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting...perhaps I'll take a look at their contributions, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Star Child

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Nice to see folks are paying attention to Wikipedia format.

Doug,

The article concerning Starchild isn't just incomplete it seems deliberately incomplete. Either the writer is merely uninformed, in which case one wonders why s/he presents anything on the topic, or the writer is purposefully misleading readers, eg. debunking. Debunking has become easy to do thanks to resources like Wikipedia, and, like plagiarizing it should not be permitted on Wikipedia. In fact as you probably know, one of the major criticisms of Wikipedia is that is presents inaccurate and biased discussions.

In some cases, debunking is not easy to identify. In the instance of the Starchild object, debunking is obvious simply by clicking on the starchild link you reverted. The Since additional information on this object is readily available, I suggested including it by referencing the appropriate web page. I see little point in rewriting the half dozen or or so technical reports available at the cited page.

In any event, the Wikipedia article on the Starchild is incomplete, inaccurate, and worst of all misleading. I suggest some attention be given to content, especially when content is of a nefarious nature--yes, many people view debunking worst than a plagiarizing: It simply represents a not so subtle attempt at propaganda. You might consider deleting the whole wretched mess and encourage who ever wrote the article to first do their homework and then write present available data in an unbiased fashion. There is a place for opinion but it shouldn't opinion and bias shouldn't be hidden

I haven't a clue what the Starchild object represents but anyone reading the Wikipedia article will become better informed. In fact, they might be mislead.

Thanks for your commrnts.

Roger RogerHWerner (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not in the business of lending credibility to fringe topics. clpo13(talk) 21:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
If these [2] [3] aren't outright trolling, there's still nothing in them worth response other than reverting and pointing to WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Branigan

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. Would you mind reopening the RFC on Talk:Laura Branigan? It was closed after 16 days (since it was opened on 19 March it ought to still be running), but the discussion has continued, and several more editors have joined, posting links to sources supporting 1952 as year of birth. Devilmanozzy, who started it all, has also started to remove sources and other material from the article (see diff), claiming that the matter has been settled, a claim that isn't supported by the discussion on the talk page. Thomas.W talk 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I think you want User:Dweller. Doug Weller talk 05:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Thomas.W talk 06:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll take this up on the article talk page. See the note on my userpage about my name.--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #204

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 10:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
  • Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
  • A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
  • Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Concerned about creation of new category

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello - sorry to post here but I'm not sure what's the best procedure concerning a category which has just been created here - [4]. It seems to me, to put it as neutrally as I can, an act of OR to make links between articles with such a category, not to mention that it is - even if unwittingly - racist, which I don't believe is something acceptable in any reputable encyclopaedia. Should this be a candidate for deletion? Alfietucker (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Stafona Publishing?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Do you know or can you find any information concerning this publisher? An IP wants to use, Islam Beliefs and Practices, as a source for a battle. Under Amazon the publisher is Stafona Publishing, and under google books the publisher is Createspace Independent Pub. Self-published source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Definitely self-published. You've confirmed it's been published by Amazon's Createspace. see also[5] and [[6]] which show that's the only book published under that name. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I was not sure. Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry I left out the junior partner, but Finkelstein is described as controversial in our own article. These are clearly his theories, presented in a nice little pot boiler that goes further than his academic work. Yes, it should be discussed, but presented as the mainstream academic viewpoint? No, it's an extreme view. He avoids the embarrassing Solomonic industrial stuff by moving the chronology. If he's wrong, that's quality bullshit, based on a dig at Megiddo which wasn't even a border city in Solomon's time. The jury is still out, and presenting his theories as mainstream is misleading. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You got mail

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Athari

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The entire article is original research. It needs to be deleted. There's only 2 creeds in Sunni Islam Ashari and Maturidi. I apologize my edit summary wasnt helpful but its original research the school doesnt exist, so can you undo your edit? Misdemenor (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Misdemenor]] my problem with reverting myself is that not only do we have Athari, which is sourced (eg[7]), there's a recent book on this discussed here.[8] Doug Weller talk 10:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I see but there's severe notability issue as well as undue weight. Encyclopedias such as britanica give no page to Athari but pages can be found for Ash'ari and Maturidi respectively [9] [10] Can we consider one or two books written on the subject a goahead to include on wikipedia? Misdemenor (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Misdemenor: sorry, missfigured the ping. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Doug: I feel the need to intervene here...the Athari article is also cited with Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah and Alam al-Kutub, professional publishing houses whose books are available at university libraries all over the Arabic speaking world. The editor, however, has openly made takfir of groups he disagrees with and is non-so-subtly trying to push the view that anything he disagrees with is fringe. That he would claim that Athari isn't reliably sources despite the academic sources posted is quite a flagrant discounting of WP:IRS. He's also edit warred with multiple editors before; I do believe this is a cause for concern, as he's disrupting the normal flow of editing the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thats false. Im concerned with notability and sticking with reliable sources which is why I asked for editor input in the respective noticeboard, but you seem to not like that for some reason. I responded to your POV thats about it. Misdemenor (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Aliases

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

GreenessItself appears to me to be Gonzales John. At least that is my sense, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Good instincts. Normally I'd ask for diffs, etc. Do you know about the editor interaction analyser? That and a couple of other things, well yes. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I can have a look at such tools. I'm not very good at using such things, and sometimes they don't seem to work like I expect, but I'll have another look. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll raise an SPI for the record. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #205

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello sysop. Your edits to my talk page were patronizing and would like you to point out where is the addition that I made without using citing a reliable source?. Thank you.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly misrepresenting the source. Doing this continuedly is a blockable offense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I wan't addressing you sir. I'm addressing the sysop. Thank you for your opinion.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  18:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I never said anything about the source except that you misrepresented itt, making it appear that the article described the alt-right in a way quite contrary to what it actually said.. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New Advent

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Doug, maybe I've gone too far in removing some links to the New Advent website. I will stop for now. I had noticed that GreennessItself and Gonzales John would often use that site as a source, and I was suspecting (I admit) some conflict of interest. New Advent looks self-published to me, although I understand the site is popular. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally I tend to think that if your only source is over a century old there's a problem. Of course it could be just laziness. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Doug, you are a positive presence at Wikipedia. I appreciate that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

New Advent is very handy for patristic texts in translation, and the CE is still useful for obscure aspects of church history, not to mention sometimes being worth referring to as evidence for Catholic positions at the time. Blanket removal of references is certainly unjustified. A lot of this stuff depends on sparse literary evidence that was thoroughly chewed over by 100 years ago, and there has been little development in understanding since. It is certainly poor editing to remove, in a discussion of the views of Thomas Aquinas, a reference with a link to his text online, and then add a citation needed tag! Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I will reexamine this tomorrow. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Johnbod makes some good points, but outside of links to such material as patristic texts, Catholic positions at the time, I'm still concerned that most readers won't have the knowledge to know when it is appropriate and when it is not. A lot of editors also I believe. More modern sources would be preferable and certainly for anything not straightforward. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biblical archaeology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Kaiser. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— 12:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert K. G. Temple

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Doug, while reading Amenemhat II I stumbled across an entire section on Robert K. G. Temple's claims about Amenemhat recarving the sphinx in his own image. I've never heard of Temple before, but searching on the web it looks like his books are nothing short of fringe, and his The Sphinx Mystery has a webpage for itself, something suspicious to me. Are his books considered reliable sources? Khruner (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Krhuner:Generally no, and not for this. I found one other article edited by the same editor and fixed that one as well, and added it to the Egyptology watch list. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Second Temple

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't understand. You didn't bother to look at the source of the picture at all but simply deleted it. Why is it ok to leave up sketches some guy did on his own that are wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Brooklyn Rabbi (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The Brooklyn Rabbi Started a discussion on the article's talk page. Chime in there. Your edit had editorial/unsourced commentary. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy 10th anniversary!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, found out today is my wikibirthday (I am 1 year old today) and it is also yours. Happy birthday!--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gonzales John

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Doug, again there are new occurring issues involving this user at Seven deadly sins. Theroadislong reverted this edit done by Gonzales John but was reverted. Theroadislong started a discussion and pinged Gonzales John but no response. I later reverted Gonzales John's revert but was reverted myself, and still the user was not willing to engage on the TP. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just started a discussion there.Gonzales John (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

League of the South

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Doug - You undid the most recent edit on League of the South. Could I ask you (if you have not already done so) to review all the edits there from the past day? Because I've undid some of what that same editor did, but not all, and I may have been too gentle... or too egregious, for that matter. For all I know, you already looked that over and concluded all was fine, but if not, I'd appreciate the extra set of eyes there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nat. Here's the diff[11] between my latest earlier and their first. I think it's ok. I have concerns about the editor. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: Civil War in Iran

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Doug Weller. Thank you for your feedback.

The claim that there was ever a civil war in Iran (Persia) is simply not corroborated and remains an unsupported and highly controversial claim. As I said, creative interpretations of certain historical events (regardless of by whom) simply does not carry a value. It is true that there are few researchers (with ideological motives) who have put-forth the notion of a civil war as a possible theory to explain certain events. In fact, Guity Nashat and Cyril Elgood, have both acknowledge this in their books - that it is merely a hypothesis as it lack evidence. Arsène Saparov for example, is a highly controversial individual with questionable records, and K. L. Noll (an ideologically oriented individual) does have the needed credentials in the subject matter to make comprehensive conclusions. These individuals are simply not well versed to hold any authority on the subject of Iranian history (the exception being Guity Nashat). Furthermore, one of the individual you referenced, use to work very closely with soviet researchers in-order to artificially engineer history for certain former soviet countries in the caucasus region. Not to mention that these individuals have been selectively hand-picked to advance a false proposition. It fails to take into account that the vast majority of historians disagree with that view. Ancient Greek historians and soviet researchers cannot be regarded as reliable sources, just as Iranian historians cannot be used as a reliable and neutral source on Greek history.

Regardless of who is used as a reference, one ought to differentiate between facts and opinions, which the statement: "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war, with multiple leaders trying to gain control over the country" does not. It asserts that "Iran fell into civil war" as a historic fact. This is flat out wrong. The opinion here is falsely passed on as a fact. We have no evidence whatsoever that would point to a civil war in Iran. Do remember that when you are referencing from a book, various important factors - such as the context and data, are ignored. A direct quotation itself is not an evidence. We have no corroborated evidence of a civil war in Iran - that is a fact.

I'm afraid to inform you Douge Weller, in the academic world, ideas are fiercely contested and questioned. One is required to have a mature and analytical outlook. Being self-pity in conversations is not going to make any contributions. Rest assured if one is to debate these ideas in a university or any other forums, the intensity of which one will have to defend such wild propositions, will be far greater - and indeed, as they ought be. Freedom of speech is an absolute necessity and a prerequisite if ideas are to be developed and flourish. My recommendation for sanctioning that individual was in regard to his/her wrong decision to avert the correct adjustment that I made, not out of personal distaste! I suggest you focus on the substance (however difficult it maybe) instead of rather shamefully removing comments simply because you personally deem it to be inappropriate. That is clear sign of weakness. I will continue to press the issue as that statement fails to acknowledge an opinion from fact.

Your response, and your creative interpretation, seriously questions whether it is appropriate for you to be an administrator in Wikipedia. Your actions have been negative and destructive to the discussion. You have violated the code of conduct, in particular, the freedom of speech that is greatly encouraged by Wikipedia - especially in discussions - by removing my comment out of personal distaste. Appropriate actions must be taken to prevent this behaviour to continue.

Kind regards NuturalObserver (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

User:NuturalObserver What a shame. I was about to make a serious response until it all deteriorated into your patronising me and then attacking me. Part of our code of conduct is No personal attacks. There is also no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, it's a privately owned website and among other things we try to maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to collaboration. I've raised the sources at WP:RSN#Are these sources suitable for suggesting Iran/Persia has experienced civil war?. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether or not you respond. Facts are facts. Creative interpretation of history is not acceptable. Indeed, adopting a biased and controversial narrative of history is unacceptable. This is issue will be pursued until facts are differentiated from opinions.

Kind regards NuturalObserver (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: threats by you

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It is your prerogative to make decisions you deem appropriate. In fact, I very much encourage you to take whatever course of action you like - it is your right. I will respond accordingly and if needed, explore formal channels. At this stage however, I do not feel the need. Although, I will caution you against leaving threatening massages on my page.

Wikipedia is an informative and education platform and not a propaganda. I have highlighted that opportunistic individuals seeking to use Wikipedia as a propaganda platform will face appropriate actions, which corresponds to the Wikipedia's policy. I will continue do my outmost to highlight such occasions and provide accurate information with corresponding references.

I highly recommend you cast aside your creative and narrowed interpretations, and make positive contributions. Making false accusations, threats, and suppress comments out of personal distaste, is flat out unacceptable.

Due to the threatening nature of your previous comment on my page, I have removed it. Please do bare in mind that every single user of Wikipedia (regardless of their status) are liable and accountable for their actions. As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of channels to explore should need arise.

Kind regards NuturalObserver (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a right to remove most posts to your talk page. That is viewed as an acknowledgement that you've read it. It seems ironic that you threaten people with sanctions and get upset when someone suggests that such threats may get you blocked. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comments was removed due to your repeated threatening language. However, as I said, you are entitled to take whatever action you deem appropriate - it does not concern me. I will respond accordingly and appropriately. You are under the impression that as an Administrator, you can creatively interpret Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to your personal desire with total disregard to other users. Obviously, you are mistaken. Your personal interpretations is as valued and valid as any other user. I will not hesitate to take formal steps at any point in time if feel that it is required.

Kind regards NuturalObserver (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

so "sock master" is a word now...

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well, puppetmaster and sockpuppet are both perfectly good compounds, so why not? Or do you object to word creation, like all the neologisms that guy Shaxpur coined? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback: Germanna and Frederick Weaver (American Revolutionary)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Tuckerresearch's talk page.
Message added 17:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
 
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Tuckerresearch's talk page.
Message added 18:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback: Cornelius Autrey (Colonist)

The problem is spreading: Cornelius Autrey (Colonist) (hist):

 
Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Tuckerresearch's talk page.
Message added 19:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Biblenumerics

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello mr weller I put a reference to bible numerics on the Wikipedia page but you have removed it calling the web site garish. This reference to www.biblemaths.com is the most comprehensive web site on the net that gives the details of bible numerics. It gets 40 / 60 hits a day from a world wide audence from most continents even Russia and China. I feel by remove this reference you are doing a great diservice to Christians world wide. I have given money on 2 occasions to wikipedia as I use it in my researches. Please can you give me a fair opportunity to help hundreds of my fellow researches. My site contains the only downloaded numeric bible in the world of both the Old Testament and the new testament. Sincerely Dr Peter bluer BSc (horns) PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.234.198 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but it is an ugly website. Even if it weren't, it's not considered a reliable source, and it's also not a good idea for you to promote your website on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As a fellow Christian, I ask that you please do not link to that site again. Wikipedia sticks to what almost anyone, regardless of sect or creed, can verify. That Bible numerics site does not fit that, even if this website was focused specifically for Christians. If it helps you in your faith, that's cool, just keep 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 in mind. Donations don't really have anything to do with this, because we're more interested in preserving knowledge than making money. We also ignore any given user's credentials, because their sources should speak for themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #206

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 20:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

An editor who uses talk pages like forum

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Would you please warn this guy to stop spamming talk pages? Most of his comments are nationalistic rants. For example, I saw this before [12] and he wrote something similar on another talk page again [13]. Those articles are in my watchlist. Another example is this nonsense section [14]. Or his battle with several IPs on here. You can review his comments on talk pages. He ignores talk page rules and uses tps like a forum. What do you think about him? --Zyma (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Another nationalistic rant by him. A good example of nationalistic POV and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Zyma (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Zyma: Posted a note on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's wait and see what will happen. --Zyma (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Some advice

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is quite a bit of edit warring going on at Vaxxed with a pair of users using BLP to argue that a statement by David Gorski about the subject (a propaganda film by Andrew Wakefield arguing a link between vaccines and autism) cannot be used. There has also been the usual "Gorski's not an expert/Gorski's not notable" arguments. As things sit, the 2 (now 3, though my spidey sense is beginning to tingle a bit) users pushing the CRYBLP interpretation keep removing the quote, despite 6 or 7 users consistently re-inserting it. I've attempted to make a compromise on the talk page, but it was completely ignored. With respect to the discussion, I've been trying to engage in discussion on the talk page, but addressing the complaints they have about using this just seems to fly right past them, and they repeat themselves in the very next post. As a result the article is very unstable. So I'm posting here because I thought you might have some good advice, or be able to help out, given your editing experience. Thanks in advance. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I had not seen this till now, though if you had said as much on the talk page I would have seen a way forward other than AE. There are two ways in which you have misinterpreted my positions:
  1. Your suggested compromise was not ignored; there was simply no concession to make. As you requested, the article states clearly and with reliable sources that Andrew Wakefield is discredited, the movie is considered propaganda, and there is no link between vaccines and autism. This remained the case in my edits.
  2. Editors often do CRYBLP, but what makes a BLP complaint vexatious is when the sourcing is adequate. BLP violations are made in the inadequacy of sources more the contentiousness of claims. Your high opinion of Gorski notwithstanding, his blog is self-published so cannot be used for claims about pseudoscientists. It remains usable for scientific aspects of debunking pseudoscience.
Rhoark (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Since it's at AE I think I won't comment other than to say that WP:BLPN might have been a suitable place to take the issue, if not RSN. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I posted this before the AE thing came up. I thought of BLPN after posting here, but now I think AE's going to put an end to this. Thanks anyways! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Confused

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can I asked why you reverted this? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Aye, that was a puzzling revert; I've put it back. Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I apologised at the talk page, it was a mistake whilst on my iPad and I missed it. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ritesh Choubey

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, could you please delete this expired BLPPROD when you have a moment. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

and Manorma Choubey too if you don't mind... Thanks again, JMHamo (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Concern regarding possible edits by Nazi sympathizer

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, not sure where to flag a concern, but will try here. This blog here appears in many of its articles to mirror slight and subtle interpretations found in various Wikipedia articles as here in this article in which questions regarding the witness's veracity are brought in.

I won't be able to follow through on this, but given the seriousness of the subject and subtleness of the edits, I do find it appropriate to at least ring a bell and hope that someone shares an interest and can run it down. Note that the link above seems harmless enough - but then after a page turn or two, "The biggest mistake, that the Nazis ever made, was to allow 10,000 Jewish children to travel to Great Britain, before they started gassing the rest of the Jews in Germany and Poland. Now those children are all grown up, and they are making a big effort to teach today’s British students about Auschwitz, the largest death complex in the Holocaust."

It looks like the rot is deep, insidious and ever-so-subtle, just enough to fly under the radar - all just little seeds of doubt planted here and there. 208.54.80.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Worrying but I can't figure out how I can follow this up. The editor that added the denial stuff was a one-off IP, so I've got nothing to go on. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should blacklist the hostname. I have removed another link to this site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: The only links to Further Glory now are talk pages and I think old. However, scrapbook.com is still in articles.[15] Hopefully I'll have time to fix that. Are you any good at the code to blacklist, because I'm not. We can request it if you can't do it yourself. Meanwhile I want to find out if we allow upsidedown sigs, I really like to be able to search talk page for editors and that's not easy when they turn their sig over. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think people can have quite a range of signatures. And those silly upside characters are permitted. Such a user probably changes their sig frequently anyway. Perhaps it will be easier to search on the markup page as they will likely have a link to their talk or user page. On the topic of the spam blacklist I have hardly touched it, but we may not need to add the sites if it is only a tiny problem. If other users are on the alert they won't stay long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Many signatures do not display text that would allow searching for the user name. Upside down sigs must be allowed as I have seen a couple used in places where they would be noticed. The best example I know can be seen at User talk:Deskana. The only thing about WP:Flow that I liked was the fact that it would not show signatures, so I'm not endorsing the fact that many sigs completely obscure the user name. I believe that is ok so long as they link to the user or user talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:SIGNATURE says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page." It doesn't say anything about upside down text, but does say "Do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read." I'd like to use User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter although that won't help me search I think, but I can't figure out how to add the configuration code. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
That script looks very attractive, and according to the documentation it should do what you want as it says it will show the actual user name, and if the user name is visible in the page, you would be able to search for it. Of course the script can only determine the user name if that information is present in the signature; it is supposed to be present, and would be for almost all cases. I know nothing about JavaScript (and don't use it) but the config is typical computer jargon. Someone at WP:VPT would be able to decode exactly what the options do (and they are documented reasonably well), but I imagine you would try the defaults, then change anything that was not wanted. I'm a bit doubtful about whether a script like this could always work reliably and my guess would be that it is intended for power users who could temporarily disable it if they thought something was showing incorrectly (or use a private browser window to view the page to see how it looks when the script is not running).
My reading of the config is that the only thing you might want to change is whether discussions should be "wrapped" to make them collapsible. The default is "wrapDiscussions : true" so to change it your common.js would have:
window.kephirUnclutter = {
    wrapDiscussions : false,
};
importScript('User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter.js'); // [[User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter]]
Because the other settings are not mentioned, their defaults would apply.
To get started, all that is needed is the two lines shown at Installation. It is possible to configure an annotation that would apply to a particular user, for example, it might add "Harmless" whenever my signature is detected. That may not be useful because whereas you might like a few annotations, the fact that they are publicly viewable in your common.js is a bit of a turn off. You can also set exceptions, so for example, you might list my user name and it would show my normal signature instead of the fancy processing. I can probably work out what syntax is needed if you want to experiment. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits: remove welcome to Wikipedia from sinebot

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, you newbies need to know the rules! (How many years are they late by?) Anmccaff (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop removing well sourced information about ancient DNA from Egypt

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Doug Weller, can you please stop removing the information about the ancient DNA of Ramses III and Unknown Man E in the article about the DNA history of Egypt. The information is valid from a solid notorious sources and is about the ancient DNA of Egypt, so there's no need to hide or cherry pick the information away. The haplogroup of the ptolemaic mummies is already included in the article, can you please tell me the location of that information in the study cited? You can't. Any anthropological study of Ancient Egypt mentioning the haplogroup of an ancient specimen is about the population history of that region. That's the purpose of Y-DNA haplogroups. It's a valid information about the Ancient DNA of Egypt from a reliable and notorious source. The same thing cannot be said about the haplogroup cited in the article (same Ancient DNA section) about the Ptolemaic mummies. 74.14.170.7 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Official language of Africa

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yes, I understand now because of Equatorial Guinea and somewhat because of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic whose official and national languages is Spanish you are correct. Spanish is an official language in Africa and the African Union. Sorry for the late response I know this was in 2014. IceBrotherhood (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I wanted to bring to you attention that a few hours after you left the discretionary sanctions template on the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes article, the user Abbatai had twice[16][17] tried to force a POV statement that had been on the talk after the POV wording had previously been removed. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Today's Angry IP Editors

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Diff:[18]. From the same sockdrawer as earlier? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

RE: Political Correctness

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Doug.

I wanted to ask about your reversion of my edit to the Political Correctness article. Your revision summary said that lewrockwell.com fails reliable resource criteria, but according to WP:IRS, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

The context was describing a right-wing theory; the only sources that can reliably describe such theories will, naturally, be right-leaning. Yate's article was among the most comprehensive. If you insist upon a secondary reference of the article, then perhaps this will do: https://books.google.com/books?id=uVwrAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA504&lpg=PA504&dq=steve+yates+understanding+the+culture+war&source=bl&ots=PqLQnLFg_q&sig=9OXDeyMLd7VNugb1yHBIF3DSu5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX2qLp-brMAhWD5iYKHc7mBF8Q6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=steve%20yates%20understanding%20the%20culture%20war&f=false If not that, then perhaps the article from the Hoover Institution of Stanford University by John Fonte to which Yates referred: http://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war

If that was your only objection, I would ask that you restore the edit. The unedited article contains very loaded language that runs quite counter to WP:NPOV, and I made every effort to produce valid citations for an even-handed edit that acknowledged all sides of the issue.

Thank you,

Ruusanyc Verd (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We don't take only the views of adherents when describing them. A proper academic source can describe ideas without being adherents of those ideas. A site that has a clearly stated agenda besides "trying to present neutral information" would fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE (which discourages sources such as "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist"). LewRockwell.com has been found multiple times to not be a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_186#Lewrockwell.com, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#lewrockwell.com, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#LewRockwell.com for a few examples.
The other sources you cite don't actually demonstrate that the conspiracy theory is more than that. It would be WP:OR to suggest that what you cited is an example of said conspiracy theorism, but that's the closest potential application in this instance. See WP:No original research. You need tertiary mainstream academic sources (i.e. sources that demonstrate the mainstream academic consensus) that pretty much counter the material in the article in order to get rid of the "conspiracy theory" description.
If mainstream academic sources describe something as a conspiracy theory, WP:NPOV means that we can only follow. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
And Taylor's book doesn't mention political correctness. As for Yates,[19] sure some other right wing authors might mention him, but do they discuss political correctness? I see his last book on amazon.com, 11 years ago, is self-published, and he now seems to be doing mainly other work. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course we don't only take the views of adherents when describing them. There were already several other citations in place that ran an opposing view, and I did not remove them. But as for using only sources that purport to "present neutral information," I would point you to the above passage from WP:IRS. Presenting multiple opposing sources is considered legitimate.
You're going to have to clarify your sentence, "It would be WP:OR to suggest that what you cited is an example of said conspiracy theorism, but that's the closest potential application in this instance." It sounds as if you're saying it would be WP:OR to suggest that my citations were conspiracy theorism - which would be agreeing with my edit - which you obviously do not.
As for tertiary sources, certainly Fonte's article qualifies. He is clearly discussing the subject matter and the Hoover Institution offers no political agenda. If you want me to exchange Yate's for his, I am perfectly willing.Ruusanyc Verd (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This really is an inappropriate place for this discussion as it should be decided on the article talk page as I wrote in my edit summary. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Allah as Moon-god

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Doug :) It appears that a number of anonymous editors have been swinging the Allah as Moon-god article left right and center - straying far wide of a WP:NPOV. I thought I would just draw your attention to this and the fact I have recently had to revert the article to your last edit in order to clear up some clear bias and WP:VERIFY issues. Thanks again :) Olowe2011 Talk 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Olowe2011: Thank you. Probably easy enough to control, I should keep more of an eye on it. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Question about the necessity to merge histories (and help, if required)

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Doug.

I've been unhappy for a while with this section: International Date Line#Judaism. Accordingly, I copied that section into my sandbox and rewrote it. My current version can be found here: User:StevenJ81/sandbox#International date line in halakha.

My feeling is that this is big enough to be an article on its own. (I would accordingly vastly shorten the section in the main article, hatnote it, etc.) But since I didn't start it on its own page, I can't easily copy the edit history involved. How important do you think that is? If it is, I can easily identify for you what edits are relevant; there are only two sequences of edits, albeit long sequences, involved.

Also, best to name new page "International date line in Judaism", "...in Jewish law", "... in halakha"?

Thanks for your advice/help. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

StevenJ81, I think that something on the talk page of the new article would probably be ok. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The section in the main article should be a short summary of the new, obviously. I like "International date line in Judaism" as giving more flexibility for content. But I don't like the lead. It seems to narrow the scope of the article and is essay like. I also don't like the last sentence as it gives readers advice. Have you thought of asking Wikiproject Judaism for advice? It's going to be rewritten anyway as that's what happens to articles, that could start now. You might want to submit it as a draft later also. I don't think I can be of much more help. If you think you do need to do more about the history, ask at WP:AN as there are Admins to who that sort of thing regularly, but I'm not one of them. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've gotten some advice privately from some people already, but I can certainly open it up on the WikiProject.
With respect to two specific comments of yours: (1) I'm guessing that what concerns you about the lead is that it focuses too much on the question of "How does this differ from the conventional IDL?" and doesn't suggest that anything else will be covered. Do I have that right? FWIW, as things stand now, that's just how the article is written. I was concerned that expanding too much more on technical halakhic issues of crossing the date line would turn this into even more of a halakhic discourse than it already is, and less of an encyclopedia article. I'll get advice from the WikiProject. But I do want to make sure I understand your concern. (2) The last sentence was meant to reflect the fact that source materials on the subject tend to strongly encourage people with such questions to study and ask authorities, not that I was doing so myself. I'll fix that, surely. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can fix that. It was the first sentence of the lead that really didn't sit right with me. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your help. I'll see what I and other can do about all of this. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding article List of unaccredited institutions of higher education

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Doug,

I'm contacting you as you seem to be a more experienced editor. I made an edit to the article mentioned above and this same editor keeps reverting the change. I had added this reference to the institution Atlantic Internation University 

Has Accreditation by ASIC Accreditation Service for International Colleges , an accreditation agency recognized by the US Council for Higher Education Accreditation based in the UK.[1][2] However, this institution is not accredited by an agency recognized by the US[3]

I saw that other institutions on that list have notes explaining their non-accredited status, so why is this institution being inferior to the other institutions that have notes on this list? The same user keeps reverting it. I don't want to accuse an editor of being non-nuetral or having some sort of personal vendetta against this specific institution. Can you please add this note to the Atlantic International University? Further, please see the last 4 edits on this page. This would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully this editor will not revert your edit as you are an experience editor.

Thank you so much LRappaport (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

ASIC seems pretty useless as an international accreditation agency as it seems to be a family business but obviously much more august bodies say otherwise. You really need to discuss this on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/
  2. ^ http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164
  3. ^ www.aiu.edu

Please comment on Talk:Glossary of video game terms

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Glossary of video game terms. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ramesses

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am very curious - why did you undo my edit to the Ramesses page under the headline regarding his legacy? It has been proven that his DNA exists in millions of Africans in East, Cental and Southern Africa today, right now, this very minute. Isn't that a part of Ramesses the Second's legacy?

(stalker comment) No, not if the sources are correctly used. See Doug's comments in the article's editing history, at Talk:Ramesses III#Genetics, and at Talk:Ramesses III#haplogroup predominantly found in Sub-Saharan Africa, - original research. The claim amounts to WP:OR, as far as I can tell. Editors can't use sources to deduce, draw conclusions or make generalisations not claimed by the sources themselves. Haploidavey (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we may all be descendants of him and anyone whose family line wasn't cut off.[20] So no, not part of his legacy. And Haploidavey is correct. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Gary Cziko

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Doug Weller. In my rewriting of the Gary Cziko article I've become very confused as to the issues/concerns brought up in the AfD regarding this academic (who is a leader in his field) as it applies to WP guidelines and could really use some expert guidance going forward. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

PicomtnBarrelproof is right about "What we need are citations to independent sources that are reliable that discuss Cziko and do so in substantial detail and indicate that he is notable in some clearly identified way" - did you read WP:PROF? Doug Weller talk 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller. Yes, but here's the critical point I'm positing, if you delete this article about one of the academic leaders of Perceptual Control Theory then you must, by both your logic and stated WP policies, delete the article of William T. Powers too (which has no referenced sources). Then, and with both of them gone, the Perceptual Control Theory article must be deleted following this couse of logic. Do you understand the dilemma being created here? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller. I forgot to add, and, again, yes, I did read WP:PROF and believe both this articles subject and his research topic are to be considered significant, interesting, and unusual enough to be worthy of notice. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You can take Powers to AfD after of course doing the appropriate searches, but you know about that. That doesn't automatically mean PCT should be deleted. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller I believe you know that I would never do that, and, sadly, after devoting my entire day trying to save this poor article I've got no energy, or eyesight left, to even contemplate Powers. And before going, thank you, again, for your kind assistance and guidance, but I really believe that WP should keep these types of articles, even if one does have to hang their hat, so speak, on a more expansive definition of the words significant and interesting in order to do so. After all, every piece to a puzzle is important, no matter how small. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Picomtn, this AfD just began yesterday and hasn't received widespread participation yet. I'd look into Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators which would bring this discussion to a larger editor pool who might participate in the discussion. For what it's worth, I think considering we have an article on every athlete whoever played one game in a professional league anywhere in the world, I think Wikipedia's notability bar for academics is far too high.
Another suggestion is to post a very neutral announcement about the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

London School of Business and Finance

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Doug. This is a heads-up as you have been involved in monitoring this article and its associated suite. I have begun clean up of this article following a discussion at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts. The details are at Talk:London School of Business and Finance. As I imagine my revisions will not escape the notice of the owner's brand managers, you might want to put it on watch. In the end, I also created a separate article on the owner, Global University Systems, which you might also want to put on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Welsh People / Pobl Cymraeg

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So Doug - given that you have caveated your 'talk' page by saying that you are busy in real life and so don't respond quickly I perceive that:

1. Snowded and/or Garick have involved you to censor (contrary to the stated objectives of Wikipedia) self evident truths; and 2. It looks as if you have no intention of responding quickly (following your statement of 'busyness') thus ensuring that your censorship remains effective for longer than could possibly be justified - perhaps hoping I'll just go away (I won't).

The fact is that the article about the 'Welsh' that I edited made and now again (thanks to your intervention) makes unsubstantiated subjective belief claims to the following effect "The Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) are a nation and ethnic group native to, or otherwise associated with, Wales and the Welsh language." This is patently not true in so far as the reference to the Welsh language is concerned since very few outside of Wales are aware that more than a tiny minority of the inhabitants of Wales are able to speak Cymraeg (Welsh to you) and do not make the connection with 'Cymraeg' (Welsh). Secondly, and more erroneously, the following statement from the re-instated article states "...The term Welsh people applies to people from Wales and people of Welsh ancestry perceiving themselves or being perceived as sharing a cultural heritage and shared ancestral origins..." and is a ludicrously inaccurate and subjective statement that is demonstrably wrong.

When one types 'Cymry' into the Wiki search engine one is re-directed to the page in question and therefore the latter sentence purports to apply to all people in Wales without distinction. As mentioned, this is simply wrong. The 1st language Welsh speaking people do NOT perceive of themselves as 'Welsh' outside of the context of a conversation in English about Wales and its people. An Englishman living in France may describe himself to a Frenchman as being Anglais but he does not thinks of himself in his own heart and mind as being Anglais - do you doubt this? That this is so is a self evident truth that only an individual of limited intellect would challenge. Furthermore (as mentioned in my earlier email to you) and most importantly, what you and others seem to fail to grasp is that the culture of the Cymry is very different to the culture of the non-Welsh speaking Welsh. The non-Welsh speaking Welsh have no access to the significant amount of literature, poetry and music written in Cymraeg (the correct name for the Welsh language) and the traditions of the 'Cymry' that are often very different to the traditions of the 'Welsh' (perhaps you yourself are unaware of this - I suspect it to be the case) AND since one's cultural heritage is made up in the main of a people's literature, poetry and music (in their native tongue) along with their traditions it is clearly inaccurate (and not a little ludicrous) NOT to make the distinctions I made in my edits which you (probably having zero understanding of these very significant differences I am referring to) seek to block by very heavy handed means (you come over sir as a bully, using your administrative position to shut down legitimate edits and points).

Perhaps in light of the above you will be gracious enough to put aside your busy life (you're not the only one and if you are so very busy why are you a Wiki administrator in the first place?) and explain to me why my edits are wrong given the above point on "sharing cultural heritage". The principal edit which you have undone addresses the fact that the Welsh cannot perceive themselves ".....as sharing a cultural heritage..." with the Cymry - it doesn't make the Cymry any better or worse but it does mean that they have a different cultural heritage and that therefore the article as it stands is wrong on this point and my edits addressed this error.

I trust having read the above you will re-instate my edit or at the very least give me a prompt and reasoned (emphasis on 'reasoned') explanation for not doing so.

Tommymech (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested Unblock, Did You Get my Email

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Doug Weller, did you and the rest of the Arbcom mailing list receive my email of April 24? I asked to be unblocked. I was a contributor of solid content for five or six years before I was perma-blocked without warning with a button click falsely labeling me a sockpuppet by an administrator that didn't explain anything.

I was proud of my contributions to Wikipedia and would like to do so again. As you look into my case (as I expect you to, given your position as arbitrator) do not accept as fact any accusation against me without allowing me to respond. I have endured many many lies and WP:AN/ANI mob attacks in which I was muted and my defenses erased, resulting in damage to my reputation as an editor. Further, do not accept the assertion of Thryduulf at my talkpage that I am on an "appeal timer," because he has no authority to do any such thing and there is nothing in policy that allows him this, as well his purporting timing is unevidenced and suspect.

Answer my email or unblock my talkpage and we'll be able to communicate about this important matter. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.209.135 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We did not receive that email. Please note that emails sent to the previous appeal address (arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will not make it through—appeals must now go to the primary address (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). I will note that due to previous socking (not even including this edit), you are not eligible to appeal until January 19, 2017. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh Gorilla, you know I am not socking and have never socked Wikipedia. It pains me to say this to you, because I think you're basically a good person, but: stop lying about me. I need to protect what is left of my reputation as a editor, and that means I have to be direct when falsely accused. If you actually have what you think is evidence of genuine socking, point to it and I will easily debunk it.
I am a good editor, have originally created several articles, and developed many more. I actually happened to watch Robin Meade quote my writing on national cable news network HLN. I am too honest and proud to sock. Technically though, I am advanced enough to make a sockpuppet and not be detected. The only reason we're having this discussion is because I have too much integrity to do so. Perhaps one day you will pop your head outside the admin bubble and see the irony of this situation.
As for the email, I sent it to the correct address (you pointed to it above) time-stamp 10:18 AM on 24 April 2016. I didn't receive an error email back. One of the other mailing list gatekeepers probably deleted or hid it. In closing, I have too much to contribute to even consider waiting until Jan. 19 2017 to appeal. I have already been blocked four years for something I didn't do. So I'd ask you think things over and reconsider that position. Colton Cosmic. PS: Thanks Doug Weller for the use of your talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.205.246 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Never directly responded

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

…to you, here regarding your reply about the 2014 Popper CopVio matter, and in being reminded of it again, just wanted to say thanks always for being a collegial fellow editor. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies/but can you review?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Apologies about the potential 3RR violation. I certainly got a little carried away. But that's because I am confident that this edit is not an improvement to the article. Could you please review it? This edit removes what the family is most notable for. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't gotten around to it. Although I agree with the earlier version I'm not sure what the sources say, and we need to follow the sources. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Three years ago ...
 
watchful eyes
... you were recipient
no. 484 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke article nominated for FA status

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Checkingfax: Hi Doug Weller...been a while; I trust you are well!  I'm delighted that the GA article on Michael Laucke, is nominated for FA status. Checkingfax and myself are the main contributors.. If you'd like to share your viewpoint and help us advance, it's right here. Please feel free to leave comments as you please, if time permits. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 22:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Noble Drew

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I noticed that the Moorish Temple's biography of Drew Ali introduces him as "​The Most Noble, Prophet Drew Ali". I think this means that they used the term 'Noble' as an honorific. I'll keep researching to make sure more than one source agrees, but for now I'll keep Noble removed from the page (if you are okay with that). Thanks! Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Martin Van Ballin good catch, I'd say if they use it you were right in the first place, and other sources are probably also using it as an honorific. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Lurker here. Every source I've read includes "Noble" as part of his (newly taken) name, not merely as an honorific; e.g., I just checked the Evanzz biography of Elijah Muhammad, which introduces him as "a strangely dressed man by the name of Noble Drew Ali." It's probably a bit like the case of "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" -- the honorific has effectively been absorbed into the name so that the two are essentially indistinguishable. Practically nobody uses a proper given name when referring to "Maharishi" (literally, "great sage"). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I, too, have always heard him called (in talks and in books) as Noble Drew Ali. I don't think it would be difficult to find sources for this. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, User:Liz, I think I'm the one responsible for the 'Noble' bit used in the way it has been recently, and that would have been on the basis of the sources I read. So I retract my original comment and agree it should stay. You might want to comment on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Deputy Commissioner Peshawar article scheduale for deleation

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Doug Weller!

Deputy Commissioner is public office in Indian subcontinent. The nomenclature may be changed in different parts of the world i.e District Collector and Mayor. In Pakistan Deputy Commissioner is head of District Administration. Wikipedia have many articles related to Mayor, Commissioners,County Heads, Shariff and District Collectors. I am collecting data and will soon complete the articles.I want to allow this article for wiki lovers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netasif2004 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #209

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

barnstar

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For tireless efforts reverting whitewashing of Frank Gaffney by a revolving door of IP editors and freshly minted accounts. LavaBaron (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Lag B'Omer

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Lag B'Omer is next Thursday (May 26). There has been quite a bit of vandalism recently, and this article has a history of vandalism in the week (or so) leading up each year. Would you mind semi-protecting for 14 days? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Last year doesn't seem to bad. I've added it to my watchlist and will protect if there's a problem. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
OK. TY for watching. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry of Sarrazin

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Would it may be possible to recover the ancestry table of Sarrazin. Sorry, it was mine unready work in progress. The sources I will add. I was so happy to find them and it was so difficult. Sarrazin gives attention to heritage questions e. g. he speaks about genetics in a genealogical way. Nevertheless his ancestry is quite interesting and will connect other wikipedia articles too (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttkamer and perhaps also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mocatta which I prove right now. I would even like to add much more ancestry tables to other notable figures which are not of royal or noble background because it is wonderfully possible in wikipedia to show many connections in so many ways. In some biographical ressources it is usual to give genealogical informations too. So this is a huge and so nice topic for wikipedia. --Citrustree (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's in the history, I can copy it to a subpage of your user page. I removed some unsourced material from Mocatta about living people. The discussion about whether this should be in the article really belongs on the talk page of his article. I'd say not unless independent sources show it to be significant. Doug Weller talk 17:29,
12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback, Doug. So is it okay with you that I replace this ancestry table with the sources in a little while but not now? Do you accept, that I wish to do much more of this ancestry tables also to nonroyal but knowtable people? Not only to show the significance of this person via his ancestors but to show connections with regions, societies etc. E.g. former Bundesbank Boss Sarrazin explains some crude yewish gen theory and that his grandmother might be Italian, but forthermore she is from this finance magnatic Mocatta family. And his Puttkamer ancestors are related to the Bismarck family. But even if a person has none important ancestors it is good for explaining history questions of biography, continuity or (social) changes of a world family called human being. Wikipedia is not only a site of knowledge but of showing connections between people too. Just to show only the royal ancestry is somehow very oldstylish. It conserves an understanding of history and classes from the Ancienne Régime. --Citrustree (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Shia Islam

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Shia Islam article is suffering from some ongoing serious vandalism including inserting significant amounts of text from blogs. Could you please look at what is going on and put some level of protection on the article? Thank you. --Chewings72 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--Chewings72 (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A RfC on an article in which you've been involved in has been opened here. This notice has been provided to the five most recent participants on the article Talk page as an WP:APPNOTE. LavaBaron (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Solutreans (deleted post)

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

By process of elimination, who else could it be? Furthermore, this statement: "Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity of Anzick-1 with European sources (see the "Solutrean hypothesis"). The DNA of the Anzick-1 sample showed strong affinities with sampled Native American populations,.." is flawed because it doesn't actually rule out the 'Solutrean hypothesis' as it could be easily explained away by either: 1) the DNA could have been from a mixed-race individual (Native-Solutrean); or 2) the Clovis artifacts may have been booty that was taken after a battle in which the Soutreans were defeated. Its similar to claiming that because Christian relics were found buried in Sweden with a Viking skeleton that they we produced by the Vikings, but we know they were taken by the Vikings during raids of monasteries in Britain. If you can delete my reference because it doesn't say Solutrean, then I should be able to delete the 3rd paragraph because the reference can't disprove my 2 plausible explanations about the DNA. Please reinstate my edit. Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In your initial post you wrote: "The article is embarrassing in any case .." but I'm not so sure about that as there were many contributors to the article and they all have credible backgrounds (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/5/e1600375.article-info). Albertoarmstrong (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Albertoarmstrong: - our article on the Solutrean is the one I meant. There's more about the hypothesis than the actual culture. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Guardian link [21]. However, this statement is problematic: “They could have travelled by boat to central Mexico, crossed and come along the Gulf Coast. They could have entered the Americas via the Columbia river and then travelled inland to the Mississippi river and followed it down and entered the Gulf Coast, eventually making their way to Florida.”. It problematic because he never offered the Solutrean idea, as well, because many of these researchers do consulting work for aboriginal groups, so there's no way they ever say anything supportive of the Solutreans. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", right? Albertoarmstrong (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not problematic. Most archaeologists don't think there's enough evidence for the Solutrean hypothesis and the genetic evidence is against it. The Windover DNA results by Lorenz couldn't be duplicated which strongly suggests contamination. None of this matters so far as our articles are concerned though. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Doug, I and people like me are having issues with harassment, and attempted ownership of a Wikipedia entry

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

First, I should start off that I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I have contributed, admittedly very little, but it is a daunting task for someone who is as busy as me. I would like to contribute more, especially in regards to Men's Rights, but simply getting used to the interface, and the guidelines has taken me a fair amount of time.

That said, I have been slowly taking part in the discussions of the Antifeminism and Women Are Wonderful effect Wikipedia pages. These are heavily disputed pages, for reasons I'm sure you understand. Most of my constructive contributions are therefore going into the discussion pages, and not the wiki itself. There is an strong, active, feminist movement on Wikipedia, and these well funded feminist organizations watch these pages like hawks.

Now, the problem with this is, when you have a topic like anti-feminism, the primary source becomes an anti-feminist. Much like a feminist would be an expert on feminism, an anti-feminist is an expert on anti-feminism. While one might jump to the conclusion a feminist would be an expert on anti-feminism naturally, this is in lines with saying that Christians are experts on Satanism naturally. Opposing viewpoints don't always, and in fact seldom ever, take the time to understand the opposing sides viewpoint.

I made it through the Women are Wonderful discussion without having any issues at all, but for expressing exactly what I have just now, I am being harassed by a user named EvergreenFir in the antifeminism Wikipedia page. This user has initially claimed I was using the discussion as a chat room, which is absolutely dishonest. I was clearly discussing the issues with the Anti-feminist page, for which several dozen people have agreed with my premise. They then removed my contribution.

I explained to them that they violated vandalism guidelines. I explained that it was against guidelines to claim ownership of a Wikipedia page as a group. I explained that censorship of materials is against guidelines. I explained that they were not adhering to a neutral point of view.

And the most telling thing is, with them assuming that I am new, and they can just walk all over me, they did not give me the benefit of good faith. Does Wikipedia struggle in general to keep people from violating guidelines so frivolously?

Upon looking at this users page, to attempt to talk to them, I found out that they were a Gender Studies major. Which it obviously makes a lot of sense that they would be personally upset that their opinions which they paid for an education would lead to bias and the removal of my contribution. As an anti-feminist, I personally am considered a primary source of knowledge. Much like EvergreenFir would be considered a primary source of information for feminism. But, speaking in affirmative to anti-feminism, that makes EvergreenFir a secondary source of information, and by no means an intellectual or academic superior.

So, seeing that EvergreenFir has been on Wikipedia for a while, I go to report them, as they should be aware of the rules well enough to not violate them so hastily. As they are a semi-protected account, I apparently cannot do that (Or I am just new enough that I do not know how to).

I respond kindly, stating the violations that they made, asking them politely to desist. I then restored the comments, as I would genuinely like the Wikipedia entry to be more accurate and precise. After all, this Wikipedia entry is suppose to describe me (as I am an active anti-feminist), but yet it is so far from saying anything that honestly represents anti-feminist that it may as well not even be there.

They responded by telling me that I was making personal attacks (which I had not), claiming that I was ranting about other stuff (when everything I said was directly topical), and that "AGF is not a suicide pact", and "NPOV is about content". Content for which every word I had written was directly related to the topic at hand, Anti-feminism. They then removed my content again, citing that I was making personal attacks (which I was not).

You can see where this is going, I am sure of it.

I again restore the contribution. Looking through the edits, I am finding that EvergreenFir removes anything that removes feminist viewpoints from the main topic of anti-feminism. So it would seem that my discussion topic hurts her feelings because it disagrees with her viewpoint.

However, what I am proposing is the following, please tell me if this makes sense.

Christianity is mainly written from a Christian viewpoint, and it has a Criticism section for anti-Christians. Feminism is mainly written from a feminist viewpoint, and has a Criticism section for the opposition.

Anti-feminism is being written by a feminist who is policing everyone who attempts to remove feminist opinion from the main entry, and she is spamming the removal of my suggestion that this be corrected to follow the modus operandi of similar pages.

It does make sense that Anti-feminism should be written from the Anti-feminist perspective, and that feminism should be in the criticism section, does it not? Looking at Wikipedia's harassment policy, I find two things. Group harassment is not tolerated, and to contact you (or one of the other people on the list, you happen to be the lucky one though) when harassment is experienced.

Given that feminism is such a large entity, and there are so anti-feminists who participate on Wikipedia, what can be done to prevent this type of harassment (and intellectual dishonesty)?

Yes, Evergreen literally undid the removal of "may be motivated by". Simply because that line ended with "by the belief that feminist theories"

Lots of things may be, possibilities are literally infinite, but why should we allow feminists to enforce a 'maybe'? She is playing to a narrative, and not to knowledge or academically sound information. She is harassing the very group which is opposing her viewpoints.

Can you imagine if the Christianity page had Satanists on it like this? Satanists describing Christianity using words like "may be".

And please, don't read into the fact I am an anti-feminist, I am an Egalitarian, I simply have empirical evidence that shows that feminism hurts both men and women, and am trying to figure out how to get the Anti-feminist page to reflect my (and every other anti-feminists) viewpoints, and direct people to that empirical evidence.

Thanks ahead of time for any help you can give, I simply want the bullying tactics from the opposing group to stop. (My apologies for the text wall, but I am verbosely concise if nothing else.)Thisisashan (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No editor is a source of knowledge here, and even if you were a primary source of knowledge, we actually downplay primary sources. Only reliable sources (such as professionally-published mainstream academic works) are considered sources of knowledge. See WP:No original research, which applies to purportedly "published facts" that are presented without a source. That actually allows the Christianity page to be reasonably edited by a significant number of atheists and other non-Christians. That is egalitarian and forces everyone to truly be empirical.
Wikipedia is also not the place for screed like this. If a feminist came in with a bunch of unsourced claimed about pay gap, said that Wikipedia was oppressing women, and called other editors "dishonest," we'd remove that, too. See WP:Assume good faith (which you are not doing with other editors, with your 'feminist dishonesty' conspiracy theory) and keep reading WP:No original research until you see the words in your dreams.
Also, concise means the opposite of "wall of text." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well it is good to know that wikipedia openly strikes against primary sourcing, as by definition this is referred to as evidence [1]. "[...]a primary source (also called original source or evidence) [...]" By wikipedia's own source. Also, claiming that facts are 'conspiracy theory' is also dishonest, considering the history of feminists attacking wikipedia pages [2] Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
You claim you would remove unsourced statements about women being oppressed, yet in cyberfeminism we clearly see, "[...]On the other hand, this innovation can possibly oppress women by encouraging cybersex, pornography or prostitution which ultimately makes them more vulnerable.[...]" Unsourced. And this isn't talk, this is the page itself. And you are clearly dodging the fact I was replying to an unsourced claim, with well known statistics. It would seem there is a clear line of hypocrisy. Furthermore, this is a talk page, not the wikipedia article itself, and my statements were in direct response to baseless allegations. Why not remove what they stated, due to its lack of sources, when what I stated can easily be looked up in census. Obviously there is a reason, isn't there? Likewise, if the talk page on anti-feminism isn't a place for discussion about improving the Wikipedia's entry on anti-feminism, clearly there is an issue.
If you are going to claim that there isn't a strong feminist presence on the Wikipedia, and claim it is a conspiracy, please source. Because Google seems to spit out a ton of evidence saying the reverse [3]. I find the hypocrisy disturbing. Policies that deny evidence and reward feminists with sock puppet accounts for evading the dispute system, Wikipedia will likely never be a valid source of information for any controversial topic.Thisisashan (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Three users (myself, Greyfell, and Ian.thomson) have said your screed was inappropriate. I'm going to remove it yet again since you reverted Greyfell. Frankly this falls under the who MRM general sanctions I'd think... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dang it Grayfell and your alternate spelling of the color. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let me phrase it a different way: we don't care about the limited opinions of any given user, whether they're feminists, anti-feminists, atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Democrats, on down to Youtubers and Zoroastrians... We only care about professional sources by people who actually know what they're talking about. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is a huge difference between my opinion, and census records and facts. If you actually cared about facts, you wouldn't be harassing a professor for contributing to a discussion about antifeminism, on the antifeminism page. Your claims would make sense if there was an actual personal attack (there wasn't), or if the statements were non-topical. However, all this is, is an attempt to bully an anti-feminist out of the anti-feminist section. And now, stalking me through Wikipedia. If this harassment continues. Consider this your second warning Ian.thomson. EvergreenFir, this is your final formal legal warning.Thisisashan (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
As EdJohnston recently alerted you on your talk page, Wikipedia does not allow legal threats (WP:NLT). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was removed. However Wikipedia policy does not in any way waive my rights, I highly recommend an education on the legal system to understand the concept of waivers. For the sixth time, please desist in harassing me. Harassment is against Wikipedia guidelines, although judging by you ongoing contempt for Wikipedia guidelines, like NPOV, AGW, owership, removal of content, etc, you will probably continue to ignore all guidelines.
Again, for the sixth time, please desist in contacting me.Thisisashan (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Your legal threat remains here on this page as well... but I doubt that will matter much longer. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
  2. ^ http://www.themarysue.com/wikipedia-gamergate/
  3. ^ http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/02/wikipedia-is-very-masculine-so-feminists-pledge-to-fix-it/

Ur Photos

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure if i was meant to comment here or on my talk page (you can tell its been so long since i last participated in a Wikipedia activity). You removed the "alleged" Abraham house photo which is a recent reconstruction of an ancient house. Not sure about the validity of the claim, most likely made up. But don't you think it should be included in the article since its "physically" already within the historical Ur site? perhaps a sub-section can be included to clarify the confusion? as well as adding the "alleged" word so that its clear how it came about? i have more photos of other parts of the historical site and the ziggurat which i will be posting when i get a chance. thank you Aziz1005 (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aziz1005: Who is suggesting this was his house? And I'm not at all sure that the reconstruction is a single house. Are there any proper sources? Archaeological ones I mean, or something official discussing the reconstruction. Shall we move this to an article talk page? Doug Weller talk 18:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Oldest cities

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re Bamako/Mali: I think history should be based on evidence rather than proof and there is clear evidence of settlement in the citys Magnambougou district.

Further, some of the "cities" mentioned in the entry were surely little more than villages - Reykjavík 871 ad? Its Wiki entry gives Reykjavík a population of 600 in 1801!

How about cutting this kinda slack for sub-saharan Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.160.162 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

See the talk page. The article needs a lot of work. Reykjavik's page actually says 1786. And of course there are no 150,000 year old cities. SWe should go by shat the sources say about when it began being a city. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

David Duke

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

What do you think about merging David Duke's book Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question into his page? Having a page almost seems to confer credibility, and it has not garnered enough attention in reliable sources to necessarily warrant a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wrote the current form of the article mainly to rub salt in the wounds of an antisemite who was community banned for (among other things) presenting the book's claims as a fact. As much as the subject matter disgusts me, I tried to make sure that all of the sources were reliable (ADL and university presses). The sources secondary or tertiary and (I would argue) all the sources are also independent (the university press ones are undeniably so). It describes the book as a series of antisemitic canards and out-of-context misquotes woven together into a conspiracy theory, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it confers credibility (though I'd've loved to describe it as Satan's used toilet paper if it wasn't for WP:NPOV and other things if it wasn't for WP:BLP). The only issue is whether the coverage is significant. If the consensus at an AfD decides it's not significant, I don't mind if it gets deleted at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Certainly, just not the sort of reviews in reliable journals reputable books have. I had come here from an AFD at the page of a racist Casper Crowell (casting about for a suitable target article to redirect Crowell) and it seemed to me that having a page for the book may have the unintended effect of making this book appear to be more valid and well regarded than it is. That placing the text (I can see that the sources are reliable, just not, you know, reviews in the NYTimes and academic journals) so, I thought that redirecting to a subsection in the Duke article might put it in its place, so to speak.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ian.thomson and E.M.Gregory: since his article already has a section for the book, merging wouldn't make the article much longer, so I'd support a merge. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'm totally fine with a merge. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Ian.thomson, [[User:Doug Weller, Merge proposed. Feel free to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #210

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

if you have a minute

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you take a look at this? Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_40&oldid=1142974033"