Open main menu

User talk:Doug Weller

  (Redirected from User talk:Dougweller)

The current date and time is 24 February 2019 T 00:56 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

Talk Page


Site Map




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.


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 (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2018‎ (UTC)

You are wrongEdit

I respectfully must disagree with you. Jews ARE, in fact, a race. They are an ethno-religious group, meaning they constitute an ethnicity, a religion, as well as a race. Please change the edit on W. E. B. Du Bois back. I don't want to do it, because I don't want it to be misconstrued as edit-warring. Thank you. Shui Yuena (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ethno-religious group != race. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not always, no. But in this particular case, it is true. Jews are a race. We come in many different colors, but we are all one people. That is what makes us our own race. Shui Yuena (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I somehow doubt all Jews would even agree that they are "one people". Regardless, some people, Jews and non-Jews, may refer to Jews as a race, but saying it doesn't make it so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I think all Jews would agree that we are one people. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't see it that way. And the same is true for the opposite: some people may say that Jews aren't a race, but that doesn't make it any more true. Historically and culturally speaking, Jews have always been seen as members of an outgroup, not as part of the mainstream ethnic or racial makeup of the society. Take a look at Jewish history in Europe, throughout the Arab world, in Ethiopia, etc. We aren't white, or black, or East Asian, or South Asian, we're Jews. We're Middle Easterners. Shui Yuena (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shui Yuena: You can think whatever you like, of course, but if you allow your unorthodox ideas to disrupt Wikipedia as you did at W. E. B. Du Bois, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shui Yuena: you are speaking for yourself, not all Jews. I grew up surrounded by Jews and even married one. None of them considered themselves Middle Easterners. Franz Boas whose grandparents were practicing Jews didn't consider himself Jewish. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Asking for your opinionEdit

Hi, Thank you for your helpful contributions. I believe you have an interest regarding history and maintaining NPOV in Wikipedia. There have been a problem in the article Muhammad regarding the short description in the article Talk:Muhammad#Short Description:Founder vs. Promulgator. This problem has taken a long time and still unsolved ‎a lot of edit wars still happening because a lot of people think that the short description doesn't present a NPOV.. I believe if you or other admin editors gave your opinion there it would be very helpful. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam it appears that this has been resolved. I rather wish we didn't have these. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Since you've been nominating LumaNatic's WikiProjects for deletion, would you might closing or recruiting one of your admin friends to close the 2 CfDs at the bottom of this page? A consensus seemed to develop within days, but they've been open for a month and a half. Thanks, Natureium (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: I'll try to do them tomorrow if no one beats me to it. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Natureium: forgot, went to get xfd closer as I realised it would make life easier, and then found they'd already been closed. Damn, I wanted to try my new toy. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It's your lucky day! There are hundreds (possible exaggeration) of CfDs waiting to be closed! Natureium (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


I appreciate your help. I added the edit back in, this time with a citation. Sheabender (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

  Please avoid leaving passive aggressive messages on my page that accomplish nothing in the way of furthering productive discourse. Remember that the need for self-evaluation is ever-present when dealing with those you may not agree with. Please follow the relevant flow chart on how to stay cool. Thank you.Sotuman (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Advising Doug to "stay cool" after Doug (an admin) had previously reminded you not to personally attack other editors is a very odd way of announcing your intention to end up blocked from editing, though it does seem to be something of a tradition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Lol, he comes here to give me advice after writing "LOL, like why is this guy even here? He's like a little Gollum, waiting for my demise or something, and he has nothing to add to the discussion - how sad." Maybe he should take his own advice before dishing it out to others. Doug Weller talk 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It would have been relevant to include in your advice to me to "stay cool" on my talk page why you thought I wasn't doing just that. The fellow who I accurately labeled as like a little Gollum had contributed nothing to the discussion, and was just there to attack me. And if you can't take your own advice, maybe you shouldn't dish it out to me, regarding staying cool. Evaluate the content on the relevant article talk page, and if you must post on my talk page, please explain yourself a little better next time, otherwise it's just a passive-aggressive attack that doesn't address the content of whatever it is I previously said.Sotuman (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Doubling down on the baseless personal attacks. Another tradition of the indef-block-me tribe. All it will take is a complaint about censorship and we will hit the trifecta! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a look at the actual context will help to dispel whatever misgivings misgivings there may be. It is found here. The first contribution I saw from user:Hob Gadling had nothing to do with the discussion that was occurring. It was essentially an ad-hominem attack that did not demonstrate a connection to the content of the discussion as far as I had been involved, and I labeled it as such. He interrupted the discussion to wholly misrepresent me, and pretended to be adding context like some sort of impartial arbitrator, when really the only end-result stated was for user:Sotuman to get blocked. To add meaningful context, one must have observed and understood the peculiarities of the discussion at hand, not rely on information gleaned from any number of other discussions on separate topics. When this precious pseudoscience article is criticized from a couple of different angles, what is the response? To wait silently, hoping for the downfall of those who are not as fanatical about pseudoscience. Maybe my assessment of the situation seems harsh, and I acknowlege that it may certainly be premature, which is to say that there is always hope that any comments Hob may offer in the future will be based on actual discussion content, which would certainly force a re-evaluation of his mission here on Wikipedia.Sotuman (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
For starters; I already have looked up the context. You're POV pushing creationism, specifically flood geology.
For another thing; the context doesn't matter. I've worked with Doug on dozens of articles, seen him work with others on dozens more, and witnessed the rise and fall of dozens of editors who don't even make it to 1000 edits before being indefinitely blocked. I know how Doug behaves, and the behavior you're warning him to stop is something I've never seen him engage in. I also know how editors who are fated to be blocked act. Exactly like what I've seen of you, thus far. You might notice that I've yet to actually advocate for blocking you (which your edits over at Talk:Flood geology would provide me with enough evidence to accomplish), because there's a chance you might actually absorb what I'm saying here and start behaving differently. I don't really expect you to, but I'd be delighted if you surprised me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

─────────────── Well, thank-you for the kind benefit-of-the-doubt. May it continue to play a significant role in all your advocacies. Context always matters, at least if one wishes to arrive at a correct conclusion about the content. My interactions with Doug indicate that he is basically a nice, caring ,thoughtful person. My posting of the keep cool notice was a case of return-to-sender[1] which you probably didn't need to become involved in. I can't falsify any of your experiences with Doug or the dozens of bad editors whose rise and fall you've witnessed, because it's anecdotal information. I believe you, but there are no citations. I am glad that you didn't make the mistake of lumping me in with people who are not me, despite apparent similarities in behaviour. Every person is different than every other person.[2] So you've expressed some concern regarding the saltiness of my responses on these talk pages, which is "absorbed" and noted as a distinct quality from anyone's merit as a good editor.Sotuman (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty, the more you write, the more convinced I become that you are heading for an indef block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe that you are a nice, hopeful person who tries to bring out the best in everyone. Sometimes we may become frustrated with a person's writing style or some of the things they say, but if it cannot be countered logically, this could mean that introspection is in order. We're all on the same team, after all.Sotuman (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Return to Sender". YouTube. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  2. ^ "Mr. Rogers". Youtube. PBS. Retrieved 18 February 2019.


Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

PrinceofFrancia sockEdit

Per this, FlavusTitus has admitted to being PrinceofFrancia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Pashtuns wiki Page change religion section,Edit

Hello Dough,

Can you please read the whole "Hindu Pashtun" talk page on Pashtuns. I have put more than a dozen sources of the ethnic minority group. But There is no specialist who looked at it yet. Can you find one? Or Can you please read it by yourself? Thanks in advance. Casperti (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert Temple/The Sirius Mystery/Nommo (3 entries)Edit

Corrections to the above pages were unjustly 'reverted' by Doug Weller. Errors existed on those pages and defamatory attacks on that particular author, his book, and the 'Nommos' discussed in that book were published on Wikipedia which were a discredit to the reputation of Wikipedia and constituted 'fake news'. The attempts by Beaziepops to rectify these were rejected by Doug Weller who accused Beaziepops of a 'fringe pov'. Beaziepops does not have a fringe pov and resents being insulted by Doug Weller in this manner, which is unacceptable behaviour against someone trying to rectify inaccurate entries. Beaziepops is a new contributor and is getting the impression that the obstinate retention of erroneous and defamatory content is a policy adopted by Doug weller. Beaziepops has noticed some defamatory entries attacking other authors, as well as serious deficiencies in many many entries which Beaziepops had intended to try and rectify, most of them historical entries regarding long dead scientists etc. However Baziepops does not have the impression that Doug Weller is at all interested in the rectification of these problems and that Doug Weller would wish to delete anything which Beaziepops tries to corrrect. Returning to the issue of Temple, Doug Weller has for instance deleted brief descriptions of the contents of some of the books written by Temple. Why is that? Anyone looking at those books can check the accuracy of the brief descriptions of subject matter. These additions are not unreferenced. To claim such a thing is ludicrous. For instance, the fact that Temple's book The Sphinx Mystery contains all desriptions of the Sphinx from Roman times to 1837, many translated for the first time, is a simple statement of fact which anyone opening the book can confirm. How is it a fringe pov to add facts to a Wikipedia entry? The fact that Temple rebutted Carl Sagan and others in a 1997 booklet entitled The Sirius Mystery: Answering the Critics has been deleted. That is a simple sattement of fact. Why has Doug Weller deleted this? Is it a fringe pov to inform people consulting a Wikipedia entry that a publication exists, which had not previously been listed? Temple is listed on Researchgate and the full contents of the booklet Beaziepops has mentioned is available for download on Researchgate. And yet Doug Weller seems to want to conceal from the public the fact of its existence. I call for Doug Weller to recuse himself from having anything to do with Beaziepops's attempts at correcting faulty Wikipedia entries and hand over to some less biased and less offensive editor. Failure to do so would leave Wikipedia open to accusations of dishonesty. And contributors should not be grossly insulted by editors accusing them of having a fringe pov. Doug Weller should be ashamed of his behaviour and an apology to Beazipops seems in order. Beaziepops (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beaziepops: this discussion belongs at WP:FTN or on the talk page of one of the relevant articles. And like it or not, WP:VERIFY is core policy. To avoid cherry-picking or adding insignificant detail we need independent sources, not your analysis of his books. You've been violating WP:NPOV also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs)
@Beaziepops: Doug Weller was not calling you "fringe". He was referring to the encyclopedia's WP:FRINGE policy, which all contributors should familiarize themselves with before adding content to articles that cover topics that diverge from the mainstream understandings about a given subject. Emotional arguments will get you nowhere. We go by policy here, so it would benefit you to get familiar with our policy. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Could I add that I totally agree with the contributions from Doug Weller and LuckyLouie directly above. This new "editor" appears to be confusing his own WP:OR with fact WP:VERIFY and that reference to WP:FRINGE refers to Wikipedia policy. Further, their lengthy text above has no place on a editor's Talk page - they, if at all, should be on the article(s) Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A "discussion" may belong elsewhere, but the actual post by Beaziepops belongs nowhere on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


Just replied to your email. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


You put: "(Undid revision 884360923 by Sotuman (talk) really not a good idea to refactor the section heading, I'd already complained to Sotuman about his refactoring his talk page to put a comment of mine under an entirely different section heading)"

1. Please can you refer to me in the 2nd person, as it will then help me to refer to myself in the 1st person when making responses, as use of 3rd person is annoying for some people.
2. It was correct for me to refactor the heading, because
a. There wasn't even an entry in the log where the admin who gave me notice of topic ban said it would be. No entry = no ban = no violation.
b. Even still, it is only an alleged violation of a ban, as the banning admin has not yet mustered the energy to " with the finer points buried in [my] page history...". compare further Presumption of innocence.
3. Chivalry is an excellent topic. If you had bothered to place your comment on my talk page under the respective user heading that was there at the time, I would not have bothered you by refactoring it under that heading.
4. In the interest of civility and to avoid potential conflicts of interest, I wish for you to not be a hostile witness. Please let Bishonen work through this on her own.
5. I do not care whether you like me or not. I know who I am, and I am happy with who I am. I may be banned or blocked completely from Wikipedia, the way thing have been progressing these past few days. Should that happen, I wish you all the best, and keep up the good work. Sotuman (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Sotuman made this edit at ANI which changed the heading from "Topic ban violation by Sotuman" to "Alleged by Tgeorgescu: Topic ban violation by Sotuman". Have a look at the rest of the page and its archives. I doubt you will find any support for adding "Alleged by X". Please stop wasting people's time. Do not reply here and do not comment at my talk. The issue is at ANI and that is where it should be discussed. The heading is the topic to be discussed. It is not a finding. FYI no sanction will occur for the topic ban violation because it is understood that people do not really grasp what WP:TBAN says until it is driven home. However, continuing to ramble while taking time and energy from other editors will result in a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There's no conflict of interest. Insulting the banning Admin will get you nowhere. I'm glad you apologised but then you come here with a derogatory comment. The original section heading was standard. As for your talk page, clear communication is aided by separate section headings for new threads. Saying "you" in an edit summary is confusing and edit summaries are meant to be clear. You call yourself Sotuman, that's what I'll call you except on your talk page or when clearly replying directly to you elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

At risk user?Edit

Please could you take a look at User:Hannahpartridgeig she is a minor or has special needs, she is posting her personal details and I am concerned that she is putting herself at risk. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: she's 24. I'm not sure we can do anything about it. Just keep an eye on her. Thanks for your concern though. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: Passing WikiJaguar here...I took a look at her User page and contributions. This is almost certainly a person with special needs, and the nature of the text is such that I doubt she is placing herself at risk, at least no more risk than her choice of username presents. Because her editing history indicates an almost exclusive focus upon her own, single-paragraph User page, I suspect the impact on enWP will be minimal and likely brief. I join Doug in thanking you for your concern, and I will also monitor her contributions. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Those that actually do earn "PhD's" also can be called and have "Dr." before their names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Adam and EveEdit

Hello Doug,

I do not agree with the face that it is misleading to remove "according to the creation myth" and change it to "according to the Abrahamic religion." I believe that adding the creation myth element is a form of discrediting the beliefs of those who believe in creation. There is no proven fact for how the universe was created, or how we came to be here, you may have separate beliefs, but that does not mean that you can subtly discredit the beliefs of others. There is no harm in stating that according to a religion this has come to be. the myth section was simply not needed and adds no value to the article and to think otherwise is delusion. If you have quarrel with my reasoning, please bring it up to me here instead of simply telling me that I am misleading individuals and reporting me for vandalism.

Thank you, Isaac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idough (talkcontribs) 20:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Idough: I'll be charitable and assume that you didn't look at your change, which was how I described it in my warning, not as you describe it above. I'm sonering also why you chose to ignore the message that said use the talk page, don't just remove the word myth. I'm guessing you've never read anything by Christian or Jewish theogians about myths either, or our articles on related subjects. You need to convince other editors to make such a major change. My warning was accurate, your edit summary misrepresented your edit. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Doug Weller".