Open main menu

User talk:Doug Weller

  (Redirected from User talk:Dougweller)

The current date and time is 20 November 2018 T 16:39 UTC.

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

Talk Page

Workshop

Site Map

Userboxes

Edits

Email

Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...
Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia.

If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic.
If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place.



You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Contents

Was blocked unjustly, and via circular reasoningEdit

Hello! You blocked me. This I circular reasoning for the first delete by Yaniv was inappropriate. He called my post “garbage”. I have a right to appeal to the editors board and speak, and people have been siding with me, but you and others keep blocking me! For nothing I’ve done on the administrators page! This is not okay! You aren’t using logic or sources, but ridiculous rules that you use whenever you feel it meets your agenda! STOP! Thank you for your time!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.4.16 (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2018‎ (UTC)

BrazilEdit

Hello! Could you, at least,correct the source of Great Power on Brazil’s article. It’s still wrong. The correct source is in my last edition. As you can ser there, the source is double on great and middle power right now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B777-300ER (talkcontribs) 17:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Thank you very much for your continued support.Edit

Thanks for the reply! Thank you very much for your continued support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talkcontribs) 13:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

HiEdit

Hi Doug, sorry to bother you, more than month ago about the situation in the Saudi page with Oxfordlaw, you asked me to open a RfC to see the result. I did, and more people supported one section over different sections for the pre-Islamic period of Saudi Arabia[3]. When I changed the article to accommodate the result, Oxfordlaw reverted me by saying that this version was in place for much longer and gained much support. However, in reality 1) the pinged users preferred the "one section" over every kingdom/state having its separate sections[4], [5] 2) the 3O discouraged multiple sections "There probably shouldn't be separate sections for Lihyan, Nabataean, Dilmun, Thamud and Kindah, etc." 3) the RfC result, was that, more people preferred one section over multiple sections.

I have done really everything to gain consensus, from pinging users to asking for 3O and opening a DRN (which he failed to participate in) to requesting comments. It is worth noting that the said user was recently banned in Saudi Arabia article for edit warring over Khashoggi incident. Nabataeus (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look into it? The problem is getting tedious with a user determined to stick to his version despite all odds, when it doesn't need to be. Nabataeus (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting for your constructive and wise opinion! I love you.Edit

I am waiting for your constructive and wise opinion! I love you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talkcontribs) 13:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Steve KingEdit

You are invited to participate at Talk:Steve King#RfC: Most openly affiliated with white nationalsm. R2 (bleep) 17:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

LabanEdit

I used
Studies In The Weekly Parashah Volume 1 - Bereshit BEREISHIS BY Y. NACHSHONI
Which I believe is a credible source. Why do you feel this is not credible or did you have another reason for deleting my contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage67usa (talkcontribs) 08:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mage67usa: I've posted to the article talk page with a suggested version and detailing some other issues. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

I am new, but this is fantastic!

Bob Tarver (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Second Temple DestructionEdit

I am new. Why did you delete? Thank you :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)

"4 August 70 CE (Tisha B'Av - 9th Day of Av) or"

Bob Tarver (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

BobTarver — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobTarver (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Because it added nothing to the article and didn't support the claim. It was just a calendar. Editor2020 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I should have put more in, as you can see, the 9th Day of Av or Tisha B'Av is 4 August 70 CE. Please see the Wikipedia article "Judea_(Roman_province)" in the right side of the article "Historical Era", and the Hebrew/Roman Calendar which details the Holidays at in end of the page.

How about this:

"According to tradition, on 4 August 70 CE[1][2][3], which would be the 9th Day of Av (Tisha B'Av in the Jewish Calendar), the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans."

Bob Tarver (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) we never use our articles as sources. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Your other sources are no better. Where is this tradition coming from? If it's authentic there will be scholarly sources discussing it. And hopefully explaining the difference in dates. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC) @BobTarver: Doug Weller talk 11:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am found a source. [1] said "According to Josephus, a Roman soldier took a torch and threw it against the beautiful tapestries that Herod had made for the Temple and that hung along its walls. When they caught fire the Romans attempted to put it out, but there was not sufficient water. Somehow the fire was so intense that even the stone took hold and the building collapsed. The Talmud says that it burned not only on the late afternoon of the ninth of Av, but the entire day of the tenth.[1]" Also, the reference [1] said "[1] In fact, there is an opinion in the Talmud that the day of destruction should be the tenth of Av instead of the ninth because the building was actually destroyed on the tenth. Nevertheless, since it started on the ninth, and because of the connection to the destruction of the First Temple, the ninth remained the memorial day for the destruction of both Temples." Now, using the Hebrew/Roman Calendar [2], the 9th Day of Av would be on 4 August and the 10th Day of Av would be on 5 August 70 CE. Also, Josephus (Judean War, 6.4.5 249-253) wrote:

   "So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the Temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the Holy House; but, as for that House, God had for certain long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of the ages: it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Av,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus's retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the Holy House fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning in the inner court of the Temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the Holy House itself. 
   At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the Holy House, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward the Jews made a great clamour, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered anything to restrain their force, since that Holy House was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard upon it."

Bob Tarver (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC) ____

References

  1. ^ The Destruction of the Second Temple [1]
  2. ^ Roman Calendar 70 CE http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?roman=70 [2]

Genetic percentages IP-hopperEdit

This is presumably the same IP hopper you and I reverted a few times earlier today. The original target pages have been protected, so it looks like they're now trying to insert this stuff into related articles. Is there anything clever that can be done to identify the IPs and range-block them, or do we just have to play what-a-mole? GirthSummit (blether) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: ask at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, they seem to use the same text. This range[6] has a lot of very bad edits but also some good ones, not sure it would be right to block it. I'm about to go watch tv with my wife so don't have time to make the edit filter request. Need to try and get action on my other request there! Doug Weller talk 19:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: thanks for the suggestion - I've never investigated Edit filters before. It looks like they've stopped for now, I've searched for a few of the terms that they were using and can't see that they've added anything since I last reverted them, but if they start up again I'll ask for a filter. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Doug, shalom. There is currently a discussion on the 1RR rule in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment‎, while the initial request for amendment was entered under a case affecting Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). As you know, I am still under a pending topic ban relating to articles involving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Does this mean that I cannot submit a suggestion for better improvement of the 1RR rule currently under discussion, since the rule also affects other non-related Arab-Israeli issues, but of edits and reverts in general? Am I permitted to respond there?Davidbena (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I need to check about this. I'll get back to you. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidbena: you can only take part in discussions about your own sanction, e.g. a clarification, an appeal to the ban, or to defend yourself at AE or a dramaboard. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. I trust the wisdom of the panel of contributors who have, each, expressed his opinion there about the 1RR rule. My opinion would be of little weight and bearing anyway.Davidbena (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

HeyEdit

Can you check my rollback request ? I found that you're available now and i really need rollback right to fight against vandalism with huggle.  TheRedBox (Talk) 20:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Doug Weller. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Doug Weller. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Taking over Coffee's sanctionsEdit

Doug, in this discussion User:EdJohnston mentioned the possibility of someone stepping forward and taking ownership of the discretionary sanctions placed by Coffee. The more I think about it the more I think that's a good idea. (It's a pain to run back to the noticeboard and get a new consensus every time one wants to change something.) Might that be something you'd be willing to take on? I did a search for edit notices that he created and it looks like there are about 140 (my list here contains some redlinks). I've thought about asking to take them over myself but I'd rather not for a couple of reasons. ~Awilley (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug could certainly handle this assignment. But I wonder if he would have to recuse on some Arbcom votes if he became the sanction owner. (The owner might need to take responsibility for lifting or modifying some of the sanctions, since people would make requests to him for changes). As an alternative, User:Awilley could ask some admin to take on the assignment who has been active enough at AE to understand the nuances of the various bans. And of course Awilley would be a logical candidate to be the sanction owner, except he doesn't want to :-). EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot that Doug's term on the committee is expiring the end of this year and he is not running again, so he could certainly take this on if he wants to. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Awilley and EdJohnston: why would anyone need to do this? I've already told Sandstein I don't believe that the Admin who placed the sanction is responsible for its enforcement. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions certainly doesn't suggest that and only says that any uninvolved Admin can place sanctions on editors. Where does this idea come from? Shall I ask my colleagues to clarify this? Doug Weller talk 08:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This is regarding "No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below)." So Awilley wants someone to take over the restrictions so that changes can be done with their approval instead of appealing to AE/AN every time. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Correct, there would be zero obligation to actually enforce any of the sanctions, it just gives you the authority to modify or remove them without needing to get prior consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC) As for me taking over the sanctions, I've placed discretionary sanctions on exactly one article, and that was after being asked multiple times to do it. I don't want that count to increase from 1 to 140 overnight. Besides I strongly disagreed and even clashed a bit with Coffee before his retirement over the way he was enforcing sanctions, and I'd feel a bit weird becoming his "successor". Whoever takes over the sanctions I will probably be approaching them and asking them to remove the sanctions from some articles that aren't experiencing disruption. But that's something where I'd feel safer having to convince someone else in addition to myself. The same goes with my efforts to find an alternative to consensus-required. ~Awilley (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Awilley, EdJohnston, and Galobtter: Actually I think it's the bit under the section "Appeals from sanctioned editors", which says "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below)".... I think the bit you quoted is about sanctions on editors, given that the 2nd sentence is the quote I've just given specifically mentions requests for modification of page restrictions. A bit that I think needs to go or be referred to in the section on placing page restrictions. A bit confusing. In any case, I think we'll have to take some formal action for someone to take them over and I'm looking into that. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Right, we'd need to make a request and get a consensus of administrators at AE, AN, or ARCA, giving you ownership of all sanctions placed by Coffee. There may be some users still around who have indefinite editor-level sanctions placed by Coffee, and you'd then be on the hook if they decide to appeal directly to you, but I think the bulk of it would be the page restrictions. ~Awilley (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #339Edit

Return to the user page of "Doug Weller".