Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

How to count reverts if you are extremely serious

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-11-24/Recent research

The TokTrack dataset

See also a set of slides here, "Revisiting Reverts – Accurate Revert Detection in Wikipedia" which might more briefly introduce their plan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

John Hull Diary, 1665 Newport Tower

Doug, I have made several attempts to track down the sourcing of your reference citation given in your “The Newport Tower and the Plowden Petition" paper. You stated that John Hull observed the windmill in 1665. You cited Kuhlman, 1929:5 who, in turn, cited the diaries and listed pages 208,213,and 218. This is not a gotchya question...because if the 1665 date is supportable...then that is good.

Did you track through Kuhlman back to the diaries to affirm that Kuhlman was correct. I have read Hull's diaries in Volume 3 of the Transactions and Collections...there is no reference to the tower in Newport. There is mention of Tower Hill on the opposite side of Narragansett Bay...opposite of Newport.

Did you photocopy/screen capture the original source that you lifted the 1665 date from? Or do you have the URL? Can you share that, please?

I cannot use the 1665 date until I can confirm the sourcing, and since you are the originator, I am asking you.

Thanks in advance.

Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cut 2 The Point (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cut 2 The Point: sorry Patrick, I don't think I can help you. That was a long time ago and I can't find my original materials - they were either lost during a house move or in the attic which is far too crammed with stuff I'm storing there to search, sadly. I doubt that I checked Hull though Doug Weller talk 09:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

English people

Sir,I believe that my edits regarding the English people is perfectly correct,The English people were traditionally Roman Catholic before the English reformation was ushered in by Henry VIII,moreover for nearly a 1000 years since the introduction of Christianity among the Anglo Saxons,they were Catholics with an obedience to the Church of Rome,It was only after the reign of Henry VIII or more precisely under Elizabeth I that Anglicanism became the established religion.So highlighting Catholicism as an historic religion of the majority of English people before the late 16th century is in my opinion perfectly correct.Islam was never an ethnic religion of the English People,its presence in the United Kingdom is due to the migration of Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh(both former regions of British India) in recent decades,there might possibly be more British pagans or British Buddhists and certainly much more British atheists or agnostics than ethnic English Muslims,so it is not only inaccurate but I believe also a deliberate attempt at mischief by trying to include Islam as a religion of the English people.Please do consider I am personally not a Catholic,so I do not hold any preferential bias towards the Catholic Christian faith.Please acknowledge and reply49.206.119.5 (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

England has been subject to many migrations for thousands of years, and that means that the ethnic makeup of the English people has changed greatly over time. Today many of them are indeed Muslims. Atheism and agnosticism aren't religions so you can't count them as such. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2017 (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. RedHermit1982 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Removed Birthdate

Where does MOS:DOB say to remove living people's exact birthdates? Does this apply to Serena Williams, Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro, Justin Roiland, and thousands and thousands of other living people pages? I'm really confused with the edit you did. I would highly appreciate it if you could explain the edit you made, as it would help me become a better editor. — R00b07 | Talk 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@R00b07: sorry, WP:DOB. Best to err on the side of caution. I’d advise you to read the whole page if you edit BLPs. Doug Weller talk 06:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

New talkpage

Not sure why it did - my understanding is that the mass message tool isn't supposed to do that. Apologies for the trouble - I can go ahead and delete it for you, no problem at all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Full Genomes Corporation wiki

In reference to this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Genomes_Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Dnauser (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The source for the information is a 3rd party wiki site: https://isogg.org/wiki/Full_Genomes_Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My primary comment here is that the basis of the page is the 3rd party wiki article referenced above. The materials in the wikipedia article are consistent with the materials in that ISOGG wiki which is entirely maintained by third parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Dnauser (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional detail: ISOGG is cited within this other wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_genealogy#Citizen_science_and_ISOGG. ISOGG maintains the wiki page, i.e. https://isogg.org/wiki/Full_Genomes_Corporation, which serves as the primary source for Full Genomes article. The curators of that page are independent members of the genetic genealogy community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnauser (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Dnauser (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long list of orphan citations in this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DNA_sequencing_services

Under the category of whole genome sequencing services, by my count there are 22 companies listed without links to pages that describe the companies or their products.Dnauser (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I added my COI disclosure to the talk page. Dnauser (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Quirinius

Can you tell me what policy you are following with regard to the reverts you are making on Census of Quirinius? As far as I can tell the era setting is now different from the original as per WP:ERA purely due to edits that introduced a mixture in the era settings. The article has been using both conventions for several years now. Is that what you mean by stable? The correct policy action here is to fix the use of both conventions in terms of the original setting. Please reverse your edit that undid my action earlier today--CouncilConnect (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC) @CouncilConnect: As I've said on your talk page and the article talk page, the guideline at WP:ERA doesn't mention using the original era style, only the established style. If it hasn't been more or less table as CE/BCE (ie not continually reverted to all AD/BC) then demonstrate that at the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

suspicious edit on Moses of Ingila

Tracing through some problem edits, I came upon this. Besides the obvious repetition, my alarms go off when I see The Lost Gospel being used as a reference— or even referred to at all. Comments? Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mangoe: We've had two editors pushing their book recently, on this article, Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias Rhetor (see my recent edit) and Joseph and Aseneth as well as the authors' pages. Richard Bauckham's review of the book[1] is very useful for all of these (and is used but minimize in the book's article) and this has some great quotes! I don't have much time right now. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I see there is a paper on this from Mark Goodacre, which I will try to look into soon. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Jefferson Letters

Hi Doug,

I just received your message. I am a bit confused on your edit message. You write, "I'm sorry, it's absolutely correct that Jefferson influenced the Constitution through letters..." but then proceed to revert my correction. If you are asserting that Jefferson wielded no influence over the Constitutional Convention because of distance, that is unsupported by the historical record. Please read "A quick look at Thomas Jefferson’s constitutional legacy" by the National Constitution Center to learn more about Jefferson's contribution to the formation of the Constitutional Convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keving.91 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Keving.91: I deleted that bit because you are correct. I restored the rest of the material that you deleted. Do you have any reason to believe that it is as popular now as it was in 2011? Eg several seminars a week? Doug Weller talk 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Epic article

I replied, I was about to add a tag on the article, but I didn't dare to. But nothing prevents you to do it. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

how to .. Please help

Dear Sir, i got this remarks from your side on Bhagavad_Gita's Notes section edit.

[Notes must be linked to text just as inline citations are, and I'm sorry but this is very hard to understand]

so please can you teach me on --

how to link notes as inline citations ? and what is very hard to understand sir ? please can you help me out ?

(Redacted)

waiting for your reply. regards

Mayur Karaniya— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaraniya (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Anon harassment

Related to this and this, this guy [2] is just going around reverting my edits nilly willy. Probably related to some discussions and coordination off wiki. Don't know if you can range block this user, but I wanted to make it clear that I'm going to treat these edits as vandalism and harassment. Volunteer Marek  22:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've blocked the range 2602:306:32A2:C7A0::/64, which covers those edits, for a couple of weeks. (It's just one person, so doesn't really need any coordination off wiki.) Bishonen | talk 02:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC).

WikiJournal

I learned about your interest in archeology and history. If you can procure a team of enthusiasts you can possibly create a new WikiJournal pertaining to that field. As of now WikiJournal of Humanities is in development and you are welcome to apply for joining the editorial board and to help in taking the journal ahead. Diptanshu 💬 12:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #289

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Wikidata will get dedicated database resources, and go read-only for 30 minutes on 9th January 2018 (phabricator:T181645)
    • There were no RDF dumps last week due to problems generating them, investigation is still going on (phabricator:T181385)
    • Improved the threshold for ORES on Wikidata (phabricator:T180450)
    • Working on fixing a regression after a change in MediaWiki core that makes edit links show up on diff pages (phabricator:T181807)
    • More work on persistent editing of statements on Forms of a Lexeme (specifically phabricator:T180467)
    • Improved size of the diff that we sent to Wikipedia and co for changes happening on Wikidata. This is one more needed step towards only showing meaningful edits in the watchlists and recent changes there. (phabricator:T113468)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For [3]- sorry, i thought the thread was from last January! (Which, it is- but still going on?! Wow) cheers, Serial Number54129...speculates 12:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Be bold

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Be bold. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States ERA style

Talk:Native Americans in the United States#Date style, again, by the same person as last time Could use another set of eyes. The user from 4 or 5 years ago has popped back up to revert the date style. I posted the archived discussions where consensus was reached and linked to the archived dispute resolution thread on the talkpage. I am at 2 reverts on the article and am backing away. Heiro 18:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Solutrean hypothesis

So where did the Spread of haplogroup R1 – haplogroup R1 is the second most common haplogroup among American Indians come from if not from Europe. It is defininately extremely uncommon in East Asia. In addition, you can take out my comment but you should also remove the BS "In 2009, anthropologist David J. Meltzer." especially since it leave a very negative opinion from someone that is obviously extremely biased about the Solutrean hypothesis. It is also at the end of the introduction which strongly indicates that Wikipedia does not believe in a European element in early Americans. If nothing the 2015 evidence does indicate there is a definite link to people from Western Asia or Europe, and not from East Asia. Now that it is majority belief that there were Pre-Clovis people (see Wikipedia on Clovis people, in Nov it was announced that the prevailing opinion was that there were pre-clovis people) and the earliest archeological finds for the pre-Clovis that are associated with the Clovis points are in the East, there are pretty conclusive evidence that there is a European source of some of the earliest people on the Americans. Of course there is also evidence that there were Asian sources too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.78.233 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Pre History of Australia

Hi Doug. New and inexperienced wiki editor here. I have been reading the page 'Prehistory of Australia', which I noticed you contributed to. The page appears to be a bit inaccurate, and very incomplete. I have a huge number of books on this subject written in the 1800s, and 1900s, on Australian Aboriginal traditional culture pre-colonisation. I don't know why people are ignoring these easy to access sources? Most are PDFs online without copyright restrictions, so free to download. A quick read of the earliest sources tells us Aboriginal life was different to how most modern academics and story tellers are telling it. Re-writing history, and covering up history seems a thing in Australia, perhaps due to politics or something? I wonder why this is happening? Happy to share my list of recommended books.

I would also like to know how to dispute/question a line on the above mentioned page, without changing anything. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alabama81bornandbred (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alabama81bornandbred: Hi. I really don't know much about the article and it doesn't seem very active. I was going to suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian history but that looks inactive also. However, it wouldn't hurt to post there and to the talk page of the article. Article talk pages are the best place to dispute or question a line without changing it, whether anyone will reply I don't know. I'll try to. It might be interesting to search Google books to see if modern academics discuss the sources you are talking about. I don't have time myself to work on it. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you very much for the reply and advice. Alabama81bornandbred (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #290

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Please comment on Talk:New Albion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Albion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Revelation 13:18, Papyrus 115 and 666/616

Dear Doug: I would be very interested in learning about any known fragment predating Papyrus 115 with the text of Revelation 13:18 and the "number of the beast," as stated in your modification of my previous edit. Otherwise, I'd kindly ask you to revert your modification or allow me to do it. Thank you in advance! MaeseLeon (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@MaeseLeon: that's not the question, the question is what reliably published source explicitly states that 115 is the earliest text giving the number of the beast? Doug Weller talk 14:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Mister Sneeze A Lot

Continuing here as to cause less aggravation for Mister Sneeze A Lot who can't reply on their talk page. This user seems to get in trouble by advocating for editors who have justifiably been blocked. If Arbcom does see fit to unblock, I would suggest the unblock come with the condition they stop doing that (along with tempering their bullying accusations). --NeilN talk to me 15:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, wrong NickD linked on their talkpage. It's Nick-D. Don't need any more mixups :-) --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Thanks. I wanted it there as I thought he should know about his mixup. I'll fix it. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Doug. I have opened a thread there[4]. Maybe you want to comment on. 66.226.107.42 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

LEGITSOCK

I want to create a second account for AFC so I can keep my editing watchlist separate from the AFC related things - will this be ok? Should I email ARBCOM first? Seraphim System (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC) @Seraphim System: so long as you link it on your userpage, yes. Sorry for the delay in responding. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

  • OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spire Credit Union

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spire Credit Union. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated attempted hacking

I just logged in and was told by the machine that there have been three attempts to log into my account since I logged out yesterday. First time that's happened. Just FYI in the event someone ever succeeds. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No one can guess a password in three or even 300 attempts, assuming the password is reasonable. However, the big problem is the re-use of passwords and the fact that so many websites have been hacked with their user databases being published for anyone to see. The attempts to log on are probably just someone being a nuisance, but there is a small chance that it may be someone who is using a list of user names and passwords stolen from other websites. Do not use the same password on different systems if those systems have any importance to you. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down there...

You were very fast to hit hard there, Mr Doug. If you'd perhaps taken a look at my contributions first, you'd have seen there's some track record there. The Umm Al Nar page is mistaken, the source it cites gives the correct date archaeologists put on the start of the era - 2500 BC. I have corrected the page based on the source cited - UAE Interact. The material I added to the Meluhha page regarding the lost city of Mleiha is also perfectly correct - it was an important centre linked closely to Ed-Dur and finds there link its trade to the Indus and Sumeria as well as Persia. It also minted coinage, which places it as an important (even unique) centre of polity - it's backed up by the sources in the linked pages. In fact, Mleiha gives its name to the late pre-Islamic era in the UAE, from 300-0 BC. You could source the importance of Mleiha through 2500-0BC from, for instance, 'Before the Emirates: An archaeological and Historical Account of Developments in the Region 5000BC to 676AD by DT Potts. So if I add that citation, say, will you stop reverting my edit and leaving threats on my talk page? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You've been warned about unsourced material before, I don't know why you are so surprised - I read your talk page first. WP:VERIFY is policy and WP:BURDEN, which is part of that, states that "ll content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Of course once that's done I wouldn't revert without specific reasons to do with the source. And you added about 8 statements or changes that weren't sourced.Doug Weller talk 08:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #291

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Additional languages for monolingual values got approved by the language committee: ami (Amis), bnn (Bunun), fos (Siraya), ppu (Papora / Hoanya), pwn (Paiwan), pyu (Puyuma), ssf (Thao), trv (Seediq / Taroko), uun (Pazeh) (see gerrit:374052, phab:T144272)
    • More work on caching constraint results so we can enable the constraints checks for all logged-in users by default
    • Fixed a bug when edit links showed up in diff views (phabricator:T181807)
    • Final step towards being able to store statements on Forms of a Lexeme
    • Disabled RDF support for Lexemes as the mapping isn't defined yet (phabricator:T182660)
    • Adding some more smart tracking for Lua usage so we better know which properties from an item are used on a Wikipedia article even when the whole item is loaded (phabricator:T179923)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Semiprotection of Jayda Fransen

Hi Doug. Please could you temporarily semiprotect Jayda Fransen? A number of anonymous IPs have been trying to remove the words "anti-Islamic", "islamophobic" and "anti-Muslim" (used in WP:RS) from the article. Examples are [5], [6], [7]. The article, previously changed to a redirect after a successful AfD, was restored after Fransen sprung back into prominence because of Trump's retweets of her anti-Islamic videos on Twitter. Most recently (yesterday) the subject of the BLP was permanently banned from Twitter as part of the company's strengthened policy on online incitement to hatred. I unsuccessfully tried WP:RFPP, but without a lengthy explanation. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now. If it gets worse I'll probably protect it. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User RickyRolling

Hi Doug. I was cleaning up some articles when I came across these edits by RickyRolling (talk · contribs). I didn't think much of them until I saw all the messages on his talk page, including your discretionary sanctions notice.

Looking further at his edits, he's been blanking information under the sanctions: [8] [9].

Looking over every edit since the last block of June 18, all his edits appear to violate sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Article you might be interested in

This was added to the Predatory open access publishing article today. It's written by Beall's supervisor at CU Denver. You might be interested. [10] Banedon (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2017 (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. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Megatrend University

Hello Mr. Doug Weller. I've noticed that on the official web page of John Naisbitt University is again written "Megatrend", and that domain is changed. Also, someone has wrote text in the section "Controversy" apologetic to owner Mića Jovanović, but without citing any sources.

Thank you 93.87.30.58 (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Very odd, it seems to be using both names now.[11]. I don't think I'll try to change it yet. I've dealt with the recent text. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Solstice!

Bet they are about to party like it's 2000 BCE over at Stonehenge. Over here at Cahokia Woodhenge (old abandoned sandbox that I finally turned into a new article) they'll be partying like it's 1000 CE! Well, this weekend they will, they always schedule their official observance and educational event for the closest weekend to the event, lol. Hope you are well, Happy Holidays. Heiro 01:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!
Doug Weller, please accept these holiday wishes :)

I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Tomotley

Hello, Doug. When you get a chance, can you check the recent addition to this article? (here's the diff: [12]). I'm not certain regarding the source reliability, and the info looks sketchy. BrineStans (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@BrineStans: I agree and reverted. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Website source

What are your thoughts on this website used as a source? This is the author of said site. The IP, that clearly is not a new user, states that this source has been to Wikipedia:RSN and there is a consensus for its use. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly.[13]. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, having looked at their coverage of Canterbury - no, it's not a reliable source. They don't seem to know about the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, which is pretty much the go-to for correct info on post-Conquest bishops in the UK. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
My sincerest thanks to you both! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
(ec) For example - see the catholic-hierarchy page for Augustine of Canterbury. It gives a precise consecration date for him, and a precise death date. But ... there is contradictory evidence on when and where Augustine was consecrated - it is not clear-cut and should not be stated so baldly. Or take Stigand. Catholic-hierarchy says he died on a specific date, but we only know for sure that he died in 1072. His death was commemorated on two dates in February, but its not sure that those dates were his death dates, nor which one is correct if they did commemorate his death day - as a check of the Fasti would make clear. I cannot evaluate its reliability for recent events, but its woefully out of touch with the scholarship on pre-Reformation bishops in the British Isles. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I think I might have been involved in the action saying there is consensus to it's use. That however was years ago. If it includes material which cannot be corroborated externally, or which might be the subject of serious dispute within modern specialist sources, it clearly does not take priority over those sources. If there are enough such questionable or unsupported statements on it there may be cause to reconsider it, maybe even blacklist it. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio on Belshazzar

I've just discovered that the section of Belshazzar headed "Later Jewish Tradition" is almost entirely cut and pasted from the 1902 Jewish Encylopedia (page 667). Does that make it copyvio, or is a book that old in public domain? PiCo (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah - do take some time off to enjoy yourself this Midsummer Solstice, quaff some wine, roast a boar, sacrifice a virgin, all that traditional stuff :) PiCo (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If it was published in the USA, it‘s certainly PD (pre-1923), but it should still be attributed: plagiarism rather than copyvio per se. I’ve added {{Jewish Encyclopedia}} to the References section.—Odysseus1479 01:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@PiCo and Odysseus1479: I ran into an article that eas also heavily copied from the same source although I didn’t notice that it was. There were some dubious statements in it and I tagged them as citation needed. The tags were removed as it was deemed by the editor to be sourced. Since then I’ve found that I was right, but I can’t remember where I found that and had forgotten which article it was.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Doug Weller!!


Hi Doug Weller, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Doug Weller! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Could you warn this new user to stop his behavior?

Hello Doug. Could you warn this new user to stop his behavior? I told him to not write on my talk page and stop his personal attacks[14], [15], [16] but he repeated it for 4th time.[17] Seems he does not read my edit summaries and the warnings on his talk page. Plus he turned Talk:Bactria#bactrian_people into WP:FORUM and direct attacks towards me. For example, how this nonsense [18] is related to that discussion?! You can see more there. This situation is out of my control. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Another example on another user talk page.[19] --Wario-Man (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Doug Weller, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Doug Weller, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
—MBL Talk 05:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas

A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Gene Baumgaertner

Is Royal Interlude, a work of fiction?[20] Clearly, Amazon has listed it as such;Books›Literature & Fiction›Genre Fiction. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Trafford publishing, calls it fiction.[21] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Any book whose introduction claims that it is written by someone in 1499 is fiction, in this case self-published fiction. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #292

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Due to the Christmas and New Year's Eve holidays, no deployment will happen before January 3rd.
    • Monolingual language codes for Old French (fro) and Middle French (frm) added (phabricator:T181823)
    • Finishing touches on storing statements on Forms
    • No longer checking constraints on the property example statements (phabricator:T183267)
    • More work on caching constraint check results so we can roll out constraint checking for all logged in users

Relability

Hello Doug, Just a quick bit of feedback, on one of the articles I edited you removed the edit because of lack of reliability yet a majority of my corrections were to do with the organisation itself. Saying that CMI isn't scientifically valid because you disagree with them is an invalid argument and just an excuse to use your Wiki status 'powers'. It's no reason that people say Wikipedia is extremely bias and full of one sided information, I had come here to try and prove those people incorrect but apparently not (people from various views have made these claims). Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptical-Scientist Researcher (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Skeptical-Scientist Researcher: My edit summary was "We can't use the subject of this article for claims such as "On CMI's website there are thousands (up to 2000) trust worthy articles" and "uses the latest scientific information". Although looking at this again, those are your words and editors are not reliable sources. Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS. CMI isn't scientifically valid not because I disagree but because scientists do. This is a mainstream website. You might prever Conservapedia which would agree with you. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Doug Weller, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
Chris Troutman (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 06:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Mound Builders#Mississippian culture

This sentence "It was perhaps the capital of a large region stretching from Louisiana to Wisconsin.[21]" sourced to "Nash, Gary B. Red, White and Black: The Peoples of Early North America Los Angeles 2015. Chapter 1, p. 7", bugs the crap out of me, lol. I've read umpteen scholarly books on this subject, a few for the masses but mostly works by professional archaeologists. Not one archaeologist or professional who deals with this area and time period I've ever read suggests this was even a remotely possible scenario. But it's sourced, to what seems like a very reliable historian. Any suggestions? Heiro 02:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, it being a paper source, I can't check to see if this is what the author even actually says or implies. Heiro 02:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Heironymous Rowe: that's a possibility but doesn't belong there until it's well developed at Cahokia. I've added some sources at Talk:Cahokia. Doug Weller talk

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The further a society drifts from the truth, . . .

the more it will hate those who speak it. ~ G.Orwell

Dear Doug, thank You for the invite to ask for help. I surely use wikipedia a lot but over about the last 10 years I had to learn to recognize advertising, propaganda or perfectly beyond the point fast because it's a waste of time. The first article that got me quite upset was re. second law of thermodynamics.

When I got severely sick I naturally researched a lot and the more I learned the faster I got, time went on and my and wikipedia's 'health' didn't get better. But I managed to survive.

I consider wikipedia as 'by the people - for the people' and showing off how great one is by making the page of the second law of thermodynamics perfectly un-understandable or shifting perception of medical information sometimes to the extent that it is either perfectly illogical or in total contradiction what we know for a 100 years and one look in the periodic table (right here on wikipedia) would confirm what the truth really is.

Sadly we can't ask R. Clausius, M. Planck, F.X. Mayr, N. Tesla or L. Pauling any more to settle matters. But on a by far smaller scale and really concerning everybody who can speak English, which is well over a billion people, I insist on 'by the people - for the people' and not against their interests. Business interests showing clearly through by diverting attention, not stating the important part, defaming certain occupations and health becoming an advertising and propaganda battlefield that is being fought right here on wikipedia too by now which is turning things here into 'by business - for business'.

If I'd touch any of the topics I'd have (flame-)-world-war-IV at hand that will do more harm than good and helps nobody, -hence I never did but this leads to my question: what could be done?

Thank You kindly,

W Ing.walter.hartmann (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits and categories

See [22], [23], [24], [25]. His other edits look problematic and unhelpful too.[26] --Wario-Man (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Plus is there anyway to undo all of his edits? Just see his edits. He has disrupted many articles and categories. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: Take it to ANI first, someone there might have a way. Ping NeilN as well, who warned the editor on the editor's talk page. I'm a bit busy. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Lia Fáil ‎

Thanks. Lia Fáil edit sourced. Can't find now Mag Fháil, will do it soon. GraemeKad (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018. —Donner60 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Greetings! As an experienced and relatively fair editor, I would like your advice on something. I've come across an editor who I'm pretty sure is abusing multiple accounts on the same page(s), going as far as dialoguing with themselves. Most of their edits are in bad faith, but they're quite sneaky about the whole thing. Please advise on how best to handle this situation. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: You'd have to start an SPI, with diffs enough to convince a clerk that a Checkuser is justified. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. And what about meatpuppeting? Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone: covered at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Are you saying you don't think you have enough evidence for an SPI? Doug Weller talk 19:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I think there might be some meatpuppetry as well, so I wanted to know how best to gauge this. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on things and let you know if I see anything off. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Doug Weller,
Have a joyful and prosperous 2018!
~~~~

Soupforone (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Legobot (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #293

Here's your first Wikidata Weekly Summary of the year 2018 (Calendar: Gregorian)!
  • Development
    • Fixed a problem with references in history of items (phab:T182767) Thanks to Matěj Suchánek who helped providing a workaround
    • Make statements on forms persistent for lexicographical data (phab:T163724)
    • Fix a bug that removed the collapse button (phab:T175492)
    • Remove cache constraint check results on purge (phab:T182107)
    • Add sitelinks to hif.wiktionary (phab:T180785)
    • Read constraint check results from cache and check freshness (phab:T182106)
    • Re-label the "Save" links to "Publish" (phab:T161367)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


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. Techno Tron15 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Sverdrup, Carl (2010). "Numbers in Mongol Warfare". Journal of Medieval Military History. Boydell Press. 8: 109–17 [p. 115]. ISBN 978-1-84383-596-7.

Would Carl Sverdrup be a reliable source? He also has written, The Mongol Conquests: The Military Operations of Genghis Khan and Sube'etei. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dubious. According to Amazon: Carl Fredrik Sverdrup is a Scandinavian living in Switzerland. He studied engineering and business, and has a career in international business management. He has a long-standing interest in military strategy and history he isn't a historian and seems to be a popular writer. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd disagree there RP, Boydell are an academic publisher who specialize in medieval history, that source looks sound to me Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see some academic credentials or peer reviewed articles. For Sverdrup, all I can find is [27] and I'm not sure about the quality of that journal. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
That publisher has been around for 145 years, they print a lot if academic books and journals. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing Creationism article

I believe editing the Creationism article and deleting the "fact" that it states Creationism is a pseudoscience falls under the Neutral point of view guideline. It should be corrected via Wikipedia's own neutral point of view guidelines and according to those same guidelines is not open to editorial concensus. That is why my edit should have stood. Please take a look at the edit and the policy. Then explain why editorial consensus was imposed by you and NeilN.? Scemantics (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Creationism is a religious doctrine. There has been some pseudoscience that has arisen from it (Intelligent design being the most notable pseudoscience in modern times), but in and of itself, Creationism is not a pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I've written a longer answer on my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: User:Scemantics is not presenting his edits truthfully. He changed the hatnote text "Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States" to "Creation science refers to the sociological movement in the United States". The text doesn't say that Creationism is a pseudoscience. At the same time, under the edit summary "Deleted reference to pse" he deleted "Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"<ref name="Gunn2004">Gunn 2004, p. 9," leaving only the dictionary definition. They then "fixed typos" doing more or less the same thing. Their third edit, again "fixing typo", broke the hatnote. The article never said (during this period of editing) that Creationism is a pseudoscience. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw that after I posted, including where they seemingly intentionally broke the hatnote (the edit that did nothing else). I also noted the deceptive edit summaries. What looked (based on the comment here) like a skeptical POV pusher (some corners of the internet are going to use this comment as a gotcha against me, but whatever) appears now to be a vandal who thinks they can disguise their vandalism by pandering to what they think our POV is. But with only four edits to go on, I think I'd let out a little more rope, and see if it ends up around their own neck, before jerking it back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

High priest (Judaism)

Hi, and a happy year 2018! Pls check my overcapitalisation remark on that page. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Jared Diamond POV?

Care to justify your POV claim at Jared Diamond? --Smack (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In the talk page archives [28], Heiro 04:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Philippe Coutinho

Hello. I just wanted to let you know as you are an administrator the transfer of Philippe Coutinho has been confirmed and he has now been unveiled. Due to edit warring (on an otherwise fairly calm page) during the speculation period a gold lock was put on the page. As the speculation is over could the gold lock be removed so that the confirmed transfer can be added. Thanks. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Was just done as I wrote this. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Carronade Island

I added the Category:Pre-1606 contact with Australia because the guns were initially interpreted to support the theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia, and the location has become part of that mythology, much as the Newport Tower (Rhode Island) is part of the Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact even though disproved. Goustien (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Goustien: Thanks, I've reverted myself. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Tour of Faithful Word Baptist Church's Building (2017).webm

I'm torn re: your edit to Faithful Word Baptist Church, but the reason I uploaded this video is because it was CC-BY and I couldn't find any photos of the outside or inside of the church which is what I wanted to put in the infobox...stills from the video aren't really appropriate as they are low-res and Anderson keeps blocking the camera. What do you think about cutting off the end of the video where he's really laying on the "benefits" of his church thick and just showing the tour? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Probably ok, how about suggesting it on the talk page first though? Doug Weller talk 17:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #294

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development

Looking up a sockmaster

Hello Doug and talk page stalkers. I'd be happy with an answer from any of you, if you're willing. A user has recently been banned for sockpuppetry: let's call this user MineFalsely. I think, if I could find who the sockmaster is, there's a good chance that I could bust another sockpuppet account by comparing editing patterns. I'd like to check up on a hunch I have, without prematurely making an accusation for which there is insufficient evidence at the moment. Is there somewhere in Wikipedia where I could type in "MineFalsely" and see what the original sockmaster account was? Alephb (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Alephb: this may not be much help, but many socks’ user pages are categorized by sockmaster. So the first thing I’d try is going to the User:MineFalsely page and see if it’s categorized under “Sockpuppets of (master name)”. Sometimes there are two cats: one for the “Suspected“ socks and one for the “Confirmed”. Failing that, if the user page has been tagged with a sock template, it will often show a link to an SPI under the master’s name.—Odysseus1479 02:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that doesn't work in this case. Oh well. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alephb: a couple more possibilities, then: 1) search for MineFalsely in the box near the top of WP:SPI–but of course there‘s not always a case report—or 2) contact the blocking admin (by email if you don’t want to say anything on-wiki).—Odysseus1479 03:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the help.Alephb (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing of content in list of totalitarian states

"Totalitarianism" is a political term ,not a governing form ,so it does not need to be on main page of the country cited in the list ,so your edits were unfair ,and to be fited in the cattegory of 'totalitarian state',the country need to have mainly poor human rights records and a 'strongman-like leadership ,and most countries that i added in the list fitted this criteria .so your removal of content was unfair . Gregorius deretius (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gregorius deretius: you need to read WP:VERIFY and no original research. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove of comment on talk page: Kalam cosmological argument

I added a comment in response to someone else response (anonymous user) in a talk page about the 'kalam cosmological argument' which you reverted, saying "user does not understand this is not a forum" or so. If you are right about that, why was the response to which I commented there in the first place, as it seems to be the same kind of violation of wikipedia rules? It was not an edit suggest, just a comment on the content of the subject matter itself, providing a 'logical' argument why 'infinite chain of time' would be illogical (in his/her view).

Thanks!

R.heusdens (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Women, cowboys and cats

Flashing across my watchlist, your edit summary here did have me wondering why anyone was attempting to put women in felines and, if so, how? Also, why said felines would be wearing hats. All became clear, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we can have a Puss in Boots, we can have a Cat in the hat, can't we? And I think I'll refrain from cracking wise on the possible connection to nude women... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed merge between Alex Jones and InfoWars

Hi, this merge discussion at the Alex Jones talk page has been open for two weeks. Opinions seem split down the middle so there appears to be no consensus one way or the other. As I voted 'Keep' as an IP editor, I cannot close the discussion due to a conflict of interest. Thanks. KU2018 (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@KU2018: I've edited at least one of the articles so I don't think I'm a good choice either. It may be too soon, but you want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Or one of your TPWs might close it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I thought that would be the outcome but couldn't really close it myself. There will probably be another discussion in several months time. This should leave time for the page to be improved. KU2018 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Karnataka

Same time I joined my friends in Dharwad and we drove to Haliyal, Kadamba fort and locate the place of 'timber yard' which was confiscated by British in 1840's, today is converted in to a 'Bus Depot'.

___________________________


To Doug Weller, Dear Sir, getting to know too many new things here. This is how I can say 'thank you' for your reply yesterday. till I learn a better way to send you a message.

Dear Sir, There is no much information on 'Wikipedia' Roque Santan of Goa. 

He  was a prominent Goan Thinker, Freedom Fighter, law maker, Parliamentarian and Goan Catholics.
I wanted to do justice for this deceased soul.

by adding a section under Velim Goa/history. Roque Santan of Goa a native. 

Soon after invasion  (annexation by India) of Goa RoqueSantan was the only one person who noticed some thing was not going normal that is 'nominations to rule Goa' under India, Immediately RoqueSantan  demanded election and Democracy... nobody listened or joined him... he went on indefinite hunger strike Satyagrah, after three days PM Nehru intervened and promised him to fulfill him demands and sent him home to Velliapura present day Velim Goa. He was the prominent member of the ancient princely/royal family 'Kadamba dynasty'

Mr. Gopala Handoo, Nehru's friend came to Velim and flew him to meet Nehru, there they started the process for democracy in Goa. Only after the declaration of this first election a different set of rich Goans stepped in to take advantage, with their money they formed political parties and even tried to merge Goa in the neighboring state of Maharashtra. Thankyou Decan.Reporter

I've had to delete the material you copied here about Jack de Sequeira as although it was from a forum it is copyright. What I suggest is that you request an aritcle on Roque Santan. I'll post to your talk page about how. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC) @Decan.reporter: pinging you. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kiznaiver

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kiznaiver. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of discourse on terminology that is harmful to Black people

Doug Weller, you deleted the below content yesterday on black hat:

"The harmful effect of the phrase "black hat" is discussed at length in the free coding manifesto.[6] The point that was raised in Chapter 2 is that the information security community is remarkably insensitive to the harm caused by phrases such as "black hat", "black list", and vulnerability "black market" that are used daily by infosec professionals. The basis for this claim is supported by a statement that Steve Biko made to a judge while Biko was on trial for fighting apartheid, "...the term black is normally in association also with negative aspects, in other words you speak of the black market, you speak of the black sheep of the family, you speak of---you know, anything which is supposed to be bad is also considered to be black".[7] Chapter 2 suggests that the following terms be used instead to help remove the negative connotation of the word "black" in the infosec community: "goodhat", "neutralhat", "badhat", "allowed list", "disallowed list", "underground vulnerability market"."

This is a huge deletion of a highly relevant "Controversy" section of the black hat page. I believe that you harmed both the article and society with your deletion. 173.56.74.61 (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like our policies and guidelines feel free to try to get them changed. Meanwhile please stop spamming. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I am aware of the tiny fringe of anthropologists and culture commenters who have raised the issue of using "black" to mean "bad" as something which is harmful to people of Sub-Saharan African decent. I am also aware that the mainstream view is that these complaints are hysterical and overly sensitive. Even with reliable sources (which this "free coding manifesto" is certainly not one), documenting such complaints in articles not laser-focused on the issue of harmful or discriminatory idioms would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Even in such articles, they should be given very little weight as they have hardly any weight in the field, to begin with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, the top of this talk page currently states: "This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated." Does ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants fall into the category of one of your friendly talk page stalkers whose input you welcome and you appreciate? I see that he has posted multiple times on your talk page already. 173.56.74.61 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants on this one. After all, if using the word black is offensive, should we change the name of the color as well? How about we talk about how black holes are dangerous, and their names should be changed? It's simply someone looking for something to be offended by. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 12:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Replying to the IP: yes. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I find it interesting to observe that most people of recent African descent are not black at all, but rather varying shades of brown (on most of the outside), that more or less seamlessly fit to the colour palette of Mediterranean people, which again overlaps with skin colours frequently found in Europe. "Black" is a social construct, not something primarily based on the spectrum of light reflected by the skin. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed that as well. "almost-but-not-quite black" seems to be the darkest extent of the range of human skin tones, with most "black" people having skin much lighter than that. It shouldn't really be surprising, though. The genetic expressions of race are actually much smaller than the variance of externally visible genetic expressions between individuals of the same race. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
It's an obvious reference to Black and white hat symbolism in film (where it is even mentioned) so I don't see this going anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller and ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, do either of you have any objection to having your commentary in this section be published widely? 173.56.74.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would you do that? And why just ours? It’s my personal experience (eg on various far right and racist websites where this has been done to me) that when this sort of thing is done it is virtually always without context, which in this case includes our policies and guidelines as well as the replies of others. So yes, I would. In addition, this looks like a threat meant to have a chilling effect. I’d doesn’t show a genuine interest in improving the encyclopaedia on your part. 06:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I have been lurking on this discussion and from similar experiences, I have to agree completely with Doug that your question sounds very much like a threat meant to to stifle discussion. Paul H. (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm more inclined to believe that this conversation would be taken out of context and described as racist against black people on a left-wing website than written about by a far-right or explicitly racist website.
That being said, my answer is also an emphatic No, you may not reproduce my words elsewhere. Nothing I've said here has any real value to the discussion on race and racism (except for the bit about genetic expression, for which I would be an exceptionally poor source to cite), and it would be easy to twist my words out of context to either make me seem racist or make me seem to hold far-right views with respect to the academic fringe I mentioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My god, the "discourse on terminology" which was added by the IP was longer than the original article. Feel free to quote me. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

Just a convenience link: Talk:Steve_Biko#Seeking_consensus_on_a_possible_new_section —PaleoNeonate – 06:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, I've met plenty of single-issue editors. But this guy/gal takes the cake. This isn't just a single issue, or even a single aspect of a single issue, this is a single complaint about a single aspect of a single issue. Score one for specificity, I guess. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My Error

Dear Doug Weller, Thank you for pointing out ( 9 Jan 2018) my error about commenting on my correspondence with Gary Habermas. This will not happen again.Miistermagico (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Aucrawford

User:Aucrawford, does this accounts edits ring any bells with you? Spam linking HE to multiple articles claiming it is a "non judaeo christian dating system that makes it easier to relate current times with ancient times". Only contribs on a new account (unless all other previous edits are rev deled for some reason). Seems incredibly suspicious. Mak3s me wonder whose sock it may be. Heiro 02:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)l

Talk:Aucrawford

I'm real. Just made the account today. Still learning how to do all this. Not really sure how to use the talk pages.

I didn't create the holocene calendar. It's a non judaeo christian centered dating system that makes it easier to relate to history. That's all. It's not meant to replace already standard dating systems and you can read all about it on the Holocene Calendar wikipedia page.

The best example of the benefits can be seen on the Mastodon page.

It says that the Mastodon was killed out about 10,500 years ago and that people entered the americas about 13,000 years ago. On it's own this info tells us how long ago these things happened. But if we also include the Holocene Calendar date you will see that the mastodon was killed out only 1500 years after the first humans built the first settlements. And that people got to America a short 980 years after.

This not only ties those events together and to us in the year 12,018 but also ties the events a much earlier date when humans first started building settlements.

Another example of the benefits can be seen on the Pyramids page. It says they were constructed from the 3rd century BC to the 9th century AD. It's hard to do the math on that because the 3rd century BC was in 800 BC and the 9th century was in 1000 AD. But if we use the holocene calendar then it looks like this: 9,800-10,800 HE. Much more clear.

All this historical clarity just by adding an additional date for those who care to use it. I get really excited thinking about it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aucrawford (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aucrawford: That's nice, but Wikipedia is the wrong place to try to do this. Get historians and archaeologists to make it fairly standard. Wikipedia doesn't lead the way, it reflects the mainstream. I think most people will just be confused, and you really mustn't do this without agreement. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thank you for clarifying this. I will be more careful.

ZaDoraemonzu7

despite your final warning, ZaDoraemonzu7 continues to defiantly ignore your warnings and continues to not provide edit summaries. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A Request

I wanted to ask you the correct way of requesting 1 revert per 24 hour restrictions. I am a bit new, and have not read all of the policies etc. I wanted to edit a couple of articles on Iranian politics, but it appears that almost all articles related to Iranian politics are under constant revert wars. Instead of blocking editors, I proposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Peter Dunkan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: ) that perhaps editors could be restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours on these articles. However I was told that the arbitration committee is the venue for such matters. I do not want to open any requests that just waste the time of other editors. Can you guide me in this matter? Elektricity (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elektricity: If you read the section at WP:1RR you'll see that only the community or the Arbitration Committee can put a topic under 1RR. I'm afraid that's very unlikely. We (the Committee) don't take cases unless all other avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted, and I very much doubt that a request at WP:ANI would be successful without a wide background of disruption in the topic area. I think the suggestion to go to WP:DRN is a good idea although there's no guarantee it will work. Sorry that I can't be more helpful, but that is the situation. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Immigration to Sweden

You need to follow up that temporary lock of immigration to Sweden with warning/ban of Sno. He is even lying (Wikipedia:Don't lie) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. How can the 1500 words section that cites the same reports twice and includes off topic news coverage about Donald Trump be improved if Sno can block all edits?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #295

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Open request for adminship: Mahir256
    • Closed request for adminship: Jarekt (as successful)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

RGA_Jim

I saw your warning at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RGA_Jim and seems he has not stopped his disruptive editing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT!_for_America Can you help with this or would you prefer I report a 3rr violation? Seems this account was made just for this so could be a former banned user? Thanks ContentEditman (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Goa

To Doug Weller, Dear Sir, it takes lot of time to correct my mistakes....still doing also 

trying.... to go through how to write a new article.

thanks for your help. D.R.

To Doug Weller, Dear Sir, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decan.reporter (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Sir please how to request an article ?????

Doug Weller wrote:- What I suggest is that you request an aritcle on Roque Santan. I'll post to your talk page about how. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC) @Decan.reporter: pinging you. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


To Doug Weller, Dear Sir, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decan.reporter (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC) good idea of 'RS' article . need help tho realized i don't have a page... I did create my page now or did I create a page for me? I am sorry... of my mistakes Will try to 'correct' them as soon as possible. Sir, Is there a way I can send you pics???? if i can upload to Velim, Goa article Not much is written on Velliapura and its historical important( southern headquarters), A year back I was In Velim, Goa/Velliapura to confirm a 17th century painting of Velliapura and a Kanada stone inscription photo and translations, the 'Velliapura palace'looks renovated but is not accessible. The aged family members are not accessible too. the locals helped me with measurements ( converted feets to meters) and we could located the whole area though its been encroached by Carambolim migrants. I will try to upload that never seen before pics ...please see them.... if I succeed in uploading.

Sorry, I'm not very good with images. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC) 

Qwerty3594

To Doug Weller, Dear Sir, Qwerty3594 has no page. I wish to write a message to To Qwerty3594, _______________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decan.reporter (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Decan.reporter: please add new talk-page messages to the bottom of threads, not the top, and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).
If you wish to contact a user who doesn’t have a talk page yet, you can create one to write your message. However, in this case that’s not necessary because the user does indeed have a talk page, at User talk:Qwerty3594; your link above omits the appropriate namespace prefix “User talk:”. (Links with no prefix are to mainspace, which is only for articles.)—Odysseus1479 20:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Mound Builders box

Would you mind giving an opinion here User talk:Mangokeylime#Mound Builders box? I want to make sure my own prejudices and "I don't like it" isn't blinding me and that my argument is actually a reasonable one. Heiro 00:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This website as a reliable source?

Stewart Baldwin's Genealogy page, being used by Ricardo canedo[29][30] while removing reliable sources(Bouchard,Settipani):

Clearly he's removing reliable sources. I'm not convinced Baldwin{https://fasg.org/fellows/current-fellows/stewart-baldwin/} meets WP:RS. I'd take it to RSN, noting my comments on his talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your revert based on source that I did not insert

Hi Dough,

Summary: You reverted my edits at Sarasvati River, seems some misunderstanding on your part. If there any mistakes on my part, please list them all in the "specific-actionable" manner. I am keen fix each one to enhance the article.

Details: I come in peace. I noticed you reverted several hours of my work on Sarasvati River. I wish to clarify some misunderstandings. You reverted my work with an observation "Rv nationalist version using for instance Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana, restoring sourced text." You might be using some automated tool and I feel might have made an unintended rushed judgement.

A. Revisionist Source: Its not my work/edit I did not insert or use "Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana" source. It existed there before I started editing and it still exists there even after your reverts. Before my edits, it existed at the end of article in the citations as a messy looking link without the "fancy description". All I did was to beautify the prexisiting messy-looking link/source, I simply added description "Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana". Please check the reference number 32 on the following:
(1) This objectionable source existed before I started making changes (as a messy link, citation 32).
(2) My final version prior to your revert (messy link appears beautified after I cleaned it up, I did not use it in my own edits to support content introduced by me), and
(3) Original content after your revert to a state before my edits (messy-looking link reappears, this is sort of same as point-1).
My edits did not introduce or use this source at all, except beautifying this source. Hence, it is not right to revert my edits based on this objection.
(Suggestion: Even if this source is removed, you may verify if other 3 sources supporting that statement are good or not. If they are good then remove this source and leave the rest. And, please restore my edits.)

B. Nationalist POV: I assume by the term "Rv" you meant "right wing"? I am simply going by the sources and I did not use the source you objected to as the supporting citation for the content introduced by me. I am aware introducing nationalist, right or left views simply will not survive in the long term, hence a waste of time. Stonewalling the well-sourced and due balance content would be akin to the "left wing POV", just saying to put things in context, not saying you are trying to do it. Hope you are not prejudged based on the misunderstanding (item A above, which is not my source/work/edit) or any auto-alarm triggered by your automated tools. Please review/enhance my work thoroughly with an open mind and then decide (not blanket revert).

C. I am keen to collaborate: please provide specific-actionable reasons I spent lots of time on researching and editing. Now, I feel lost and dishearted with the blanket revert. Do me a favor, please review my edits and provide me "specific-actionable inputs" so I can fix those one by one. Please do not reject specific edits if they are not in line with your view or may come across POV to you (subjective). As long as it is from the credible sources with due balance, etc then it should be allowed to remain. I am not trying to be smart**s or make deliberate mess. If you notice, I made my edits in incremental manner with detailed "edit comments". So that it is easy for other editors to verify each edit one by one, and enhance/overwrite my edits. That way, in the end article ends up being enhanced (not broadbrush knee-jerk blanket revert triggered by auto-tools). If some of my source are crappy, I am happy to eliminate and avoid those in future. If you deem some of the edits as POV, even if backed up by the credible sources, I am willing to explain the rationale once you provide the specific-actionable constructive feedback to me. Then we can discuss the appropriate rephrasing. I do not want to take this as discouragement to permanently keep off this and other articles. Hopefully we can find a way to collaborate and enhance the article. What I really need is, someone going through my edits line by line and enhancing those (not blanket revert), that would be ideal.

D. Please help: I spend several hours on my edits you reverted, please give me few more minutes. If you are busy, please put some effort later when you can spare time for me to take this forward. Apologies for bit longer message, I am trying to cover all possibilities and preempt things.

Thanks buddy. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said At Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics some of your edits are probably ok. Good point about the pre-existing link, my bad. But I’d already found some poor sources at the IVC article. Where I didn’t do a full revert. Rv means revert, by the way. I’m watching tv now, then bed, probably not mich time for maybe 15 hours. I suggest you use the article talk pages. oh, my revert wasn’t simply because of that source. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok buddy. Thanks your time. Rest and recuperate for now. I will wait. Can you still find time for me, even if it takes 15 hours or few days. On both articles, please go through my articles and let me know the "objectionable stuff" in by listing the "specific items". One Sarasvati, please restore my edits and then rewrite. My edits will be certainly benefited if someone else did incremental enhancements. For the remaining stuff I will use talk page in future. It is okay if you can only spare your time only in installments over several days, I will follow you here patiently for those 2 articles. I can not fix if I do not know the specifics, and more worryingly I am bound to keep repeating same behavior with same failed results (end up antagonising others and myself, even without wanting to). I will observe you to learn the better tricks of the trade, so at least I know your style for the future edits. I will also rationalise with you where I disagree. Thanks for keeping an open mind. Have a fun night. Regards. 20:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Skip to ToC

Thanks for all you do. Wouldn't a {{skip to bottom}} be handy at the top of your talk page? (See example at WT:DISAMBIG.) Weirdly, given the name of the template, "Skip to bottom" mostly functions for me as "Skip to ToC" and that's why I'd like to see it there. But the "skip to bottom" link can be useful as well. Just sayin'. Mathglot (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Mathglot. Personally, I find that series of talk templates to be problematic. Talk page header templates are there to inform new editors of the protocols and expectations of using Wikipedia talk spaces for an article (including NOTFORUM, discretionary sanctions, how to start a new thread, what Engvar an article is written in, etc.). For 'own talk' pages, editors provide information as to where they conduct discussions, reasonable expectations of anyone posting to their talk page, the fact of being an administrator, and FAQ-like responses to the most common questions/comments posted on their talk pages. While these templates possibly have limited positive potential for Wikipedia, they are essentially replicas of quick 'n easy shortcuts used for commercial sites to prevent visitors from getting bored and leaving because it seems cumbersome to actually read anything that doesn't take them directly to the 'good stuff'. For experienced editors, I presume we read talk page guidelines and warnings when we go to an article talk page or user talk page for the first time. Skipping/scrolling to the TOC or to the bottom of a page takes milliseconds. Using these templates encourages users to assume that the notifications are redundant fluff which doesn't concern them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

suspect user

this new account ThaiHuaQuang (talk · contribs) is suspiciously like another account ZaDoraemonzu7 that was blocked for failing to provide edit summaries. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@LibStar: Thanks. I'm looking into it but have also asked someone else to check. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Another Aralia Fresia IPsock

174.30.14.43 is block evading to carry on her campaign and cast nasturtiums on the people involved. I was going to write her a post about how a block means that the person is not allowed to edit, but I don't think she likes me much and so probably won't want to hear from me... Since she doesn't try to hide who she is, it seems pointless to go through SPI - could you apply a quick block? --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A question?

Hello Doug, I had a quick question for you. Embarrassing thing really: I have a habit of swearing occasionally in the edit summary while editing my sandbox. I think I'm talking to myself since its my sandbox but I realized people do actually look at my contribs from time and time, and I never meant to offend anyone who is more traditional than myself. Is there any way to get one's old edit summaries suppressed? Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Sorry, they wouldn't qualify. I wouldn't worry about it though. I guess you could enter an apology in your next sandbox edit, but that might draw more attention than you want and who knows, you might forget again. Anyone who changes their attitude about you because of those, well, they may not be worth being concerned about. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Personally, I can't stand people who curse in their edit summaries. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. Yeah, I was just thinking it was good to keep in mind that all sorts of people edit Wikipedia, but I suppose I was being a bit silly, it's no disaster. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A bug to squash

107.77.230.230 is Ararat arev again. No doubt he'll hop to another IP, so ancient Egyptian deities and list of Egyptian deities probably need their page protection renewed. A. Parrot (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #296

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Closed request for adminship: Mahir256 (as successful)

Trying again

Gonna place piece I made back in BuzzFeed page again; hopefully, I get citation right if that was the issue beforehand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VolseniMack (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica

Have you seen this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I was fixing a typing mistake

You do not know our native language. I'm Sri Lankan and Paadha means foot and Pada that means fart so please change the typing error as you have no idea about and this mistake. Not changing this can cause disputes in our country (racial) I live in a multi racial country in Sri Lanka and I know more about this than you. So I would kindly ask you to fix issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartech SD (talk • contribs) 08:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Atlantis and Greek mythology

Hello, at the article about Atlantis you said that "Atlantis isn't mentioned in Greek mythology", but I think that Diodorus Siculus clearly mention the war between the Amazons of Queen Myrina and the Atlantians. (The Library of History - Diodorus Siculus, Book III, 54) Gre regiment (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gre regiment: First, the article doesn't mention Greek mythology or this story. But mainly Diodorus doesn't mention Atlantis, and his Atlantians are described as "the Atlantians, the most civilized men among the inhabitants of those regions, who dwelt in a prosperous country and possessed great cities". We can't interpret that to mean Atlantis, and of course Plato doesn't describe Atlantis as having cities. There don't seem to be any Greek myths mentioning Atlantis. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #297

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Constraint violations can now be checked on qualifiers and references (phab:T168532)
    • Implemented usage tracking deduplication to reduce database load (phab:T178079). This should not have any effect on what users see on recent changes and watchlists.
    • Redirects on client wikis that are connected to a Wikidata item can have a tracking category, if set up (phab:T185743). Thanks, Matěj!
    • Improved documentation of the pageterms query module (gerrit:406240). Thanks, Niedzielski!
    • Improved empty "content was:" in deletion logs for entities (phab:T184025)
    • Fixed links to external user pages in recent changes (phab:T183019)
    • Fixed user names beginning with a star sometimes being rendered as a list (phab:T182800)
    • Fixed constraint check results possibly showing up in the wrong language (phab:T185688)
    • Fixed ArticlePlaceholders possibly not showing up in search results (gerrit:406168)
    • Some of the developers attended to the Wikimedia Developer Summit 2018. You can find some notes on the Phabricator board

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Edit filter?

Hi, is an edit filter suitable to resolve the issues currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#onefivenine.com_-_broad_consensus_sought? Or would it need to go to the meta blacklisting people? - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) It also could be listed at WT:WPSPAM where depending on circumstances it could be added to unlinkbot, local blacklist, meta blacklist, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: sorry, other things have been preoccupying me. Yes, I'd list it at WPSPAM, that's what I've done before. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to both of you. WT:SPAM never even crossed my mind because there is no indication that the site owner or indeed anyone else is actually trying to spam the stuff, albeit they will gain financially from exposure here. However, if that is a means potentially to prevent such sites being used in future then it makes sense to me. I'll see how the RSN discussion pans out, although I think the outcome there is pretty much a foregone conclusion. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Opened a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#onefivenine.com. Pinging PaleoNeonate. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Page move

Hi Doug Weller. In August 2016 I proposed to move Indo-Aryan migration theory to Indo-Aryan migrations. It was supported by three other editors, but never executed; could you follow-up on this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about this and wouldn't be comfortable doing it. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Confused

Was there a disclaimer in the article, or did BuzzFeed release a statement saying that after the backlash? They seem to stick with what they say, considering that the website appears to lean too much towards the left. VolseniMack (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@VolseniMack: please use the article talk page. and look at the originalBuzzfeed article and the videos before you reply there please. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Spear Thrower

Yes, these might be articles sometime. I removed the wikilinks because they are dead links now. Do red links really improve an article? Senor Cuete (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Senor Cuete:I'd say in this case definitely, hopefully they will encourage creation of articles. I was responding to the discussion above which includes the guideline. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
There are Articles about the Tarairiú language and Tapuya language. Mabe these should be linked with a pipe link - eg. Tarairiú and Tapuya. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Our article Spear-thrower#History says:

Several Amazonian tribes also used the atlatl ...
Such was the case with the Tarairiu, a Tapuya tribe of migratory foragers and raiders inhabiting the forested mountains and highland savannahs of Rio Grande do Norte in mid-17th-century Brazil. Anthropologist Harald Prins offers the following description ...

I made the terms Tarairiu and Tapuya wikilinks. Another editor reverted these terms back to plain text, with the note "red links".

(1) Per WP:REDLINK: "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. ... Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."

(2) It seems to me that any tribe or ethnic group that has a name and is discussed by anthropologists "should" have an article or article section on Wikipedia.

- and that therefore these terms should appear as redlinks.

Your thoughts? -- 189.60.63.116 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks -- 189.60.63.116 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Email

You have mail. Heiro 20:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello. I read that you are active administrator of English Wikipedia version and I came here with requesting a help. It's not a unconventional problem and it's not easy to solve. If u can't help for some reasons tell, where I should go? Eurohunter (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion

From the comment(s)("But 58 would be her age if we used 1188 as a birthdate. 60 is the age she would be had we stuck with 1186!") and edit(s) made by IP183.90.37.228 here, it sounds like the IP has made previous edits possibly under PrinceofFrancia(the original edit of age 60) and RosieStroud(the editor that changed the date of birth to 1188).

Another Singapore IP118.201.149.218 has made the same edit(s) as RosieStroud on Isabella of Angoulême. Smells like sockpuppetry to me. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:COI

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:COI. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Native American Road Systems

Hello. I received your message on my talk page about a more reliable source needed for my edit. I found an article that mentioned the same info and traced its source to a report of the University of California, Berkeley Archaeology Survey by James T. Davis. Would the report be an acceptable source to support the claim? Thank you for your feedback.Yangjulie (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No, a trade route is not the same as a road.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger +tag

Sorry, forgot about the +tag when I reverted.

Would you please keep an eye on the Ancient Beringian article. The editor that posted the Merger +Tag has deleted many of the notable citations. I presume the editor is doing this to support the merger +tag. I do not want to get involved in a protracted edit-war. I do not mind if the editor wants to improve the article, but deleting notable citations is a form a vandalism. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@IQ125:, Thanks for the explanation. But citations aren't notable, they are either reliable and appropriate per NPOV etc or they aren't. Media sources are problematic for articles such as this one and IMHO should be avoided as much as possible. Even National Geographic can be problematic. A dispute over what sources should be used is definitely not vandalism. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, these news articles are from notable organizations and they are based on the scientific research that is being published. I would suggest that these can be used under the Wikipedia:Notability policy. Do you mind keeping an eye on the article, I do not want a revert war with this person. If they are going to post a "merger +tag" they should not be editing the article, the same as posting a "deletion +tag" and then deleting citations. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@IQ125: Our notability policy is entirely separate from our policy on sources. There are notable people and media outlets who are definitely not reliable sources for much other than themselves. And there is nothing wrong with proposing a merge and editing an article, editors do it all the time. I'm speaking as someone with almost 180,000 edits over 11 years. I've not been completely happy with that article but haven't had time to work on it. I've invited input from the 4 Wikiprojects. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I certainly welcome article improvement and I do not dispute the Merger +Tag being allowed; however, I disagree with the reasons for merger. BBC, CNN, The Guardian, National Geographic and CBC are IMHO all notable and reputable news organizations. I believe they would qualify to be used as citations in Wikipedia. Take care IQ125 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Mona Lisa problem

Many thanks for your sustained interventions against the persistent sockpuppeting in Mona Lisa and related articles. FWIW, I just discovered the usual Relpmek nonsense in another article, Psychology of art, where it was added in this 2016 edit. I deleted it, and have been reverted by an IP whose edit summary quacks like a familiar duck. The article is on my watch list now; can you please have a look? Ewulp (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Related, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible IP socks of globally locked and blocked User:Relpmek Heiro 22:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_48&oldid=1084037965"